> TinyCoreLinux 3.0 was released on the end of last month.
Sorry, I was so focused on other things that I missed the announcement.
> I could not find the tvx package from the repository of TCL 3.0.
> Do you have plan to update the tvx package?
yes, I will update it for TCL-3.0, but I'll need a
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:43 PM, EBo wrote:
>
> I'm pleased to announce that the latest update of tvx has been uploaded to
> TinyCoreLinux.
>
> Please give it a try and let me know if you find any bugs.
>
TinyCoreLinux 3.0 was released on the end of last month.
I could not find the tvx package fro
I'm pleased to announce that the latest update of tvx has been uploaded to
TinyCoreLinux.
Please give it a try and let me know if you find any bugs.
Best regards,
EBo --
On 28 May 2010, at 17:04, Bakul Shah wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:36 BST Ethan Grammatikidis > wrote:
On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
If BSD had
implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
less surprisi
On 28 May 2010, at 17:26, erik quanstrom wrote:
are ls, grep, and diff.
bsd: never an option too arcane to refuse.
s/bsd/bsd|gnu/
Actually freebsd uses gnu grep and both get diff from the diffutils
package.
--
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis
> are ls, grep, and diff.
bsd: never an option too arcane to refuse.
- erik
On 28 May 2010, at 16:09, Steve Simon wrote:
almost no unix programs (other than find)
bother with mount points.
Ok, only because it was in my final year exams, I know of one more
pwd needs to understand mount points (or did in v7) so it can step
over them - no doubt ther is a getwd() system
> The kernel needs to keep the full path to $PWD in order to
> perform this simplification with relative paths. In effect
> the kernel needs to strip out all .. from a given path before
> interpreting it. And of course the kernel must check that
> names an existent directory.
cf. /sys/src/9/por
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:36 BST Ethan Grammatikidis
wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > If BSD had
> > implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
> > the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
> > less surprising.
>
> This "correct" imp
> almost no unix programs (other than find)
> bother with mount points.
Ok, only because it was in my final year exams, I know of one more
pwd needs to understand mount points (or did in v7) so it can step
over them - no doubt ther is a getwd() system call these days,
darn'ed new fangled things.
> > would you deconstruct bind/mount points as well?
> > recursively? that way lies vms/windows.
>
> No, a bind's different... Maybe I'm being an idiot, but I'd like to
> have a neat & tidy argument against symlinks, saying symlinks
> introduce a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of
On 28 May 2010, at 12:59, erik quanstrom wrote:
On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
If BSD had
implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
less surprising.
This "correct" implementation of symlinks has never se
> On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > If BSD had
> > implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
> > the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
> > less surprising.
>
> This "correct" implementation of symlinks has never seemed right to
> me. Linux /
On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
If BSD had
implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
less surprising.
This "correct" implementation of symlinks has never seemed right to
me. Linux / Bash used to do it the
On 28 May 2010, at 11:34, erik quanstrom wrote:
Anyway, what really stuck in my mind from Korn's post was his
characterization of symbolic links as a "non local goto", and I got
the impression from the "paper" that he was not enthusiastic about
the
idea in general, much less the implementati
> Anyway, what really stuck in my mind from Korn's post was his
> characterization of symbolic links as a "non local goto", and I got
> the impression from the "paper" that he was not enthusiastic about the
> idea in general, much less the implementations.
and, the whole idea breaks down unless th
>
> Maybe it's as simple as a buffer overflow in devfs-posix.c?
>
that's trivial to test. try lotsafiles with ramfs.
- erik
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM, EBo wrote:
> That's how I break it, but I thought it had to do with overwriting
> programs while running them.
Interesting, but I doubt that's it. Reason being that I can also drive
it to destruction by doing a very large tar pipeline or HG commit.
But what occu
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> I think Ron was referring to Korn's 1987 usenet posting,
> where Korn said "the implementation of symbolic links on BSD
> Unix is a botch".
Uh oh. Is my memory really that bad? Cart me off to the Rock of Ages
Home for Retired Hackers! Do I get
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM, EBo wrote:
>
>> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
>> man pages or source.
>
> maybe, but I know that the first time submitted a package for review they
> specifically pointed it out and asked me to break them up.
Hmm. Seems that
>> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
>> Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
>
> Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned
up
> primarily references to your original post (and a former US Ambassador
to
> Togo).
I'm personally bet
On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:59:33 PDT Chad Brown wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>
> > Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> > Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
>
> Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned
On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned up
primarily references to your original post (and a former US
> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
> man pages or source.
maybe, but I know that the first time submitted a package for review they
specifically pointed it out and asked me to break them up. I do not
remember if it was rejected for that reason, or stated as a
>> Have you been able to do do anything and cause it to repeatedly die in
>> the
>> same place?
>
> I can drive it over the edge on SMP if I move a lot of data through it.
What's your best guess to where to start looking at the problem?
> It's harder to blow it up on non-SMP but a mk all in /sy
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:30 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
> man pages or source.
>
>
Unless they like emacs.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, EBo wrote:
>
> no real confusion. Using symlinks was simply a judgment call. I consider
> it a hack, but it addresses the issue allowing user modifiable roots while
> also allowing a mode which ensures a pristine environment on boot.
it was the right call.
ron
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:07 AM, EBo wrote:
> Have you been able to do do anything and cause it to repeatedly die in the
> same place?
I can drive it over the edge on SMP if I move a lot of data through it.
It's harder to blow it up on non-SMP but a mk all in /sys/src will do the job.
ron
I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
man pages or source.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:03:18 -0800, Nick LaForge
wrote:
>>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
>
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
>
> I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
> no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
>
> I'm fairly certain this is a bug in the vx32 runtime. I can make
> failures occur less frequently by booting with smp turned off. Other
> ways to explode 9vx include doing a huge commit in sysfromiso.
>
> There's a problem in there somewhere, I'm still trying to work out how
> to even debug it
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version. It was only added as an
>> attempt
>> to deal with people who do not want to make a second copy of the root.
>
> Ebo, I'm sorry if I added to the confusion.
>
> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> Korn's paper "Sym
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:54 AM, EBo wrote:
> One of the things I noticed fairly consistently. When recompiling the
> system various programs are rebuilt/installed while the system is running.
> Unfortunately 9vx does not deal gracefully with this and sometimes
> segfaults. The solution that ha
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:19 AM, EBo wrote:
> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version. It was only added as an attempt
> to deal with people who do not want to make a second copy of the root.
Ebo, I'm sorry if I added to the confusion.
Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a globa
On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:03:18 -0800, Nick LaForge
wrote:
>>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
>
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
>
> I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
> no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
>
>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
option 2 just links to the root dir in /usr/local which is just fine
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:58:51 -0700, ron minnich
wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Nick LaForge
> wrote:
>> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
>> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
>> install in /usr/local, but option 1
On Thu, 27 May 2010 02:51:44 +, ron minnich
wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Nick LaForge
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich
wrote:
>
>>> They're not going away I bet, but what are you talking about here?
>>
>> No, I want symlinks to go away from the universe.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> They're not going away I bet, but what are you talking about here?
>
> No, I want symlinks to go away from the universe. (Bind them in a bag
> and drown them in the ocean)
you'll get n
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Be careful .. did you set up a persistent /home? I'm not sure what you
> have done. There's no substitute at some point for seeing how things
> work at tinycore.org.
Not necessary -- once the install script is fixed to actually follow
the syml
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
> install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
> loopback mount in /tmp.
Is th
> > cp: can't preserve ownership of
> > '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
cp doesn't try to preserve ownership by default.
(unless there's something new and wierd that i
missed.) perhaps you could track down the source
of the cp flags and change them.
> like either
sed '43 s/H/L/' Tvx
Why are there TWO ways for cp to follow symlinks? Why are there
symlinks it all? (That should do it.)
And, still:
cd /sys/doc
ls | grep 8
8
cd 8
Can't cd 8: '8' file does not exist
cd 8½
Can't cd 8½: '8½' file does not exist
cd 8?
ls 8?.ms
8�.ms
touch 9½
ls 9½
9½
Nick
> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
> install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
> loopback mount in /tmp. The only files in my home are in the top
> directory (the l
>> '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
>
> would it be possible given external constraints, to pick
> a name more in keeping with plan 9 style like tvxroot
> rather than Tvx-root?
I would say it is possible/probable but there are a couple of details we
would need to
> '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
would it be possible given external constraints, to pick
a name more in keeping with plan 9 style like tvxroot
rather than Tvx-root?
- erik
I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
loopback mount in /tmp. The only files in my home are in the top
directory (the license, etc
On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:34:13 -0800, Nick LaForge
wrote:
> Amazing. I have no excuse for not using Linux now.
Let me know about your experiences.
EBo --
Amazing. I have no excuse for not using Linux now.
I am please to announce the 05/22/2010 update of Tvx has been accepted
into TinyCoreLinux's standard distribution package list.
This update includes all updates to 9vx and sysfromiso including more
strongarm support, a 9vx wrapper which assists new users in either copying
or linking to the base P
50 matches
Mail list logo
