Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC - Plan9 ; > I'm working on all of these, as well as changing it so that each > column is the length of its largest item rather than the whole > table's largest item. You also need to know the overall width ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

  1. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > I'm working on all of these, as well as changing it so that each
    > column is the length of its largest item rather than the whole
    > table's largest item.


    You also need to know the overall width of the space in which the
    table is presented so you can scale each _column_ accordingly. It's a
    tedious operation, but it ought to be possible, I can't say that I
    have looked at it myself.

    ++L


  2. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > Treating image as character (with unusual width and height) means
    > indefinite number of potential characters and if a machine (not human)
    > does not able to differentiate between "text characters" and "image
    > characters" it renders character sets unusable.


    Sure, but the idea is that the actual description of the image lies in
    a different layer (no, I don't have any idea how these will be linked)
    and only a descriptive placeholder will appear at the relevant
    coordinates (recall that I'm advocating a two-dimensional
    representation to replace the current linear simplification).

    But your point is certainly relevant. And I'm only tossing ideas
    around, no deep theories involved.

    ++L


  3. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    We could store the raw data in binary files and have C programs
    access the data with a standard interface.

    /* in libc */
    enum { Achar, Aimage };

    typedef struct Atom {
    int type;
    union {
    char c;
    Image *i;
    };
    } Atom;

    void amamkechar(Atom *a, char c)
    {
    a->type = Achar;
    a->c = c;
    }

    void amakeimage(Atom *a, Image *i)
    {
    a->type = Aimage;
    a->i = i;
    }

    /* in libdraw */
    void drawatom(Image *d, Atom *a, Point loc, Image *textcolor, Point
    textcolorpt, char *font)
    {
    if (a->type == Atext) {
    char c[2];

    c[0] = a->c;
    c[1] = '\0';
    string(d, loc, textcolor, textcolorpt, font, c);
    } else

    }

    However, this severely complicates the Unix/Plan 9 philosophy of
    pipes, and only allows for character-at-a-time reads. We could add an
    ability to read a string of characters up to EOF or an image to make
    it (a tiny bit) simpler.

    On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:21 AM, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

    >> Treating image as character (with unusual width and height) means
    >> indefinite number of potential characters and if a machine (not
    >> human)
    >> does not able to differentiate between "text characters" and "image
    >> characters" it renders character sets unusable.

    >
    > Sure, but the idea is that the actual description of the image lies in
    > a different layer (no, I don't have any idea how these will be linked)
    > and only a descriptive placeholder will appear at the relevant
    > coordinates (recall that I'm advocating a two-dimensional
    > representation to replace the current linear simplification).
    >
    > But your point is certainly relevant. And I'm only tossing ideas
    > around, no deep theories involved.
    >
    > ++L
    >



  4. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Jan 25, 2008 7:55 AM, wrote:
    > it really does not make any sense to write web browser from the ground
    > up, if there is a workable version.


    here we go again...
    why use Plan 9 at all if every mainstream operating system is 'workable'?
    i guess workable is not the point.

    iru

  5. [9fans] importing web browsers (was Building GCC)

    >> it really does not make any sense to write web browser from the ground
    >> up, if there is a workable version.


    >here we go again...
    >why use Plan 9 at all if every mainstream operating system is 'workable'?
    >i guess workable is not the point.


    i assumed he wanted to develop and run things mainly in the plan 9 environment
    but would like the added distraction with occasional information of the web world,
    for which firefox is adequate (and if something that big feels inadequate, that's a huge neurosis).
    so he'd like to get it running under plan 9 somehow.

    i use vnc to a big sacrificial linux machine, myself, except on the lenovo where i've been
    too lazy to finish the wireless and drawterm from linux to my cpu server.
    i get much more done on a plan9-only system.

    if he were interested in doing research into new ways of accessing the web,
    perhaps using some clever application of 9-inspired ideas,
    then firefox would probably be a waste of time. if he just wants to browse
    successfully, perhaps not. probably by the time he's finished it will be up
    to Web 8.3 but that's not really our problem. i wouldn't waste time arguing about it (here).


  6. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > On Jan 25, 2008 7:55 AM, wrote:
    >> it really does not make any sense to write web browser from the ground
    >> up, if there is a workable version.

    >
    > here we go again...
    > why use Plan 9 at all if every mainstream operating system is 'workable'?
    > i guess workable is not the point.
    >
    > iru


    Plan 9 is not, and should not in my opinion, be a Linux
    replacment, Unix replacement, MS Windows replacement, and
    so on. If you really want Plan 9 to dominate the world
    and see all your friends use it every day, invent a killer
    application for it. That's the only way you can shove
    existing systems of their pedestals. Making Plan 9
    exactly like Linux, or Windows, or son on, will not
    cause people to leave the real Linux or Windows and use
    Plan 9. Lack of a browser is not why only the select
    few use Plan 9. It's a culture thing.

    If you want Linux you know where to find it.


  7. Re: [9fans] importing web browsers (was Building GCC)

    On Jan 25, 2008 12:35 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > >> it really does not make any sense to write web browser from the ground
    > >> up, if there is a workable version.

    >
    > i assumed he wanted to develop and run things mainly in the plan 9 environment
    > but would like the added distraction with occasional information of the web world,
    > for which firefox is adequate (and if something that big feels inadequate, that's a huge neurosis).
    > so he'd like to get it running under plan 9 somehow.
    >
    > i use vnc to a big sacrificial linux machine, myself, except on the lenovo where i've been
    > too lazy to finish the wireless and drawterm from linux to my cpu server.
    > i get much more done on a plan9-only system.
    >
    > if he were interested in doing research into new ways of accessing the web,
    > perhaps using some clever application of 9-inspired ideas,
    > then firefox would probably be a waste of time. if he just wants to browse
    > successfully, perhaps not. probably by the time he's finished it will be up
    > to Web 8.3 but that's not really our problem. i wouldn't waste time arguing about it (here).
    >
    >


    I'm not saying using whatever browser under linuxemu is a problem.
    I think the problem is not having a good native browser for Plan 9.

    iru

  8. Re: Building GCC

    On Jan 25, 4:32 pm, brant...@coraid.com (Brantley Coile) wrote:
    > > On Jan 25, 2008 7:55 AM, wrote:
    > >> it really does not make any sense to write web browser from the ground
    > >> up, if there is a workable version.

    >
    > > here we go again...
    > > why use Plan 9 at all if every mainstream operating system is 'workable'?
    > > i guess workable is not the point.

    >
    > > iru

    >
    > Plan 9 is not, and should not in my opinion, be a Linux
    > replacment, Unix replacement, MS Windows replacement, and
    > so on. If you really want Plan 9 to dominate the world
    > and see all your friends use it every day, invent a killer
    > application for it. That's the only way you can shove
    > existing systems of their pedestals. Making Plan 9
    > exactly like Linux, or Windows, or son on, will not
    > cause people to leave the real Linux or Windows and use
    > Plan 9. Lack of a browser is not why only the select
    > few use Plan 9. It's a culture thing.
    >
    > If you want Linux you know where to find it.


    My main point was that there should be a sort of extension to the core
    system in form of, say, linuxemu driven applications and/or ported
    applications whatever their origins are. The important part is to keep
    the core system independent of these ports. I like the idea behind
    linuxemu even more, because there is nothing to port and sometimes you
    have just binary without access to the code. This is "applications on
    demand" model, when you have it the time you need it, locally. You use
    application, get results, write them down and go as usual, in native
    Plan 9 environment. Specifically to my situation, it sounds great.

    Instead of putting mainstream applications and Plan 9 system in
    different boxes and use network to get certain job done, I would like
    to see Plan 9 system having elegant way to run non native binaries
    when needed locally without integrating them into the core system.
    This approach can be pursued either by hardware emulation, like QEMU
    does, or by operating system kernel emulation, like linuxemu does,
    putting kernel into userspace.

    I agree about culture thing, as you put it, and I believe that the
    world would be a better place if every computer science student be
    given thorough course on it.

  9. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:26:56 EST Brantley Coile wrote:
    > Plan 9 is not, and should not in my opinion, be a Linux
    > replacment, Unix replacement, MS Windows replacement, and
    > so on. If you really want Plan 9 to dominate the world
    > and see all your friends use it every day, invent a killer
    > application for it. That's the only way you can shove
    > existing systems of their pedestals.


    The zillion dollar question is what app would that be. And
    even if you build a killer app for plan 9, most people would
    want it ported to their favorite OS. Worse, the problem is
    that the "platform" that matters to most people now is no
    longer an OS (just as battles over which is the best
    processor are now mostly past) -- this is why most killer
    apps end up
    a) being windows or OS X based,
    b) being ported to multiple platforms (windows, OS X,
    Linux, FreeBSD, Symbian), or
    c) living entirely in a web browser, with a server
    somewhere to provide/store the interesting bits.
    d) bundled with a h/w gadget of some sort (iPod, SlingBox
    etc.)

    May be Plan9 can be used to provide a webserver backend but
    even here you have to work with existing solutions as people
    don't want to reinvent everything. The benefits provided by
    the plan9 model are simply not enough if you have to reinvent
    everything. Working python, ruby, c++, PHP would go some way
    toward fixing that.

    Another possibilty is to use it in a h/w gadget that everyone
    would want (for example building something like the Lego NXT
    computer controlled brick so that you can build simple
    robotic apps in rc).

    All this assuming anyone wants plan9 to be more popular but I
    don't know if there is even a majority that wants that (or
    wants it badly enough to want to do something about it).

    May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    material :-)

  10. Re: [9fans] importing web browsers (was Building GCC)

    > I'm not saying using whatever browser under linuxemu is a problem.
    > I think the problem is not having a good native browser for Plan 9.


    Which is due to the complexity of the task it needs to perform with a
    high degree of accuracy. Given (a) that there aren't enough Plan 9
    developers to construct a piece of software of Firefox's magnitude,
    (b) that Firefox is not very likely to be ported to Plan 9 because,
    again, there aren't enough developers to do it and (c) that the web is
    not even remotely likely to stand still long enough to be called a
    "standard", whichever aspect you wish to consider it from:

    it just isn't going to happen!

    Learn to live with it. Or show me how you expect it will happen.

    ++L


  11. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 09:49 -0800, Bakul Shah wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:26:56 EST Brantley Coile wrote:
    > > Plan 9 is not, and should not in my opinion, be a Linux
    > > replacment, Unix replacement, MS Windows replacement, and
    > > so on. If you really want Plan 9 to dominate the world
    > > and see all your friends use it every day, invent a killer
    > > application for it. That's the only way you can shove
    > > existing systems of their pedestals.

    >
    > The zillion dollar question is what app would that be.


    My totally non-scientific observation is that talking about
    "an app" in this context is quite misleading. May be it is just
    me, but somehow "an application" has the connotations of a single
    instance of code running on a single box. I don't think that is
    interesting anymore. What could be interesting is to talk about,
    what I would call for the lack of a better term, a utility function.
    One such utility function could be pervasive networking. Gazing
    into my crystal ball brings visions of Google finally doing to
    cell phones what IBM did to personal computers and opening a floodgate
    of software for that platform. Sun used to say "the network is the
    computer" I still largely believe this to be true, but what is even
    more important is that bringing pervasive networking to those ~3 billion
    cell phones worldwide could very well be the killer "utility function"
    of Plan 9. If not in terms of the code, at least in term of ideas.

    My 2 rubles.

    Thanks,
    Roman.


  12. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Jan 25, 2008 9:49 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > Another possibilty is to use it in a h/w gadget that everyone
    > would want (for example building something like the Lego NXT
    > computer controlled brick so that you can build simple
    > robotic apps in rc).

    [snip]

    Check out Styx-on-a-brick (http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/rcx_paper.html).

    John
    --
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

  13. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    >
    > May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    > Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    > material :-)


    interestingly, that's the Coraid approach.

    - erik

  14. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > why use Plan 9 at all if every mainstream operating system is 'workable'?
    > i guess workable is not the point.


    I don't get it, why does Plan 9 have to behave like Linux or Windows?
    There are tractors, tracks and lamborghinis and no one expects the
    first to travel at the speed of sound, the second to pull ploughs or
    the last to carry furniture around.

    Yet they all use the internal combustion engine and have wheels at the
    four corners. Even the user interface is moderately common amongst
    them.

    ++L


  15. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    > Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    > material :-)


    I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't treat your next Van Gogh
    masterpiece as building rubble. Or treat Plan 9 as some sort of Linux
    surrogate. Why not use the real thing, considering how much less
    wasteful it would be?

    ++L


  16. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Jan 25, 2008 10:09 AM, wrote:
    > > May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    > > Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    > > material :-)

    >
    > I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't treat your next Van Gogh
    > masterpiece as building rubble. Or treat Plan 9 as some sort of Linux
    > surrogate. Why not use the real thing, considering how much less
    > wasteful it would be?
    >
    > ++L
    >


    I think the point is that people talk a big talk about how great Plan
    9 is, but then don't do a damn thing with it.
    At least, that's how I read it.

    John
    --
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

  17. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    I will do so as soon as I can find out why I get ACPI errors from the
    Linux kernel. Anyways, I am using Plan 9 now for building programs
    that solve some problems in the wiki's TODO page. I added simple
    table borders to htmlfmt and am going on to solve this problem:

    GUI image manipulation program - page(1) crossed with sam(1) which
    calls resample(1) and crop(1) (and other tools) would love to see
    this implemented in Acme.... --[++pac

    I dropped the word GUI and am working on porting Bell Labs' pico to
    Plan 9.

    On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

    >> May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    >> Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    >> material :-)

    >
    > I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't treat your next Van Gogh
    > masterpiece as building rubble. Or treat Plan 9 as some sort of Linux
    > surrogate. Why not use the real thing, considering how much less
    > wasteful it would be?
    >
    > ++L
    >



  18. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    >> May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    >> Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    >> material :-)

    >
    > interestingly, that's the Coraid approach.


    Well, embedded is not what is being advocated here, so I think yours
    is the answer to a different question. At least, I hope it is.

    The exciting thing is that Plan 9 (unlike, say, Starry Night) can be
    used in embedded appliances as well as in general purpose computing.
    Just not in conventional desktop/laptop computing, but, rminnich's
    qualms notwithstanding, how important is that to Plan 9's future?

    Or, to ask a totally different question, which is preferable: for Plan
    9 to resemble the conventional OS offerings or for the conventional OS
    offerings to resemble Plan 9? I'd say you ought to pick one of those
    camps and branch off your version of Plan 9 accordingly. Precisely as
    Coraid have apparently done in a socially conscious manner.

    ++L


  19. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    > I think the point is that people talk a big talk about how great Plan
    > 9 is, but then don't do a damn thing with it.
    > At least, that's how I read it.


    Is that what you believe? And if so, who else believes this?

    There are things Plan 9 does exceedingly well, better than any other
    OSes in the wild, but they are special features, more or less remote
    from the mainstream use of mainstream OSes. Were Plan 9 more popular,
    many if not all of Plan 9's features would eventually become familiar
    and users would begin to expect them of other OSes as well, but we're
    talking fashion here, not intrinsic value.

    In the meantime, Plan 9 users do benefit from features others feel no
    need for and it's hard to communicate across that chasm. Just as hard
    as it is to understand that one may have to cope and be able to cope
    without a native browser.

    If the "novelty" of Plan 9 doesn't get you, then Plan 9 is not for
    you; you will not evangelise us users into making Plan 9 the tool you
    want, specially when you continue to use as an example the very tool
    you already have access to. And, to add insult to injury, we also do
    provide the tools, should you feel that way inclined, for _you_ to
    enhance Plan 9 in the direction you prefer, so our sympathy when you
    "accuse" us of talking the big talk, is very, very limited.

    Consider what you want carefully and decide whether Plan 9 fits into
    your life. If it doesn't, either change it (you have the source) or
    move on.

    ++L


  20. Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC

    On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:29:55 PST "John Floren" wrote:
    > On Jan 25, 2008 10:09 AM, wrote:
    > > > May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a
    > > > Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building
    > > > material :-)

    > >
    > > I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't treat your next Van Gogh
    > > masterpiece as building rubble. Or treat Plan 9 as some sort of Linux
    > > surrogate. Why not use the real thing, considering how much less
    > > wasteful it would be?

    >
    > I think the point is that people talk a big talk about how great Plan
    > 9 is, but then don't do a damn thing with it.
    > At least, that's how I read it.


    More or less right. Use it, abuse it, rip it apart and
    reconstruct it but *build* something interesting with plan9!
    I didn't mean to suggest people are not doing it; just that
    I find building stuff is much more fruitful than discussions
    about what should people *not* do with plan 9.

    A killer app *always* fills some need for a lot of people but
    a priori you can't know if your app is going to be the one so
    no point in worrying much about it. You might as well build
    something *you* find useful. If you want to compile plan9
    with gcc, go right ahead! If you want to build a server
    farm, why not? If you want to port plan9 to a cellphone,
    great! If you want to make plan9 look like Linux, sure! The
    more (& different) things get built the better.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast