[9fans] apropos of the glendix post - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] apropos of the glendix post - Plan9 ; I just stumbled across a talk I gave in 2002: Here's one slide: How to fix this (2): 9sys We are building a Plan 9 system call set into Linux It is only 38 calls Three steps Initial support as ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

  1. [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    I just stumbled across a talk I gave in 2002:

    Here's one slide:

    How to fix this (2): 9sys
    We are building a Plan 9 system call set into Linux
    It is only 38 calls
    Three steps
    Initial support as ioctl's from a device (/dev/9sys)
    Direct integration into Linux system call table
    Remove non-Plan 9 system calls (ca. 235 of them)
    Result should be Linux portability with Plan 9 architecture
    Greatly pared-down footprint
    Early code is working now

    Note that the system calls back then were 235 in number, are 300 now.
    Note that one of the steps was "remove

    good luck with glendix, it will be fun if it works. I stopped work on
    9sys when lucent fixed the license.

    ron


  2. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    Interesting. Where is the source for 9sys?

    Peace

    uriel


    On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM, ron minnich wrote:
    > I just stumbled across a talk I gave in 2002:
    >
    > Here's one slide:
    >
    > How to fix this (2): 9sys
    > We are building a Plan 9 system call set into Linux
    > It is only 38 calls
    > Three steps
    > Initial support as ioctl's from a device (/dev/9sys)
    > Direct integration into Linux system call table
    > Remove non-Plan 9 system calls (ca. 235 of them)
    > Result should be Linux portability with Plan 9 architecture
    > Greatly pared-down footprint
    > Early code is working now
    >
    > Note that the system calls back then were 235 in number, are 300 now.
    > Note that one of the steps was "remove
    >
    > good luck with glendix, it will be fun if it works. I stopped work on
    > 9sys when lucent fixed the license.
    >
    > ron
    >
    >



  3. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Uriel wrote:
    > Interesting. Where is the source for 9sys?
    >


    It's not worth much.

    I've got it if anyone wants it but I would bet glendix is further
    along and much better.

    ron


  4. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    other than trying every itiration possible (sum over histories of
    software?), i'm not getting the reason why glendix is a good idea.



  5. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
    > other than trying every itiration possible (sum over histories of
    > software?), i'm not getting the reason why glendix is a good idea.
    >


    for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.

    ron


  6. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
    > > other than trying every itiration possible (sum over histories of
    > > software?), i'm not getting the reason why glendix is a good idea.
    > >

    >
    > for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.


    what drivers are the problem?

    - erik


  7. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    On 03-Sep-08, at 3:02 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>> other than trying every itiration possible (sum over histories of
    >>> software?), i'm not getting the reason why glendix is a good idea.
    >>>

    >>
    >> for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.

    >
    > what drivers are the problem?


    Any ethernet or video card that Plan 9 doesn't support (there are
    plenty).

    --
    Anant



  8. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    >>> for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.
    >>
    >> what drivers are the problem?

    >
    > Any ethernet or video card that Plan 9 doesn't support (there are
    > plenty).


    surely you don't own *all* the unsupported cards?

    - erik



  9. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    On 03-Sep-08, at 7:45 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >>>> for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.
    >>>
    >>> what drivers are the problem?

    >>
    >> Any ethernet or video card that Plan 9 doesn't support (there are
    >> plenty).

    >
    > surely you don't own *all* the unsupported cards?


    No, but I use a Macbook Pro, and I have friends who would like to run
    Plan 9 but can't because of the hardware they own. Think of Glendix as
    a stop-gap solution until they get new hardware or until more drivers
    are written for Plan 9 :-)

    --
    Anant



  10. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    > surely you don't own *all* the unsupported cards?

    The growing integration makes you own at least one of each :-(

    I got the impression that Ron's particular bugbear was the integrated
    wireless adapter.

    ++L



  11. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    there are more people working on stop-gap solutions than drivers so I
    wonder how long we'll have to wait for the drivers to be written

    On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
    > On 03-Sep-08, at 7:45 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.
    >>>>
    >>>> what drivers are the problem?
    >>>
    >>> Any ethernet or video card that Plan 9 doesn't support (there are
    >>> plenty).

    >>
    >> surely you don't own *all* the unsupported cards?

    >
    > No, but I use a Macbook Pro, and I have friends who would like to run Plan 9
    > but can't because of the hardware they own. Think of Glendix as a stop-gap
    > solution until they get new hardware or until more drivers are written for
    > Plan 9 :-)
    >
    > --
    > Anant
    >
    >
    >



  12. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    wireless network cards.

    On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
    >> > other than trying every itiration possible (sum over histories of
    >> > software?), i'm not getting the reason why glendix is a good idea.
    >> >

    >>
    >> for me, it's the same thing over and over again. drivers.

    >
    > what drivers are the problem?
    >
    > - erik
    >
    >



  13. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
    > there are more people working on stop-gap solutions than drivers so I
    > wonder how long we'll have to wait for the drivers to be written


    given the increasing use of binary blobs, maybe forever.

    ron


  14. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post


    > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
    >> there are more people working on stop-gap solutions than drivers so I
    >> wonder how long we'll have to wait for the drivers to be written

    >
    > given the increasing use of binary blobs, maybe forever.
    >
    > ron
    >


    Perhaps integrating support for vendor binary-only drivers would be
    worthwhile...woulden't this also provide a good excuse to do ioctl as
    well?*


    *(kidding...kidding...)




  15. Re: [9fans] apropos of the glendix post

    if linux can use binary blobs, why can't plan9 do it too?

    On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:03 PM, ron minnich wrote:
    > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
    >> there are more people working on stop-gap solutions than drivers so I
    >> wonder how long we'll have to wait for the drivers to be written

    >
    > given the increasing use of binary blobs, maybe forever.
    >
    > ron
    >
    >



+ Reply to Thread