Yes I started on working the toolchain a couple years ago, based on
some earlier work done at the labs. Development stalled due to other
work at the time and I never got back to it.
But it's on sources (tim/4acl.tgz) if anybody wants to pick it up.
I'm happy to provide any help.
tim
> tim weis
> i stumbled upon this the other day. xmonad is a tiling window manager
> written in haskell that looks similar to acme, although it can be
> completely keyboard-driven. if anyone has used it please comment on
> it.
I use it as my X WM. So far I've been pretty satisfied with it. By
default you ca
> That said, how do we mobilise the community to focus on useful
> drivers? I suppose we start with Ron's wish list, then we explore
> Russ' partially complete postings (i386 emulation, Centrino drivers,
> I'm sure I've forgotten many more) and thirdly we post a list of
> willing contributors, pos
>> The advantage of 9vx over drawterm, for me, is that 9vx
>> doesn't require a cpu server.
>
> You are not using Plan 9 anymore then, rather you are using something
> similar to Plan 9.
>
> I felt that Plan 9 is abused by 9vx, which I felt at first glance, but
> at that time I didn't want to say
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Tim Wiess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you can wait a couple days I'll have some time later in the
>> week to port this over to OpenBSD.
>>
>>
>>> I'm currently trying to get 9vx work on OpenBSD-4.3 (i386, 7
If you can wait a couple days I'll have some time later in the
week to port this over to OpenBSD.
> I'm currently trying to get 9vx work on OpenBSD-4.3 (i386, 750Mhz,
> 256MB RAM), but each time I want to start 9vx I get the following:
>
> $ ./9vx.FreeBSD -u glenda
> Abort Trap
> $
>
> Of cours
>> this slashdot article almost asks for cpu
>> functionality for plan 9 by name.
>>
>> http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/08/06/29/1417247.shtml
>>
>> not a single mention of plan 9. i hope
>> this is an indication that slashdot has
>> slipped.
>>
>> screens? 1978 called and wants its
>> ter
>> rfc 742 p. 42 says
>>
>> [...] If the the user signals a push function then the
>> data must be sent even if it is a small segment.
>>
>> by "illegal" i mean goes contrary to an rfc "must." perhaps
>> i'm missing something.
>
> i don't see how what was sent is contrary to that re
>> what's the definition of `wrong' here?
>> Meaning that the patch Eric proposed is probably the better way to
>> deal with ACKs. It wasn't meant to be taken too literally though,
>> hence the "I think".
>
> what's the definition of `better' here?
>
> well, i won't persist in pedant
>> I noticed this some time ago when I was doing some work in the
>> stack and thought it was very questionable. But I never got a
>> chance to go back and do further research. Nevertheless I think
>> it's the wrong behavior.
>
> what's the definition of `wrong' here?
Meanin
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:18:31 BST Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > having said that, i now suspect that sending one byte into a zero-window
>>> > is
>>> not the problem.
>>>
>>> because the one-byte probe can only be done if there is data to send, and i
>>> already knew that a
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:04:23 PDT "ron minnich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is really an interesting discussion -- anybody think it could go
>> on the wiki? I enjoyed it anyway :-)
>>
>> A good example of how correct behaviour (in this case Plan 9) can get
>> you spanked.
>
> Er... "corr
12 matches
Mail list logo
