Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle, without him having any practical need for them. I don't see why uriel having a practical need for them or not is relevant. I see the relevant question as does /anyone/ in the community have a practical need for the tool?. That's really hard to answer when the mere fact that the tool exists is not readily available to the community (how DO we know about the x86-64 kernel? I think everything I've heard about it has been via uriel). He lands up sounding like a peevish, ungrateful child who just wants more sweets even though his hands are already full. But unlike a child looking for sweets, uriel isn't complaining for his own benefit: What could he possibly need with devtrace anyway? Exactly! His desire is not to get the code for himself, but for the code to be available for anyone who does want to use/debug/develop it. Yes, uriel's manner is abrasive, and it gets old listening to him make the same complaints over and over. But it boils down to this: when uriel perceives an inhibitor to plan 9's growth and development, uriel raises his voice (because no one else will!). Maybe he's not always right, and maybe his righteous attitude makes him hard to reason with, but his heart is in the right place. -sqweek, wishing we could all just get along PS. Congrats on the release, John/Ron/Aki!
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle, without him having any practical need for them. I don't see why uriel having a practical need for them or not is relevant. Well, let me try to explain it. Uriel is _not_ an elected representative of the community he makes no bone about despising. Everyone on 9fans (and I presume on the IRC channel) is perfectly capable of standing up for themselves and I, no doubt amongst others, take exception to Uriel (mis)representing my views. Also, Uriel is not even a Plan 9 user. How could he possibly evaluate anyone's need for a theoretical piece of software? Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely? As for the alternative question: does /anyone/ in the community have a practical need for the tool?, the answer is self-evident: Ron needed the software and Ron got it, whatever it took him to achieve this. Can you spot the difference? As for those who did not know about it, why would they have a need for it? And why should they be expecting it to be available? Contrary to Uriel's statements, those who have had something to contribute have been able to do so, it is only in the realm of helping Bell Labs that cards have been kept close to Bell Labs' chest and it is known that Bell Labs does not subscribe to the software development bazaar philosophy, so that should come as no surprise. Me, I am grateful that the current release of the Plan 9 kernel is not encumbered with partial changes to allow unknown parties to experiment with a 64-bit kernel. Perhaps if you think about it you will see my side of it. Uriel does not raise his voice, he whines. And he makes it sound like he's whining on everyone's behalf when it isn't even on his own behalf. That makes him a politician in my book and that's quite enough said. ++L
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely? What risk? -sqweek
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely? What risk? Untested and/or incomplete kernel changes? ++L
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: Ron needed the software and Ron got it, whatever it took him to achieve this. Can you spot the difference?] It's a bit more than that: I saw a need starting in 2000, with the initial open source release; I gave talks to anyone who would listen in DOE and five years later started to get money. Money is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Without people like Eric and Jim and Charles it would still be all just talk; we are lucky to have those smart people. It also takes a willingness, at times, to risk your job, which at least one person on this project has done over the last 3 years. It's a *LOT* of work to get to where we are now. It's also taken the determination of those at Bell Labs who were unwilling to let it all die. I admire their dedication. And we do have a sword hanging over our heads: we've got to get Plan 9 on the top 500 in 2009 or the DOE aspect of this may all go bust. So you're looking at 9 years (feels like 90!) of pushing on strings with a pretty hard deliverable next year. I do see a gradual uptick on this list of people who are finding ways to contribute, and that's good to see. And I also see a gradual realization in my community that Linux is not the End of History where kernels are concerned. BTW, 9vx is making a lot of new fans. The startup is just breathtaking and people get drawn in. This project might only have happened in DOE, which is a very open agency in these ways. It is unlikely that any other branch of the US Gov't would have funded this work -- certainly DARPA would not have. ron
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate a disadvantage of doing so. the problems with publishing code is you have to: write the manual document the install process remove all the debug cruft that you where leaving just in case field emails about how it: doesn't Work they way I expected it suicides if I press Alt-J the whole design is fucking braindamaged This takes time and effort, and noone wants to just put the code up in a mess, reputations do matter, and we take prinde in our work, don't we? whats worse is if you publish a tar and then somone fixes a load of stuff but in the meantime you are working and your code gets out of sync so you have to merge by hand. use CVS (or whatever is trendy) I hear you say? Well you have to set that up, and if you have CVS you have to police it, what if people check in broken code. It all takes time and concerntration, which would be better spent on getting on with the code and sorting it out. One of the biggest things we lack is Wifi support (IMHO) and Russ put up his incomplete Centrino driver a few years ago. How much interest has that sparked? Similarly the sshv2 code, though we now have openssh so its less of a problem. Ok, the bottom line for me: I AGREE it would be lovely to have an AMD64 kernel for pure kudos reasons (my OS has 64 bits and yours doesn't), BUT, I completely understand why those working on it don't want to release it until they are ready. -Steve
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
And we do have a sword hanging over our heads: we've got to get Plan 9 on the top 500 in 2009 or the DOE aspect of this may all go bust. So you're looking at 9 years (feels like 90!) of pushing on strings with a pretty hard deliverable next year. Could you elaborate on the top 500? And why is the community only alerted now to this potentially very clear objective? I'm sure we'd all want to be of help rather than hindrance in such a situation? ++L
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Steve Simon st...@quintile.net wrote: I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate a disadvantage of doing so. the problems with publishing code is you have to: write the manual document the install process remove all the debug cruft that you where leaving just in case No no no, this is all release oriented stuff! Just put the code up so if someone really interested happens by they can check it out and work the details out themselves. What's the disadvantage there? field emails about how it: doesn't Work they way I expected it suicides if I press Alt-J the whole design is fucking braindamaged I'm not understanding how feedback qualifies as a disadvantage. Unless you're writing a twitch game or MMORPG, then I could understand not wanting to hear from your users. and we take prinde in our work, don't we? Of course. But it's silly to entertain the notion that code comes off our fingertips perfect and fully formed. It's software: there's bugs, there's design flaws, development is incremental. Often it can be useful long before it is perfected. whats worse is if you publish a tar and then somone fixes a load of stuff but in the meantime you are working and your code gets out of sync so you have to merge by hand. At least this represents a modicum of cooperation. Without the published tar to start from, that someone may well start from scratch and duplicate whatever effort you've already put in. Good luck a) finding and b) merging any fixes from a completely separate tree. use CVS (or whatever is trendy) I hear you say? Well you have to set that up, and if you have CVS you have to police it, what if people check in broken code. It all takes time and concerntration, which would be better spent on getting on with the code and sorting it out. Disagree. Well, you're right that it takes time. But that time is a one time cost, to set up and learn to use the VCS. Once you've made that investment there is no constant drain on your time/concentration. I'm not sure I agree that the time is better spent coding - I think if you actually sat down with a modern DVCS like mercurial or git you'd find it actually creates quite a nice environment for collaboration. No need to worry about policing anything using the pull model. It's not like version control systems have a monopoly on tools you need to invest time in before gaining productivity from them. Awk, acid, acme, spin all require a certain amount of time investment to understand how they work before the become useful tools. One of the biggest things we lack is Wifi support (IMHO) and Russ put up his incomplete Centrino driver a few years ago. How much interest has that sparked? Like I was saying, publishing code doesn't *generate* interest. It just leaves open the possibility of someone using it later. Similarly the sshv2 code, though we now have openssh so its less of a problem. Michiel was looking at this just the other week. (my OS has 64 bits and yours doesn't), What OS doesn't have 64 bits these days, aside from Plan 9? -sqweek
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu Dec 18 13:08:15 EST 2008, sqw...@gmail.com wrote: No no no, this is all release oriented stuff! Just put the code up so if someone really interested happens by they can check it out and work the details out themselves. What's the disadvantage there? i think you have to understand that some people do not approve of hanging their dirty laundry in public. i think one has to afford them this space. Of course. But it's silly to entertain the notion that code comes off our fingertips perfect and fully formed. It's software: there's bugs, there's design flaws, development is incremental. Often it can be useful long before it is perfected. [...] whats worse is if you publish a tar and then somone fixes a load of stuff but in the meantime you are working and your code gets out of sync so you have to merge by hand. [...] At least this represents a modicum of cooperation. Without the i have some experience in this. i've published some plan 9 early. the downside is that you no longer have any control. and thus you can't necessarly get bug fixes published. there is no law that says, if you accept the original, you must accept bug fixes and improvements. so if one cares about the quality of the result, one believes in one's own abilities, publishing a finished thing can make a lot of sense. this isn't what i do, and i pay a price for it. - erik
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM, sqweek sqw...@gmail.com wrote: You're not in much of a position to mock if you download code marked proof of concept expecting it to be production ready... You must not read this list as much as I thought :-) ron
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
Does it work now with non-amd64 kernels? Peace uriel On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote: Devtrace is ready for your consumption, hot out of the oven and juicy fresh. The source is at /n/sources/contrib/john/devtrace-backport.tgz which includes all the necessary source files, the man page (troff), and instructions for putting it in the kernel and compiling. Remember, this isn't mine alone, Ron and Aki came up with the idea and did the real hard implementation; I just finished up and did some porting. Therefore, make sure to blame Ron if it doesn't work. John Floren
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
This source is backported to the PC kernel in /sys/src/9/pc. The instructions make this abundantly clear, what with all the stuff being done in /sys/src/9/pc. John Does it work now with non-amd64 kernels? Peace uriel On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote: Devtrace is ready for your consumption, hot out of the oven and juicy fresh. The source is at /n/sources/contrib/john/devtrace-backport.tgz which includes all the necessary source files, the man page (troff), and instructions for putting it in the kernel and compiling. Remember, this isn't mine alone, Ron and Aki came up with the idea and did the real hard implementation; I just finished up and did some porting. Therefore, make sure to blame Ron if it doesn't work. John Floren
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/. Sorry, I should have guessed that /sys/src/9/not-for-the-unworthy-unwashed-masses/ was much more likely location. Peace uriel On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:55 PM, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote: This source is backported to the PC kernel in /sys/src/9/pc. The instructions make this abundantly clear, what with all the stuff being done in /sys/src/9/pc. John Does it work now with non-amd64 kernels? Peace uriel On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote: Devtrace is ready for your consumption, hot out of the oven and juicy fresh. The source is at /n/sources/contrib/john/devtrace-backport.tgz which includes all the necessary source files, the man page (troff), and instructions for putting it in the kernel and compiling. Remember, this isn't mine alone, Ron and Aki came up with the idea and did the real hard implementation; I just finished up and did some porting. Therefore, make sure to blame Ron if it doesn't work. John Floren
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/. OK, I am only responding to this because of the incorrect impressions being left by these kinds of comments. The backport John did is to the standard kernel that you all can get on your machine. It should in fact even work on 9vx. You are welcome to use it. In fact, one could actually look at what John released *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an idea. great unwashed masses? I am reminded of a liberation sign somebody spotted in some foreign land once: The Masses are Revolting! :-) ron
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote: The Masses are Revolting! You said it! They stink on ice! -History of the World, Part I.
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
2008/12/17 ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com: On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/. OK, I am only responding to this because of the incorrect impressions being left by these kinds of comments. The backport John did is to the standard kernel that you all can get on your machine. It should in fact even work on 9vx. You are welcome to use it. In fact, one could actually look at what John released *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an idea. It doesn't (yet) work on 9vx. I'm working on that right now, though. More on that in a later message. --dho great unwashed masses? I am reminded of a liberation sign somebody spotted in some foreign land once: The Masses are Revolting! :-) ron
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
In fact, one could actually look at what John released *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an idea. Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle, without him having any practical need for them. He lands up sounding like a peevish, ungrateful child who just wants more sweets even though his hands are already full. Far from him to actually do some checking first. What could he possibly need with devtrace anyway? That said, is there any reason why devtrace is not part of the distribution and are there plans to incorporate it? ++L
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
Yea, stupid retarded moron I am to give a fuck about the welfare of Plan 9 and its future. After all, I have only invested I don't know how many hundreds of hours of my life in it... uriel On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:52 AM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: In fact, one could actually look at what John released *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an idea. Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle, without him having any practical need for them. He lands up sounding like a peevish, ungrateful child who just wants more sweets even though his hands are already full. Far from him to actually do some checking first. What could he possibly need with devtrace anyway? That said, is there any reason why devtrace is not part of the distribution and are there plans to incorporate it? ++L
Re: [9fans] devtrace release time
In fact, one could actually look at what John released *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an idea. Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle, without him having any practical need for them. He lands up sounding like a peevish, ungrateful child who just wants more sweets even though his hands are already full. Far from him to actually do some checking first. What could he possibly need with devtrace anyway? That said, is there any reason why devtrace is not part of the distribution and are there plans to incorporate it? ++L Answering the last question: devtrace has only been compatible with the current kernel for a few weeks, which I've spent testing and cleaning up the code a bit. Right now, I'd object to including devtrace in the distribution because of all the #pragma's it tosses around in 9/pc, 9/port, and even libc. Also, it currently replaces the *old* profiling system--that's why the assembly functions are called _profin and _profout even though they call tracein and traceout in devtrace.c (and everything else in the code is called trace rather than profile). I hacked the linker so it could take a -t flag and insert _tracein and _traceout; if we were to put it in the distribution, we could replace all my #pragma profile 0 lines with #pragma trace 0, which would allow you to still use the old profiling system without interference. It would be a bit of work but definitely feasible if there's interest. John
