[9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois - Plan9 ; Charles Forsyth wrote: > computing is needlessly regressing. > And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent human being serves as final arbiter of standards....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

  1. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > computing is needlessly regressing.
    >


    And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent
    human being serves as final arbiter of standards.





  2. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    > Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > > computing is needlessly regressing.
    > >

    >
    > And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent
    > human being serves as final arbiter of standards.
    >


    good idea. why don't you ask ken?

    - erik


  3. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    > I meant this:
    > /* Pull out data to send */
    > bp = nil;
    > if(dsize != 0) {
    > bp = qcopy(s->wq, dsize, sent);
    > if(BLEN(bp) != dsize) {
    > seg.flags |= FIN;
    > dsize--;
    > }
    > if(sent+dsize == sndcnt)
    > seg.flags |= PSH;
    > }
    >
    > Seems clearer to me. And equivalent! I have been running
    > with this change since last Thursday. I don't stress my plan9
    > machine all that much but replica pulls, ftp, web browsing,
    > nfs etc. have worked fine.


    i think they are not equivalent with these values

    BLEN(bp) != dsize
    dsize == 1
    sent+0 == sndcnt

    - erik


  4. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    > And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent
    > human being serves as final arbiter of standards.


    i think some of it eventually will be formalised, much as we do with programming
    languages (even Javascript, which i mentioned, at least has a plausible grammar),
    but it seems we still haven't got a suitable tool to do it (or at least, not one that enough
    people use without fuss). even then a formalised version of something can still have
    (more formal) bugs, that fail to express an intention correctly.

    anyway, just to be helpful: Bakul is right that as in Erik's case, for networked applications particularly,
    you end up having to be pragmatic when talking to other implementations. for example,
    the (old) Mac POP3 client demanded a space at a certain point, even when there was
    no argument (required by the POP3 RFC). most other server implementations included something
    chatty there, and the POP3 client implementation had followed the servers, not the RFC.



  5. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    erik quanstrom wrote:

    Charles Forsyth wrote:



    computing is needlessly regressing.



    And it will continue to regress until one knowledgeable and independent human being serves as final arbiter of standards.



    good idea. why don't you ask ken? - erik


    We'll ask someone, if and when osmio.org becomes osmio.int.

  6. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:24:35 BST Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > > must not buffer data indefinitely, and (2) MUST set the
    > > PSH bit in the last buffered segment (i.e., when there
    > > is no more queued data to be sent).
    > >
    > > The implication is that the "preceding segment" to a pkt with
    > > no data *will have* PSH set.

    >
    > so does the implementation do that?


    Do you mean plan9 after the change? The traces I looked at
    seem to do that. Others certainly seem to do that.

    > can you prove it in all cases?


    Not in the formal sense. Not enough free time or incentive.

    > what will break if we just change it without knowing?
    > after all, it has been 15 years to come across a botched receiver's implement
    > ation
    > of PSH (ie, godaddy's) which is the only reason to change it.
    > that's what i was pointing out. i could do the work myself, i suppose, but i
    > haven't got the incentive.


    I understand your concern about possibly breaking things with
    this change. It should certainly be tested more thoroughly
    but since the change brings Plan9 behavior more in line with
    what *BSD/Linux/Windows do I am not as apprehensive as you
    are.

    > >here you have to be compatible with existing
    > >implementations as far as possible (in order to maximize
    > >interoperability).

    >
    > i suspect arguments like that caused the current situation with HTML, CSS and
    > Javascript.
    > computing is needlessly regressing.


    May be. Somehow this makes me think of E W Dijkstra :-)


  7. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:49:35 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
    > > I meant this:
    > > /* Pull out data to send */
    > > bp = nil;
    > > if(dsize != 0) {
    > > bp = qcopy(s->wq, dsize, sent);
    > > if(BLEN(bp) != dsize) {
    > > seg.flags |= FIN;
    > > dsize--;
    > > }
    > > if(sent+dsize == sndcnt)
    > > seg.flags |= PSH;
    > > }
    > >
    > > Seems clearer to me. And equivalent! I have been running
    > > with this change since last Thursday. I don't stress my plan9
    > > machine all that much but replica pulls, ftp, web browsing,
    > > nfs etc. have worked fine.

    >
    > i think they are not equivalent with these values
    >
    > BLEN(bp) != dsize
    > dsize == 1
    > sent+0 == sndcnt


    I don't think all three conditions can be true. dsize is set
    to ssize, ssize is initialized to sndcnt - sent and after
    that it can only decrease. So if dsize is 1, sndcnt - send
    must be at least 1.


  8. Re: [9fans] telnet vs. godaddy whois

    having looked again at ip/tcp.c i think the code wasn't really intending
    to resolve one of the stalled receiver cases i had in mind, although it happens to do so,
    so changing it probably doesn't mess up some original intent.

    mind you, one lesson i take from all this is that in retrospect one could expect
    just about anything from a server run by a company like godaddy that
    completely misses the point about black leather jackets. (they look
    cool only if you don't scribble adverts all over them.)



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