Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow - Plan9 ; honestly, i think that linux is the better place, if what you want is something to view ajax google mashup stuff. i don't find it strange at all that the server can't display it's own data. hard drives can't initialiate ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

  1. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    honestly, i think that linux is the better place, if what you want
    is something to view ajax google mashup stuff. i don't find it strange
    at all that the server can't display it's own data. hard drives can't
    initialiate ata commands, after all.

    it's not too suprising that no 9 fan has written a javascript-compatable
    browser. i'd hope they be smart enough to always find something better
    to do. ;-)

    you know in 1992 or so when i first started using linux (couldn't get my
    hands on a plan 9 license), it wasn't very functional. but it was
    tractable. you could get stuff done.

    now linux is pretty functional, i guess, but it is very difficult environment to
    program in, and what works is very likely broken in the next release
    because somebody thought there were too many bytes in struct work_struct
    on 64-bit machines.

    so suppose we have javascript and all that jazz working on plan 9,
    would all that goo have vitiated the reason we were drawn to plan 9 in the
    first place?

    - erik

    On Sun Dec 10 15:58:35 EST 2006, rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
    > Put it this way. I have a nice web page served out of a Plan 9 system
    > that shows google maps data etc. I can't view it on Plan 9. What we
    > have here, is failure to communicate. Drivers won't help this problem.
    >
    > So what we're trying to do is give people a path from the linux world
    > to a better place. The idea is that you'll get a linux kernel as a
    > device driver. [...]


  2. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > so suppose we have javascript and all that jazz working on plan 9,
    > would all that goo have vitiated the reason we were drawn to plan 9
    > in the first place?


    Because I need to share bits with people who use MS Office, I
    need to run OpenOffice roughly daily. But not all day, so
    a combination of VNC to a FreeBSD machine and an emulated Linux
    running under Plan 9 for travel would cut it.

    I need to run a web browser pretty much all the time, though,
    and it's hard to say when I'll need something that renders
    actual web pages or some horrible JavaScript thing dreamt up
    by HR. So for me I think the barrier to booting Plan 9 on
    my laptop every day (assuming for the moment no ACPI) would
    be the lack of a Firefox-class browser. But maybe the best
    way to get one would be a stripped-down BSD release running
    in a Plan 9 dom0. At least, the FreeBSD guys have done pretty
    well running random Linux binaries...

    Dave Eckhardt

  3. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    We talked at length about this issue at IWP9 without a lot of consensus.
    However, I think that many of us agreed on these points:

    - writing drivers sucks.
    - copying Linux and Windows will accomplish very little.
    - one significant place where Plan 9 wins is using it as a versatile
    base for building pieces that people use without knowing it's Plan 9
    (e.g., Sape's wireless base stations, Rangboom, xcpu, and
    many Inferno apps that Charles can't talk about).
    - there may be real value in finding a way to use Xen or other
    virtualization technologies to run Plan 9 on machines (for example,
    terminals) where you care more about the convenience of having
    Plan 9 than about the performance (or reliability!) of having it in
    control of the hardware.

    And perhaps most important of all:

    - remember to keep it fun!

    I can't deny the utility of having Firefox (I'm writing this in a
    Firefox window), but even if Plan 9 could run Firefox, the next
    thing would be oh but it needs to be able to run these ten
    plugins, and so on and so on. Personally, I think you are going
    to be much happier running Plan 9 in some VM environment on
    Linux or Windows than putting in the effort for the other way around.

    Russ

  4. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    >> - writing drivers sucks.

    it's not a big problem in itself. i quite enjoy it for
    the reasonably well-documented chipsets one finds in (say)
    embedded ARM and PowerPC platforms. for those, i hardly ever
    bother to look at another driver. it's just so straightforward.
    i look at the book and do what it says. it doesn't work, so i
    find there's an errrata or fuss about discovering that a bit
    has the opposite sense from what's documented. no matter.

    on the PC, it's rather more troublesome: when i could get
    reasonable documentation it was much the same as anything else.
    without it, it's tedious, and perhaps too time-consuming
    if i'm doing it in my spare time. theo de raadt's slides
    were quite a good summary.

    still, there's not much choice, really.

  5. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    Hello

    what books you guys recommend to start with hardware programming?
    (nemo's kernel book of course)

    I mean, having no experience with hardware programming, a desire i
    have is to read something to learn from other's experience on writing
    software for manage hardware. (something like the practice of
    programming but focused on hardware issues).

    of course i can always re-read my school notes, and start to fight
    with the real life. . . but this looks discouraging, (and becomes much
    more discouraging taking in account the comments of more talented
    programmers on the iwp9

    thanks

    gabi


    On 12/12/06, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > >> - writing drivers sucks.

    >
    > it's not a big problem in itself. i quite enjoy it for
    > the reasonably well-documented chipsets one finds in (say)
    > embedded ARM and PowerPC platforms. for those, i hardly ever
    > bother to look at another driver. it's just so straightforward.
    > i look at the book and do what it says. it doesn't work, so i
    > find there's an errrata or fuss about discovering that a bit
    > has the opposite sense from what's documented. no matter.
    >
    > on the PC, it's rather more troublesome: when i could get
    > reasonable documentation it was much the same as anything else.
    > without it, it's tedious, and perhaps too time-consuming
    > if i'm doing it in my spare time. theo de raadt's slides
    > were quite a good summary.
    >
    > still, there's not much choice, really.
    >


  6. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    Browser, buy a cheap PC and run whatever you like on it.
    Wow that solves everything. That was a good session.

    brucee

    On 12/12/06, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > >> - writing drivers sucks.

    >
    > it's not a big problem in itself. i quite enjoy it for
    > the reasonably well-documented chipsets one finds in (say)
    > embedded ARM and PowerPC platforms. for those, i hardly ever
    > bother to look at another driver. it's just so straightforward.
    > i look at the book and do what it says. it doesn't work, so i
    > find there's an errrata or fuss about discovering that a bit
    > has the opposite sense from what's documented. no matter.
    >
    > on the PC, it's rather more troublesome: when i could get
    > reasonable documentation it was much the same as anything else.
    > without it, it's tedious, and perhaps too time-consuming
    > if i'm doing it in my spare time. theo de raadt's slides
    > were quite a good summary.
    >
    > still, there's not much choice, really.
    >


  7. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    well while i'm commenting randomly ...

    none.

    there is essentially no documention on many, many boards
    and chips "just in case we want to rip off their IP'.

    correct me if i'm wrong - i have stood corrected.

    brucee

    On 12/12/06, Gabriel Diaz wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > what books you guys recommend to start with hardware programming?
    > (nemo's kernel book of course)
    >
    > I mean, having no experience with hardware programming, a desire i
    > have is to read something to learn from other's experience on writing
    > software for manage hardware. (something like the practice of
    > programming but focused on hardware issues).
    >
    > of course i can always re-read my school notes, and start to fight
    > with the real life. . . but this looks discouraging, (and becomes much
    > more discouraging taking in account the comments of more talented
    > programmers on the iwp9
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > gabi
    >
    >
    > On 12/12/06, Charles Forsyth wrote:
    > > >> - writing drivers sucks.

    > >
    > > it's not a big problem in itself. i quite enjoy it for
    > > the reasonably well-documented chipsets one finds in (say)
    > > embedded ARM and PowerPC platforms. for those, i hardly ever
    > > bother to look at another driver. it's just so straightforward.
    > > i look at the book and do what it says. it doesn't work, so i
    > > find there's an errrata or fuss about discovering that a bit
    > > has the opposite sense from what's documented. no matter.
    > >
    > > on the PC, it's rather more troublesome: when i could get
    > > reasonable documentation it was much the same as anything else.
    > > without it, it's tedious, and perhaps too time-consuming
    > > if i'm doing it in my spare time. theo de raadt's slides
    > > were quite a good summary.
    > >
    > > still, there's not much choice, really.
    > >

    >


  8. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > I mean, having no experience with hardware programming, a desire i
    > have is to read something to learn from other's experience on writing
    > software for manage hardware. (something like the practice of
    > programming but focused on hardware issues).


    possibly a good way is to read existing Plan 9 drivers

    it isn't really a deep mystery, except for some of the peculiar
    interfaces on the x86. i usually blunder my way past them, myself.

  9. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > - one significant place where Plan 9 wins is using it as a versatile
    > base for building pieces that people use without knowing it's Plan 9
    > (e.g., Sape's wireless base stations, Rangboom, xcpu, and
    > many Inferno apps that Charles can't talk about).


    Coraid SR1520 and SR420 use Plan 9. Depending on how many
    systems are running Plan 9 out there, we might have more
    kernels running than anyone else. And we keep shipping.

    Coraid will be using embedded Plan 9 for years to come.


  10. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > Browser, buy a cheap PC and run whatever you like on it.

    It was few years ago when I realized that machines were cheap, take two.
    My secondary is a Mac.


  11. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    On 12/12/06, Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > Browser, buy a cheap PC and run whatever you like on it.
    > Wow that solves everything. That was a good session.
    >
    > brucee


    sucks for laptops though. I hate carrying all them thar laptops --
    they get in the way of my shootin' iron.

    ron

  12. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    On 12/12/06, ron minnich wrote:
    > On 12/12/06, Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > > Browser, buy a cheap PC and run whatever you like on it.
    > > Wow that solves everything. That was a good session.
    > >
    > > brucee

    >
    > sucks for laptops though. I hate carrying all them thar laptops --
    > they get in the way of my shootin' iron.
    >


    Just need to put your experience of building small systems towards
    building a "headless" laptop-server -- then you can use drawterm from
    your "browser" laptop - or home desktop, or whatever.

    It'd be sweet to have something I could power off of USB 2.0 or
    battery, with a hard drive and wireless (and maybe a serial port for
    jmk). Gumstick seems like it comes close - but no real solution for
    portable or piggy-back power. I suppose an iPaq might be able to be
    tasked to such a solution as well -- but has less than ideal disk
    storage. Neither has particularly glorious CPU power or memory --
    maybe we can build something with the OLPC mother boards sans
    screen/keyboard.

    -eric

  13. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    does the gumstix come with enough hardware documentation? perhaps
    i missed it. but i didn't see the info on how one boots these things.

    - erik

    On Tue Dec 12 10:20:29 EST 2006, ericvh@gmail.com wrote:
    > It'd be sweet to have something I could power off of USB 2.0 or
    > battery, with a hard drive and wireless (and maybe a serial port for
    > jmk). Gumstick seems like it comes close - but no real solution for
    > portable or piggy-back power. I suppose an iPaq might be able to be
    > tasked to such a solution as well -- but has less than ideal disk
    > storage. Neither has particularly glorious CPU power or memory --
    > maybe we can build something with the OLPC mother boards sans
    > screen/keyboard.
    >
    > -eric


  14. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    On 12/12/06, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:

    > It'd be sweet to have something I could power off of USB 2.0 or
    > battery, with a hard drive and wireless (and maybe a serial port for
    > jmk).


    yeah, this was one of the ideas that came up before we started on Xen
    again, but Aki and Andrey and Lucho beat me up on this idea. It came
    down to the EC on one side, and me on the other, and that ended it.

    I suggested running linux on a little 1-5W board, and using it to run
    the linux apps, using a root mount from Plan 9. So Linux is this dumb
    little headless box you only turn on when you want, and otherwise you
    tell it to go away by yanking its power cord, verily.

    They thought the idea, uh, lacked merit. (I think they said it sucked,
    but am not sure).

    I think one reason the idea may really suck is that Firefox (the "thin
    client") requires a 200 MB footprint, which translates to gobs of
    Watts. Figures. Web 2.0!

    [[BTW, anybody but me enjoying the idea of taking an opteron out of
    socket and replacing with ... an ... XML ... accelerator?]]

    But I still like the 'stupid little linux CPU' idea. I want a backpack
    full of little computers that spin up on demand. And don't weigh much.
    and take no power. And have no moving parts. And generate no heat. And
    use a fusion reactor for power. And, to reduce weight, have
    antigravity pods. I guess I'll go visit Area 52 this weekend (Area 51
    is always behind schedule and over budget).

    ron

  15. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    This may solve the no-firefox-and-mplayer-for-plan9 problem, but I
    don't see how it solves the no-plan9-drivers-for-my-laptop one.

    Lucho

    On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, ron minnich wrote:

    > On 12/12/06, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
    >
    >> It'd be sweet to have something I could power off of USB 2.0 or
    >> battery, with a hard drive and wireless (and maybe a serial port for
    >> jmk).

    >
    > yeah, this was one of the ideas that came up before we started on Xen
    > again, but Aki and Andrey and Lucho beat me up on this idea. It came
    > down to the EC on one side, and me on the other, and that ended it.
    >
    > I suggested running linux on a little 1-5W board, and using it to run
    > the linux apps, using a root mount from Plan 9. So Linux is this dumb
    > little headless box you only turn on when you want, and otherwise you
    > tell it to go away by yanking its power cord, verily.
    >
    > They thought the idea, uh, lacked merit. (I think they said it sucked,
    > but am not sure).
    >
    > I think one reason the idea may really suck is that Firefox (the "thin
    > client") requires a 200 MB footprint, which translates to gobs of
    > Watts. Figures. Web 2.0!
    >
    > [[BTW, anybody but me enjoying the idea of taking an opteron out of
    > socket and replacing with ... an ... XML ... accelerator?]]
    >
    > But I still like the 'stupid little linux CPU' idea. I want a backpack
    > full of little computers that spin up on demand. And don't weigh much.
    > and take no power. And have no moving parts. And generate no heat. And
    > use a fusion reactor for power. And, to reduce weight, have
    > antigravity pods. I guess I'll go visit Area 52 this weekend (Area 51
    > is always behind schedule and over budget).
    >
    > ron



  16. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    On 12/12/06, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
    > This may solve the no-firefox-and-mplayer-for-plan9 problem, but I
    > don't see how it solves the no-plan9-drivers-for-my-laptop one.


    Hence the approach we are taking with xen. You get a linux, you get a
    Plan 9, you get holes torn in the I/O and memory spaces from Plan 9 to
    hardware to let you doink hardware and write drivers under Plan 9,
    and, with any luck, crash the machine at will.

    I think it's going to work out. At least the crashing part.

    Aki is already regularly crashing linux from user mode, so how hard can it be?

    ron

    p.s. with the new web 2.0 in my firefox browser, with 64M resident out
    of 136M, I am seeing that the mouse "sticks" and as I move the mouse
    random **** gets highlighted and erased. Fun.

  17. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:30:35PM +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > i thought that i could get anything when working at the labs.
    > oh no.


    Wasn't there one time when there was problem getting drivers for *lucent*
    wavelan pcmcia cards? (Maybe I misremember, but the story is better
    that way.)


  18. Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > Hence the approach we are taking with xen. You get a linux, you get a
    > Plan 9, you get holes torn in the I/O and memory spaces from Plan 9 to
    > hardware to let you doink hardware and write drivers under Plan 9,
    > and, with any luck, crash the machine at will.


    Have your considered inverting this setup? Rather than a
    native Linux and a parasitic plan9, have a native plan9 hand
    over io and memory space it doesn't understand to the
    parasite. I'd rather have a very lean, clean and thin native
    os (AKA hypervisor). Of course I have no idea if this can be
    made to work....

  19. Re: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow

    > I can't deny the utility of having Firefox (I'm writing this in a
    > Firefox window), but even if Plan 9 could run Firefox, the next
    > thing would be oh but it needs to be able to run these ten
    > plugins, and so on and so on. Personally, I think you are going
    > to be much happier running Plan 9 in some VM environment on
    > Linux or Windows than putting in the effort for the other way around.
    >


    And a lot of times, at the end of the day, I feel that as a result of
    wanting to run Plan 9 in a VM environment, even in Parallels, makes me
    sad, and I'd almost rather use Inferno :-)


    > Russ
    >


  20. quite Off Topic: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans]extending xen to allow

    "ron minnich" writes:

    > On 12/12/06, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
    >
    >> It'd be sweet to have something I could power off of USB 2.0 or
    >> battery, with a hard drive and wireless (and maybe a serial port for
    >> jmk).

    >
    > yeah, this was one of the ideas that came up before we started on Xen
    > again, but Aki and Andrey and Lucho beat me up on this idea. It came
    > down to the EC on one side, and me on the other, and that ended it.


    Wikipedia:

    Early Childhood education
    Electric Circus
    Elimination Chamber
    Emergency Contraception
    Eric Clapton
    Exacoulomb
    ahhhhhh!!!!

    EC = Executive Committee! 8-0

    >
    > I suggested running linux on a little 1-5W board, and using it to run
    > the linux apps, using a root mount from Plan 9. So Linux is this dumb
    > little headless box you only turn on when you want, and otherwise you
    > tell it to go away by yanking its power cord, verily.
    >
    > They thought the idea, uh, lacked merit. (I think they said it sucked,
    > but am not sure).
    >
    > I think one reason the idea may really suck is that Firefox (the "thin
    > client") requires a 200 MB footprint, which translates to gobs of
    > Watts. Figures. Web 2.0!
    >
    > [[BTW, anybody but me enjoying the idea of taking an opteron out of
    > socket and replacing with ... an ... XML ... accelerator?]]
    >
    > But I still like the 'stupid little linux CPU' idea. I want a backpack
    > full of little computers that spin up on demand. And don't weigh much.
    > and take no power. And have no moving parts. And generate no heat. And
    > use a fusion reactor for power. And, to reduce weight, have
    > antigravity pods. I guess I'll go visit Area 52 this weekend (Area 51
    > is always behind schedule and over budget).


    http://www.intellasys.net/

    Though: Do you feel like re-implement Plan9 in machine Forth?

    >
    > ron


    --
    Jorge-León

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast