[9fans] sad commentary - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] sad commentary - Plan9 ; this slashdot article almost asks for cpu functionality for plan 9 by name. http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml not a single mention of plan 9. i hope this is an indication that slashdot has slipped. screens? 1978 called and wants its terminal server mentality ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: [9fans] sad commentary

  1. [9fans] sad commentary

    this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    functionality for plan 9 by name.

    http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml

    not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    this is an indication that slashdot has
    slipped.

    screens? 1978 called and wants its
    terminal server mentality back.

    - erik


  2. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    > this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    > functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >
    > http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >
    > not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    > this is an indication that slashdot has
    > slipped.
    >
    > screens? 1978 called and wants its
    > terminal server mentality back.
    >
    > - erik


    cpu is not persistent, at least not in the way
    he wants it.

    John



  3. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    No, slashdot has not slipped (but then, I stopped reading it a few
    years ago, and the comments there have always been most depressing).

    But the world has pretty much forgotten Plan 9 even exists (and lets
    not even mention Inferno). In a story about 9vx in reddit.com (where
    supposedly all the cool kids hang out this days) somebody mentioned
    'last I got interested in Plan 9 you had to pay a few hundred bucks to
    get a copy' (or something to that effect).

    So, that is what anti-propaganda brings you, but at least you don't
    have to deal with clueless users... oh wait, never mind.

    uriel

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:21 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    > functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >
    > http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >
    > not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    > this is an indication that slashdot has
    > slipped.
    >
    > screens? 1978 called and wants its
    > terminal server mentality back.
    >
    > - erik
    >
    >



  4. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    >> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    >> functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >>
    >> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >>
    >> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    >> this is an indication that slashdot has
    >> slipped.
    >>
    >> screens? 1978 called and wants its
    >> terminal server mentality back.
    >>
    >> - erik

    >
    > cpu is not persistent, at least not in the way
    > he wants it.


    Yeah, seems like the poster is more interested in something similar to
    what Octopus give you.



  5. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    This is actually something I am very interested in as well.
    If a persistent version of Acme (-SAC) was available it would
    completely obviate my use of screen.
    Would something like this be feasible outside of Octopus as well?

    --underspecified

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Tim Wiess wrote:
    >>> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    >>> functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >>>
    >>> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >>>
    >>> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    >>> this is an indication that slashdot has
    >>> slipped.
    >>>
    >>> screens? 1978 called and wants its
    >>> terminal server mentality back.
    >>>
    >>> - erik

    >>
    >> cpu is not persistent, at least not in the way
    >> he wants it.

    >
    > Yeah, seems like the poster is more interested in something similar to
    > what Octopus give you.
    >
    >
    >



  6. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    Octopus sessions persist by definition as long as you do not
    reboot your central PC. All other machines are used to run viewers, but
    the layout is preserved by the (window) file system kept at the PC.

    Also, you may use tar to capture (most of) the window system state
    and restore it later (eg., upon reboots).

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:24 AM, underspecified
    wrote:
    > This is actually something I am very interested in as well.
    > If a persistent version of Acme (-SAC) was available it would
    > completely obviate my use of screen.
    > Would something like this be feasible outside of Octopus as well?
    >
    > --underspecified
    >
    > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Tim Wiess wrote:
    >>>> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    >>>> functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >>>>
    >>>> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    >>>> this is an indication that slashdot has
    >>>> slipped.
    >>>>
    >>>> screens? 1978 called and wants its
    >>>> terminal server mentality back.
    >>>>
    >>>> - erik
    >>>
    >>> cpu is not persistent, at least not in the way
    >>> he wants it.

    >>
    >> Yeah, seems like the poster is more interested in something similar to
    >> what Octopus give you.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >



  7. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    What can we expect an OctoVX32 distribution?

    On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
    > Octopus sessions persist by definition as long as you do not
    > reboot your central PC. All other machines are used to run viewers, but
    > the layout is preserved by the (window) file system kept at the PC.
    >
    > Also, you may use tar to capture (most of) the window system state
    > and restore it later (eg., upon reboots).
    >
    > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:24 AM, underspecified
    > wrote:
    >> This is actually something I am very interested in as well.
    >> If a persistent version of Acme (-SAC) was available it would
    >> completely obviate my use of screen.
    >> Would something like this be feasible outside of Octopus as well?
    >>
    >> --underspecified
    >>
    >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Tim Wiess wrote:
    >>>>> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    >>>>> functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >>>>>
    >>>>> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    >>>>> this is an indication that slashdot has
    >>>>> slipped.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> screens? 1978 called and wants its
    >>>>> terminal server mentality back.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - erik
    >>>>
    >>>> cpu is not persistent, at least not in the way
    >>>> he wants it.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, seems like the poster is more interested in something similar to
    >>> what Octopus give you.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >



  8. Re: [9fans] sad commentary


    > What can we expect an OctoVX32 distribution?
    >

    No need.

    The distribution at lsub.org can be used on top of
    the platforms where Inferno runs.

    I'm using it on MacOSX to access my main Plan 9 system.
    I've used it some time ago on Windows to do the same, and I think
    some other guy at lsub is using it on Linux.

    It's pretty easy to install and use it. I think we learned the
    lesson well wrt PlanB installation

    If anyone has problems regarding
    this just drop us a line.


  9. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    People do acknowledge the new free systems. Unfortunately, RMS got
    them off it in a microsecond when 3e came out:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html

    And I don't believe the Note at the top will change people's minds.

    And even if we do manage to make people remember Plan 9, we live in a
    world ruled by the standard set up by Windows 95. Even Mac OS X seems
    influenced (the three buttons scenario - take a look at that "Ah,
    minimalism" if you don't use that system). If people say "Plan 9 is
    too hard to use" they will allocate blame to Rob Pike's rio before
    reading his tirade on other windowing systems (which you can find at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz)
    .. And I don't think they would be open to using Inferno, where the
    windowing system has to be started manually and each and every program
    isn't available from that menu. I'm not complaining, though - I like
    them both - but I'm warning you.

    On Jun 29, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Uriel wrote:

    > No, slashdot has not slipped (but then, I stopped reading it a few
    > years ago, and the comments there have always been most depressing).
    >
    > But the world has pretty much forgotten Plan 9 even exists (and lets
    > not even mention Inferno). In a story about 9vx in reddit.com (where
    > supposedly all the cool kids hang out this days) somebody mentioned
    > 'last I got interested in Plan 9 you had to pay a few hundred bucks to
    > get a copy' (or something to that effect).
    >
    > So, that is what anti-propaganda brings you, but at least you don't
    > have to deal with clueless users... oh wait, never mind.
    >
    > uriel
    >
    > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:21 AM, erik quanstrom
    > wrote:
    >> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    >> functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >>
    >> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/.../1417247.shtml
    >>
    >> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
    >> this is an indication that slashdot has
    >> slipped.
    >>
    >> screens? 1978 called and wants its
    >> terminal server mentality back.
    >>
    >> - erik
    >>
    >>

    >




  10. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:

    > People do acknowledge the new free systems. Unfortunately, RMS got
    > them off it in a microsecond when 3e came out:
    >
    > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html
    >
    > And I don't believe the Note at the top will change people's minds.
    >

    Wikipedia says:
    License
    The full source code is freely available under Lucent Public License
    1.02, and considered to be open source by the OSI and free software by
    the FSF (although incompatible with the GNU General Public License). It
    passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

    From another mail: "But the world has pretty much forgotten Plan 9 even
    exists (and lets not even mention Inferno)."...............

    I do think, that its not the license, the main problem of plan 9 is the
    lack of a tutorial for beginners and examples for some applications and
    at best with some exercises to practice. Well, there is a bulky manual.
    The collection of papers "Plan 9 — The Documents (Volume 2)" is more
    readable. But learning from manuals compares to learning a language from
    a dictionary. There is a need for some more "readable". For example the
    role of make as an equivalent for cc is not self-evident for a
    traditional normal OS-user. It is a regret that alef has gone and limbo
    is not available under Plan 9. (Or is it?) As there is no simple
    introduction to Plan 9 new users will just go the easy way and get
    Windows or Linux.

    bblochl


  11. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:
    > If people say "Plan 9 is too hard to use" they will allocate blame to
    > Rob Pike's rio before reading his tirade on other windowing systems
    > (which you can find at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz).

    With this link ione only gets the starting page of the paper. Is there
    any other source for the complete Paper (without cost)?

    bblochl


  12. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    > Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:
    >> If people say "Plan 9 is too hard to use" they will allocate blame to
    >> Rob Pike's rio before reading his tirade on other windowing systems
    >> (which you can find at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz).

    > With this link ione only gets the starting page of the paper. Is there
    > any other source for the complete Paper (without cost)?
    >
    > bblochl


    I'm not sure what you're looking at, but when I downloaded and
    uncompressed that paper I got the whole thing.

    John



  13. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    john@csplan9.rit.edu schrieb:
    >> Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:
    >>
    >>> If people say "Plan 9 is too hard to use" they will allocate blame to
    >>> Rob Pike's rio before reading his tirade on other windowing systems
    >>> (which you can find at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz).
    >>>

    >> With this link ione only gets the starting page of the paper. Is there
    >> any other source for the complete Paper (without cost)?
    >>
    >> bblochl
    >>

    >
    > I'm not sure what you're looking at, but when I downloaded and
    > uncompressed that paper I got the whole thing.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >
    >

    1. Where are the examples?
    2. Have you ever worked with srtudents?

    bblochl


  14. Re: [9fans] sad commentary


    On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:48 AM, bblochl wrote:

    > Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:
    >> If people say "Plan 9 is too hard to use" they will allocate blame
    >> to Rob Pike's rio before reading his tirade on other windowing
    >> systems (which you can find at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz)
    >> .

    > With this link ione only gets the starting page of the paper. Is
    > there any other source for the complete Paper (without cost)?
    >
    > bblochl
    >


    Get a different PostScript viewer. It works for me.



  15. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    RMS has the power to turn people away from "bad" technology. Remember
    that now.

    On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:46 AM, bblochl wrote:

    > Pietro Gagliardi schrieb:
    >
    >> People do acknowledge the new free systems. Unfortunately, RMS got
    >> them off it in a microsecond when 3e came out:
    >>
    >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html
    >>
    >> And I don't believe the Note at the top will change people's minds.
    >>

    > Wikipedia says:
    > License
    > The full source code is freely available under Lucent Public License
    > 1.02, and considered to be open source by the OSI and free software
    > by the FSF (although incompatible with the GNU General Public
    > License). It passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
    >
    > From another mail: "But the world has pretty much forgotten Plan 9
    > even exists (and lets not even mention Inferno)."...............
    >
    > I do think, that its not the license, the main problem of plan 9 is
    > the lack of a tutorial for beginners and examples for some
    > applications and at best with some exercises to practice. Well,
    > there is a bulky manual. The collection of papers "Plan 9 The
    > Documents (Volume 2)" is more readable. But learning from manuals
    > compares to learning a language from a dictionary. There is a need
    > for some more "readable". For example the role of make as an
    > equivalent for cc is not self-evident for a traditional normal OS-
    > user. It is a regret that alef has gone and limbo is not available
    > under Plan 9. (Or is it?) As there is no simple introduction to Plan
    > 9 new users will just go the easy way and get Windows or Linux.
    >
    > bblochl
    >




  16. Re: [9fans] sad commentary

    On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
    > functionality for plan 9 by name.
    >


    actually, this the scenario for which we designed xcpu, almost exactly.

    Mount, start up, disconnect, come back later ... I've used it this way.

    ron


+ Reply to Thread