Dear List,
I am in the process of installing an Octopus PC on plan9. Following
the INSTALL.Octopus instructions I have
- downloaded the o.zip to /usr/octopus
- unzipped the file there
- On a plan I then run rc ./usr/octopus/lib/Install.Plan9.rc which
starts asking for network setup and a PC passw
Hi,
I recently got myself a lovely Nokia N810 internet tablet. That runs
Debian ARM and I thought I'd have a stab at compiling P9P for it.
Unfortunately, the makecontext/swapcontext calls are not supported on
that platform by Debian.
I noticed that libthread/Linux.c has implementations of those t
> The code in Linux.c that implements makecontext() for ARM expects this
> struct to contain a gregs array. I'm guessing that gregs is the same
> as the enumerated arm_* ones above. So, would I be correct in assuming
> that gregs[13] is arm_sp and gregs[14] is arm_lr?
Hi, I would say yes, as SP is
> cmucl is directly executable but it has only enough
> intelligence to load a big lisp.core, which contains
> all the smarts.
If these core files aren't generated all *that* often,
one could write a tool which would turn a core file
into a byte array, link a new lisp executable, and
exec() that.
Dear List,
I have been fiddling with the mail setup on my CPU server.
This machine has to deliver all mail to my ISPs smtp so I set the
rewrite script to rewrite.gateway. The ISPs smtp rejected my mail
though because it expected a From: line different to my [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or the default $fd se
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Dave Eckhardt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
> > cmucl is directly executable but it has only enough
> > intelligence to load a big lisp.core, which contains
> > all the smarts.
>
> If these core files aren't generated all *that* often,
> one could wr
Has the setup.sh execute permissions?
Is /usr/octopus unpacked correctly under inferno, so that
it might be something like /usr/inferno/usr/octopus on the
Plan 9 system?
I think all the problem is that the files are being extracted
without execute permissions. This did not happen when we
used tar
* Francisco J Ballesteros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:30]:
> Has the setup.sh execute permissions?
> Is /usr/octopus unpacked correctly under inferno, so that
> it might be something like /usr/inferno/usr/octopus on the
> Plan 9 system?
>
> I think all the problem is that the files are being ex
I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page,
and build those on my Debian stable machine.
I also read the paper of vx32 last week.
Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with
games/mahjongg on that virtual machine.
Thank you very much Russ!
However, I have somewhat
> This machine has to deliver all mail to my ISPs smtp so I set the
> rewrite script to rewrite.gateway. The ISPs smtp rejected my mail
> though because it expected a From: line different to my [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> or the default $fd set in remotemail. I added a
is the problem that you require tha
probably just /dis/* and /dis/*/*
It would be safe to add usr/octopus/lib/*.{sh, rc}
I'll try to reproduce what's happening to you here and fix
the install.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Christian Kellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Francisco J Ballesteros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:
On 7/8/08, Michael Teichgräber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The code in Linux.c that implements makecontext() for ARM expects this
> > struct to contain a gregs array. I'm guessing that gregs is the same
> > as the enumerated arm_* ones above. So, would I be correct in assuming
> > that gregs[13]
* erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:40]:
> > This machine has to deliver all mail to my ISPs smtp so I set the
> > rewrite script to rewrite.gateway. The ISPs smtp rejected my mail
> > though because it expected a From: line different to my [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > or the default $fd set i
I believe the reasoning is as such:
Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
Use Linux as your driver repository... this is an approach used by some
microkernel systems like L4.
Dave
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I downloaded Russ
> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>
> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?
in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admin
> * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:40]:
>> > This machine has to deliver all mail to my ISPs smtp so I set the
>> > rewrite script to rewrite.gateway. The ISPs smtp rejected my mail
>> > though because it expected a From: line different to my [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > or the default $fd
* erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:10]:
> > * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:40]:
> smtp goes to the trouble of transforming lines like
>
> From: erik quanstrom
>
> to
> From: erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> provided fd=example.com
This is indeed
* Christian Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:23]:
> * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:10]:
> > > * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:40]:
>
> Instead of having From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I now get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
And I would need From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
> rid of plan 9?
>
Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
for people
> Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
> tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
> for people to consider using the real thing.
yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, GCOS,
...
which didn't do all that mu
There are two different "From" addresses associated
with a particular mail message. There is the RFC822
"From:" line and then there is the "MAIL FROM" return
address that is sent as part of the SMTP conversation.
(This is the address recorded in the "From " line at the
top of the Plan 9 mbox-forma
> * Christian Kellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:23]:
>> * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:10]:
>> > > * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 17:40]:
>>
>> Instead of having From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I now get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> And I would need From: [EMAIL PR
> However, I have somewhat confused mind Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?
i'm not sure if this was the authors' intent, but making plan
> here's the symptom
>
> ndb/dnsquery 9hal.ath.cx
> 9hal.ath.cx ip 9.0.0.0
Fixed. Instead of the tacky solution, one can check
the return value from v4parseip.
> on a related note, would it be worth while to
> put effort into supporting ptr queries, ip6 &c using
> the host's lookup
> I intend 9vx to be a very thin layer atop the host's
> resources, not a second machine that you have
> to administer. If you want a second machine, there is
> always VMware.
as far as i know, neither plan 9 terminals nor cpu servers
need individual administration.
- erik
> However, I have somewhat confused mind Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9? I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?
I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use
Plan
Well, there's also people like me: I prefer and am able to use
Plan 9 the bulk of the time, but have a few particular tasks I
need Linux for. It'd be nice to be able to stick the Linux box
in a little jail.
I'm very glad 9vx exists: I now have Plan 9 on my OS X laptop.
I'd like Lvx to stick on my
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>>
>> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
>
> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
> on top of linux. it's not like you can
>> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
>> on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining
>> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
>>
>
> That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used.
> I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lg
> I need to chmod +x the files in /dis/* also somewhere else?
I just switched to using the .iso when I noticed that the unzipped
tree didn't have the right permissions.
Sorry I didn't get around to reporting it.
grai
* Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080708 18:56]:
>
> As for how to do it "right", editing remotemail sounds fine.
> The nice thing about upas is you can understand the shell
> scripts and edit them, instead of having to shoehorn
> everything into some preordained config file.
Thanks for clarifying
there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think
eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get
a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own
access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full
network information. espec
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I believe the reasoning is as such:
> >
> > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
>
> if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
> rid of plan 9?
I'm just saying I would n
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:07:59 PDT "David Leimbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Dave Eckhardt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> wrote:
>
> > > cmucl is directly executable but it has only enough
> > > intelligence to load a big lisp.core, which contains
> there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think
> eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get
> a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own
> access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full
> network informat
i believe i am, but perhaps your experience is different from
mine. certainly there's less stuff to worry about patches for
if you've got less stuff on the box. again, the idea is not to
take ubuntu (or whatever) and stick a VM on top, but rather to
strip the linux down to just what's needed to run
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
>>> on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining
>>> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
>>>
>>
>> That's not entirely true depending on the vir
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, William Josephson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>> I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all
>> tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup
>> lgues
if you make it executable, i think you should also find that the resulting
executable has its contents read into memory on demand (ie, a page fault causes
a read from the executable file), which might suit you.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, William Josephson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major
> pain with most of the common distributions.
yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org
for a reasonable system, used at sandia on a 4096-node cluster.
for
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:12:10 BST C H Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you make it executable, i think you should also find that the resulting
> executable has its contents read into memory on demand (ie, a page fault
> causes
> a read from the executable file), which might suit you.
Right
> yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org
Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried
building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps)
and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating
you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using
v9fs rather than n
> Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried
> building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps)
> and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating
> you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using
> v9fs rather than nfs.
I had the same idea few days
It was a good thing that you noticed the zip has permission problems.
thanks
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Tony Lainson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I need to chmod +x the files in /dis/* also somewhere else?
>
> I just switched to using the .iso when I noticed that the unzipped
> tree didn't
But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?
The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files
whose contents are another file's path. As long as the kernel
knows how to interpret it I'm sure it'd be fine. Look at th
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM, don bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
>> on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?
>>
>
> The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files
> whose contents are another file's path.
On 2008-Jul-6, at 14:59 , Brantley Coile wrote:
I remember the day I first saw a file magic file. I welcomed it
because for the first time I didn't have access to the source code.
Those were the days when you had to have $45k to get the source.
Closer to $100K for most people. I had great
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems
> over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code
> that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even
> recall all the
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
> RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.
>
unless we all get smart and go into banking.
ron
>> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
>> RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.
>>
>
> unless we all get smart and go into banking.
then you'll have fun chasing a different set of
endlessly changing rules.
- erik
x: proc options(main);
put skip list('What's Wrong with PR1ME?');
put skip;
end x;
/* sorry, couldn't resist */
I mean, you make it sound like the wonderful combination of Fortran IV, PL/I
(PL/1G, PL/P & SPL), Pascal & BASIC (BASICV too) weren't enough!
Sheesh, this is perfectly resonable:
OK, pl
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
> > RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.
> >
>
> unless
52 matches
Mail list logo
