I bought one of these to test as a portable hdmi display:
https://www.waveshare.com/7inch-fhd-monitor.htm
What I didn't realize till I read the fine print was that it only supports
portrait mode (and rather non-standard video settings) - presumably the
display is made with mobile phones in mind.
T
Oh yes, I read Eldon Halls book on that quite a few years ago. Meetings
held to discuss competing potential uses for a word of memory that had
become free.
That one would be a challenging Plan9 port..
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 05:13, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> Digby R.S. Tarvin wri
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 21:40, Ethan Gardener wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I would agree with that. The 20 bit addressing of the 8086 and
> 8088 did not change their 16 bit nature. They were still 16 bit program
> counter, with segmentation to provide access to a larger memory - similar
> in principle
oc after all, where the modulation is
> done by dedicated chips, not on cpu! :)
>
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, Digby R.S. Tarvin
> wrote:
> > I don't know which other ARM board you tried, but I have always found
> terrible I/O performance of the Pi to be a bigger
I don't know which other ARM board you tried, but I have always found
terrible I/O performance of the Pi to be a bigger problem that the ARM
speed. The USB2 interface is really slow, and there arn't really many
other (documented) alternative options. The Ethernet goes through the same
slow USB int
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 23:00, Ethan Gardener wrote:
>
> Fascinating thread, but I think you're off by a decade with the 16-bit
> address bus comment, unless you're not actually talking about Plan 9. The
> 8086 and 8088 were introduced with 20-bit addressing in 1978 and 1979
> respectively. The I
write to the
lights and read from the switches, for example..
Regards.
DigbyT
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 14:23, David Arnold wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2018, at 14:08, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
>
>
> <…>
>
> So I don't think it i would be worth a substantial rewrite to get it
&
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:07, Dan Cross wrote:
> My guess is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit
>> comfortably into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial
>> implementation was done targeting a machine with significantly more
>> resources, it would be easy to mak
Does anyone know what platform Plan9 was initially implemented on? My guess
is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit comfortably
into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial implementation was
done targeting a machine with significantly more resources, it would be
eas
small Plan9 can go, and unless
someone has already explored those limits, I suppose rather than
speculating i'll just have to plan on a little experimentation when I get a
bit of spare time.
Regards,
Digby
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 19:13, Nils M Holm wrote:
> On 2018-10-08T15:29:02+1100, Digby R.
2018 at 14:38, Lucio De Re wrote:
> On 10/8/18, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
> >
> > So the question is... is plan9 still lean and mean enough to fit onto a
> > machine with a 64K address space? Doing a port would certainly provide
> > plenty of opportunity to tinker
ooh, there's an idea for new project...
I also have a soft spot for the old PDP11 architecture and aesthetics, and
like the idea of an emulator sitting behind an 11/70 front panel, but I
havn't been able to decide what software to run on it...
Unix ran quite nicely on an 11/70 back in the late 70
I disagree with your assertion that inserting space after 'if', 'for',
'while' etc is universal outside of Plan 9. I have never adopted that
convention, and it looks ugly to me. That is probably because I learned C
by reading the Unix kernel source code (6th Edition) which displays a
preference fo
I'd certainly be happy to give it a good home if nobody else has claimed it.
digby...@gmail.com if you want to discuss logistics off the list...
Digby.
On 2 April 2018 at 16:27, Steve Simon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in the Uk, and moving house.
>
> t have an HP T5325 Thin client which uses the
> s
any more (waste of power).
>
> I project my SSDs will not fail before i get 10/40gbit connection to
> my NAS. Till then my write wear will be limited by my low bandwidth
> and high latency practical use cases.
>
> On 2/4/18, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
> > static web pages
static web pages, remote login (so that I can power/depower other hardware)
and file remote file distribution (via scp) mostly.
The main requirement is very low standby power consumption so that it can
survive on batteries which are recharged using solar panels.
Power consumption was the main rea
experience, I would still tend to go along with Erik's advice
(as relayed by Steve), or perhaps be even more fastidious about backups
when using flash...
On 3 February 2018 at 20:10, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 18:49:50 + "Digby R.S. Tarvin"
> wrote:
&
My experience of running normal (read mostly) Linux filesystems on solid
state media is that SSD is more robust but far less reliable than rotating
media.
MTBF for rotating media for me has been around 10 years. MTBF for SSD has
been about 2. And the SSD always seems to fail catastrophically - app
Thanks Richard for doing this port... It is quite I while since I last
played with Plan9, and what I remember most from that time was how hard it
was to assemble a compatible platform, and that I never had enough bits to
try a real multi-host network. the RPi port promises to solve both problems!
19 matches
Mail list logo
