ron minnich wrote:
futex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex
so do we need a futtocks device?
i think this can be implemented without
any additional devices... wtf?!
ron
cinap
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Kernel Panic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
futex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex
so do we need a futtocks device?
i think this can be implemented without
any additional devices... wtf?
what the futex? I was mainly joking. I was
I don't ask for sympathy but having a Linux that ran on Plan 9 would be
a useful tool. I need to have Gimp knocking about or an IMAP client for
Gbs of mail.
If linuxemu can run Opera, I would imagine you can
use it to run Gimp too, with some work. If you want
an imap client, you could
... or an IMAP client for Gbs of mail.
not for much longer. there is a testing version of
upas + imap4d on sources (/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/nupas)
that might work for you.
i have not changed the upas/fs interface so older
versions of ned, Mail and imap4d continue to work,
but i have
speaking of which, did Cinap's fixes for the gs segment make it in so
we have thread local storage a la linux now?
plan 9 provides that portably as the stack segment,
and provides some reserved space in it via _privates [see exec(2)].
(it might be helpful to have some conventions for its use.)
Ok, here is the thing...
Here are 2 versions of linux libc tls and notls. (Current linux distries just
ship with the tls version i think, but here may be exceptions)
TLS is a libpthread thing that is heavily wired together with libc
on linux. (just do an ldd on something like ls)
TLS uses the
I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page,
and build those on my Debian stable machine.
I also read the paper of vx32 last week.
Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with
games/mahjongg on that virtual machine.
Thank you very much Russ!
However, I have
I believe the reasoning is as such:
Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
Use Linux as your driver repository... this is an approach used by some
microkernel systems like L4.
Dave
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded Russ's
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?
Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as software tools. Software
tools did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
for people to
Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as software tools. Software
tools did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
for people to consider using the real thing.
yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, GCOS,
...
which didn't do all that much for
However, I have somewhat confused mind Why it's not Linux vx for
Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
neccessary, shouldn't ?
i'm not sure if this was the authors' intent, but making plan9
However, I have somewhat confused mind Why it's not Linux vx for
Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
neccessary, shouldn't ?
I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use
Plan 9
Well, there's also people like me: I prefer and am able to use
Plan 9 the bulk of the time, but have a few particular tasks I
need Linux for. It'd be nice to be able to stick the Linux box
in a little jail.
I'm very glad 9vx exists: I now have Plan 9 on my OS X laptop.
I'd like Lvx to stick on my
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the reasoning is as such:
Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid
in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining
linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used.
I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example,
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I believe the reasoning is as such:
Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?
I'm just saying I would never
there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think
eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get
a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own
access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full
network information.
i believe i am, but perhaps your experience is different from
mine. certainly there's less stuff to worry about patches for
if you've got less stuff on the box. again, the idea is not to
take ubuntu (or whatever) and stick a VM on top, but rather to
strip the linux down to just what's needed to
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, William Josephson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all
tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup
lguest/kvm
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, William Josephson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major
pain with most of the common distributions.
yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org
for a reasonable system, used at sandia on a 4096-node cluster.
for
yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org
Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried
building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps)
and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating
you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using
v9fs rather than
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM, don bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?
The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files
whose contents are another file's path. As long as
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM, ron minnich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems
over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code
that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even
recall all the
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.
unless we all get smart and go into banking.
ron
And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.
unless we all get smart and go into banking.
then you'll have fun chasing a different set of
endlessly changing rules.
- erik
25 matches
Mail list logo
