Slashdot Mirror

9p is a protocol. the file systems in Plan 9 are venti and fossil

9p in itself is worthy of including in the linux kernel, if only the guys there would do it right (their track record isn't too good with Plan 9 things).

More about 9p dould be found in section 5 of the man pages

9p is a protocol. the file systems in Plan 9 are venti and fossil

9p in itself is worthy of including in the linux kernel, if only the guys there would do it right (their track record isn't too good with Plan 9 things).

More about 9p dould be found in section 5 of the man pages

9p is a protocol. the file systems in Plan 9 are venti and fossil

9p in itself is worthy of including in the linux kernel, if only the guys there would do it right (their track record isn't too good with Plan 9 things).

More about 9p dould be found in section 5 of the man pages

First there was BCPL, which engendered B, then C, named by the next letter in BCPL. Ergo, the next language should be called P Paul

Plan 9's new take on `make' is `mk'. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a good on-line source for the original paper on mk:

A. G. Hume, Mk: a successor to make , USENIX Phoenix 1987 Summer Conference Proceedings, 445-457 (1987).

I seem to have no trouble finding things that reference this paper. The following might also be helpful:

• mk man page
• Maintaining Files on Plan 9 with Mk
• Plan 9 Mkfiles

Plan 9's new take on `make' is `mk'. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a good on-line source for the original paper on mk:

A. G. Hume, Mk: a successor to make , USENIX Phoenix 1987 Summer Conference Proceedings, 445-457 (1987).

I seem to have no trouble finding things that reference this paper. The following might also be helpful:

• mk man page
• Maintaining Files on Plan 9 with Mk
• Plan 9 Mkfiles

Plan 9's new take on `make' is `mk'. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a good on-line source for the original paper on mk:

A. G. Hume, Mk: a successor to make , USENIX Phoenix 1987 Summer Conference Proceedings, 445-457 (1987).

I seem to have no trouble finding things that reference this paper. The following might also be helpful:

• mk man page
• Maintaining Files on Plan 9 with Mk
• Plan 9 Mkfiles

It amuses me that some of the lawers in the case had names like Crummy and Roach.

heh. How appropriate.

So shut up, you little twerp.

user level servers are the right direction

the superuser is pretty evil

so much effort is put into rootkits and escalating privileges, imagine a world where there are no privileges to escalate, where file creation is forever and incremented backups are built in complete with block level archiving (if the block is already in the archive then don't bother [& then imagine backing up 100 windows clients to it]). Add single sign-on for the whole network (where no passwords are ever even on the wire let alone in the clear) and a few other new ideas such as a regex replacement for the mess that is file association and it's ilk.

Think Hurd will ever be there?

As you may have gathered there's no need to imagine

user level servers are the right direction

the superuser is pretty evil

so much effort is put into rootkits and escalating privileges, imagine a world where there are no privileges to escalate, where file creation is forever and incremented backups are built in complete with block level archiving (if the block is already in the archive then don't bother [& then imagine backing up 100 windows clients to it]). Add single sign-on for the whole network (where no passwords are ever even on the wire let alone in the clear) and a few other new ideas such as a regex replacement for the mess that is file association and it's ilk.

Think Hurd will ever be there?

As you may have gathered there's no need to imagine

user level servers are the right direction

the superuser is pretty evil

so much effort is put into rootkits and escalating privileges, imagine a world where there are no privileges to escalate, where file creation is forever and incremented backups are built in complete with block level archiving (if the block is already in the archive then don't bother [& then imagine backing up 100 windows clients to it]). Add single sign-on for the whole network (where no passwords are ever even on the wire let alone in the clear) and a few other new ideas such as a regex replacement for the mess that is file association and it's ilk.

Think Hurd will ever be there?

As you may have gathered there's no need to imagine

user level servers are the right direction

the superuser is pretty evil

so much effort is put into rootkits and escalating privileges, imagine a world where there are no privileges to escalate, where file creation is forever and incremented backups are built in complete with block level archiving (if the block is already in the archive then don't bother [& then imagine backing up 100 windows clients to it]). Add single sign-on for the whole network (where no passwords are ever even on the wire let alone in the clear) and a few other new ideas such as a regex replacement for the mess that is file association and it's ilk.

Think Hurd will ever be there?

As you may have gathered there's no need to imagine

user level servers are the right direction

the superuser is pretty evil

so much effort is put into rootkits and escalating privileges, imagine a world where there are no privileges to escalate, where file creation is forever and incremented backups are built in complete with block level archiving (if the block is already in the archive then don't bother [& then imagine backing up 100 windows clients to it]). Add single sign-on for the whole network (where no passwords are ever even on the wire let alone in the clear) and a few other new ideas such as a regex replacement for the mess that is file association and it's ilk.

Think Hurd will ever be there?

As you may have gathered there's no need to imagine

In point of fact, Ritchie created Unix to run a chess program, not for telecommunications. Only later, when AT&T discoverd that Unix was a very creditable OS, was it used for more prosaic, business related work.

Actually, Ritchie *and* Thompson created UNIX to play Space Travel. You can read all about it in the definitive history of UNIX written by Ritchie himself... here.

Further history (can't find a reference) is that Ritchie and Thompson were later asked to justify what they'd just built. They hurriedly reworked Unix to be used by the trademark office for document typesetting (eg, multiple users on dumb terminals with text editors). So the first practical use of Unix was... yes... a desktop!

Coolest sounding name?
How about Lesbian Linux or GeekOS ?

Or there is the good old Plan9 and they even have a Rabbit mascot.

emacs apache RCS COPS SATAN bind sendmail perl python ruby innd (all of USENET except UUCP) ntp

I missed that story. Apparently, either RMS missed it as well, or he's busy.

The revised license looks much better, but it still has a couple problems. For one thing, it still requires adherence to the US export controls, which can approach extraterritoriality. Changing it to refer to something along the lines of "the export control laws of Distributor's jurisdiction" may have served better. And haven't the US laws changed so that export of open-source crypto (except to Cuba, Libya, etc.) doesn't need a license?

This part worries me: "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."

Other questions are more practical: 1. Does Plan 9 support computer hardware commonly available at Best Buy? 2. Does Plan 9 support enough widely used desktop software to make migration from Windows or Linux not a pain?

Well, there's always Plan 9's fossil. Oh... you mean Linux software?

" Plan 9 is now open source"

I think this is old news. Press realease dates from June/2000 . Slashdot also has a story about it
Hey, but thanks to CmdrTaco its currently new news again according to Google. . You never know when dups come to hunt you...

In related news, micro$oft has just released Windows 2000 Server

---
Need a time machine?

And is it me, or does that bunny look like it has Downe Syndrome? Slap on a funny helmet, throw it on a short bus, and you're golden.

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form.
--Lucent Public License

It looks kind of like the BSD license. One may actually be able to steal code from it with impunity. All contributions may be redistributed, or altered and redistributed, in binary or source form.

The next paragraph (visit the URL yourself) grants the same rights to any patents which cover contributed code! Talk about protection.

Sweet! Glenda is so much cooler than Tux

You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.

This has been changed:
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if distributed in any form, e.g., binary or source.

and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.

Ammended:
You may also, at Your option, charge for any other software, product or service that includes or incorporates the Original Software as a part thereof.

The rest of the sections RMS dislikes are still in the Plan 9 Open Source License Version 1.4 - 09/10/02. But the license is good enough for me. I will download a copy as soon as the slashdotting subsides.

Very nice. Shame my laptop won't work with Plan-9, I was tempted to put a copy on it.

If you found the Plan-9 FAQ but saw the URL to the Plan-9 wiki was broken, try http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/plan_9_wiki/ .

Bell Labs have another server with the same contents here.

This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

There is no hidden in http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html .

It has a program called scat, and a rabbit with a large brain tumour..what more could you want?

From the screenshots, doesn't look like it has a ton of bells and whistles.

C for Dummies is horrible. It's extremely platform-dependent and ought to be called "C for DOS for Dummies," or maybe "C for Borland C++ for DOS for Dummies"). It wastes far too much space with plodding, tiresome explanations and cornball jokes. I recommend avoiding it at all costs.

I advise people who are new to programming to follow these introductory notes with K&R2 and the comp.lang.c FAQ as reference materials.

But "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU" is a descriptive phrase, not a former trademark. (OTOH, you could buy a box of cigars marked "Corona" and not think you're getting parts for a certain model of Toyota.) And see
Dennis Ritchies "other UNIX" page for a collection of commercial "UNIX" items that aren't operating systems (hence the use of the mark is allowable).

All Microsoft has to do is claim that their "Windows Unix" certainly has common 'nix features (hierarchical file system, multi-tasking, some degree of POSIX compliance) to beat a deceptive advertising rap. (Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)

Yeah, right, UNIX is trademarked. Well, there are some : Other Unix (from Dennis Ritchie Home Page )

Yeah, right, UNIX is trademarked. Well, there are some : Other Unix (from Dennis Ritchie Home Page )

It doesn't even apply to computers anymore...

It can refer to diapers, tupperware, fire-extinguisher, modular book shelving, ball-point pens, towel drying rack, antifog thinner, a TV antennae, a massage tool, eyeglass products, security cameras, an auto-parts trading company, a rental van, a furniture store, a dance bar, a fabric store

or a Korean Metal company...

it's also a hair salon,

and finally, it's a product for fungal diseases of wheat and barley... "There are those who take risks, and those who take UNIX."

The name Open Group came around the time commercial Unix vendors were talking about Open Standards . It was before esr coined the term Open Source

By Open Standards, they were describing royalty free specifications and interoperability, But nothing about free redistribution. By proprietary, they meant non-published standards or ones with royalties attached, not access to source code. The plan was a base level interoperability and then their own set of features as a market differentiator.

This time period was referred to as The Unix Wars.

Dennis Ricthie has been noting products with the Unix name on his pages at Bell Labs.

... isn't it?

• The final type of overlap identified by Professor Carson is "comment" overlap. All computer programs contain short explanatory comments annotating the code in which they are embedded. The function of these comments is simply to inform programmers of the purpose and operation of particular sections of code. Comments have no role whatsoever in software performance.

• ...

  After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available

That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.

Similar comments makes this case sound a lot like the USL vs. BSDI case. Unix version 32V is effectively public-domain.

*
* You are not expected to understand this.
*/

/*
* Buddy system. Hairy. You really aren't expected to understand this
*/

/* You are not expected to understand this */

So if anyone wonders why nothing good ever gets done from our company, this is why.

sshnet doesn't present a remote filesystem as local

plan9 does that all over but certainly not via a remote machines SSH server afaik


What one could do though it sshnet into the remote machine (M) and utilise M's TCP stack.
Now all network commands for this process group only will use M's TCP stack.

Then we use ftpfs to present M's ftp service as files in our tree for this process group.

No kernel modules required

And any processes that get forked from our group will have those those remote files available via SSH and they won't have to even know anything about ftp or ssh or squat didly about anything except manipulating files.

Putting something in the kernel that is manipulated by third parties seems a bit too trusting for my liking.

You are therefore convinced that feature.c was SCO property and a meaningful part of SCO products circa 1995, not just added in two months ago so they could sue Linux. If feature.c later turned up in Linux, then somebody might have stolen it.

Of course, it may have been in Unix version 32V which effectively is public domain, or the then-owners of Unix might have ripped it off from BSD.

Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?

I thought the same thing, but I just got done looking at the some of the legal documents from the Original AT&T/BSD case.

In particular, the final opinion in that case shows that the judge did take the time to understand everything.

I also find it rather enlightening to see just how poorly a copyright/trade secret suit was to prove when it was AT&T funding the fight. Makes me believe even less in SCO's chances.

Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?

I thought the same thing, but I just got done looking at the some of the legal documents from the Original AT&T/BSD case.

In particular, the final opinion in that case shows that the judge did take the time to understand everything.

I also find it rather enlightening to see just how poorly a copyright/trade secret suit was to prove when it was AT&T funding the fight. Makes me believe even less in SCO's chances.

There is an enormous difference between an expert programmer sitting down with a pile of textbooks and disjointed segments of code to write out an operating system from scratch, and that same programmer downloading the operating system intact from a public network.

---US District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ruling in the AT&T/BSD lawsuit