And one of the most underutilized features of screen is multi-user sessions. I have used this to do XP-style programming with a colleague who was working 900 miles away
The way I did it: Start up screen with a temporary screenrc file that contains: multiuser on addacl other_username detach
Note that I have the screen session detach. Type "screen -ls" to get the screen session name (for the other person), then type "screen -r" to reattach. The other person ssh'd into my machine and typed "screen -x session_name". It is possible to script all of this to make it easier.
We then talked over the phone (headphones highly recommended) while we could simultaneously edit in a vi session. It was hilarious because we'd start yelling at each other "No,no, let ME type." Still, these sessions are always among my most productive programming sessions because we catch each others mistakes and program the parts of the program that we have expertise in.
The reasons for NOW, as mentioned by Ian, seem very much in line with what Plan9 tries to do. Wouldn't effort be better spent in developing:
a. Further documentation, especially for newbies. This would not only further Plan9's exposure, but also introduce more people to the really interesting and quite remarkable concepts on which it is based. Even further, any sort of demos or tutorials would be fantastic, since a lot of us get stuck into particular habits of computing and have trouble exploring new ways of doing things (which Plan9 seems to do all over the place). Plan9 is not targeted for a wider audience, but I feel confident that it would be possible, as well as beneficial, to achieve widespread exposure, if not acceptance, of it.
b. More apps and drivers. I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen it shouldn't be too difficult to write for the OS, since the existing source code is well documented (there's even a detailed, step-by-step walk-through of the kernel code!), and for those who might be able to write video drivers (which are especially needed), the features that need to be implemented or made available are very few. Plan9 seems really usable for those lab guys, and I bet with some more drivers and a few apps, it would be quite usable and accessible to the rest of us.
I'll admit that I have little personal experience with Plan9. I haven't had the time needed to invest in learning how to use it and how it works. But having recently read much of the available documentation (articles and man pages), I have gotten pretty darn excited about it and am planning to begin a more concerted effort in the near future.
So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't vote for Gore or Bush, either. At least there is some response from Nader or his staff. And read what he has to say, he makes some very good points.
Let's also consider this: most of the questions asked by/.ers could be answered with things that/Nader has already said/! I find it remarkable that Nader is addressing these important issues, before we even ask about them (while at the same time, Gore and Bush focus on lame issues and refuse to take stances, lest they offend either the voters or the businesses with which they are buddy-buddy). Now THAT says something.
It may at first seem that RMS's respones truly are childish and self-righteous, but consider this:
1. He is laying down the foundation for a discussion. There are certain facts that need to be straightened out before this can happen. This is much like clarifying definitions in a debate. Miscommunications are often the cause of arguments and conflicts. And in this case, it is quite apparent that some clarifications were in order.
2. RMS addresses a several assumptions made by Jorrit. It is critical, especially in the current technological and social climate, to question what are the driving motivations and VALUES behind what we think and what we do. Your reaction says to me "I don't want to consider what he says because he seems to act like an asshole". I think that RMS's way of discussing things can sometimes be a real turnoff, but he is not one to sacrifice his viewpoints for the sake of being nice. And it is important to note that he is never insulting during the whole of the discourse. He is simply exacting and precise. This is not bad. In a discussion, this sort of Socratic questioning and exactness might make you feel uncomfortable. But it goes to show that there are unaddressed issues underlying your statements, ideas, and assumptions. Bring them to light and face them.
3. RMS hits hard on the issues of VALUES. In an earlier comment someone mentioned that Bill Gates is less psychotic than RMS, his argument being that Gates simply follows what is expected from society, and he does it very well (ie, he works to attain MONEY and SUCCESS). Do you find Gates's values acceptable? If so, say it clearly. Then it is obvious that the crux of the matter is in our values. I do not believe that money and success are the proper values that should drive us in life. I find RMS's values much better.
4. Ahh, so you want to point out hypocrisy in RMS's statements and actions ("I wonder if RMS refuses to use all forms of non-free software, i.e. bank terminals, electronic watches, etc... That would be quite a hoot!" Would doing so really negate the strength of RMS's arguments? Perhaps, if your supposition is correct, he has (he isn't perfect, after all) negelected to consider these things, bank terminals, watches, in light of his values, just as so many of us are apt to do. That does not lessen the truth or validity of the philosophy and ideas that he espouses. Rather, why not consider, "/if/ RMS doesn't feel negatively about X things, and this attitude seems to stand in opposition to the ideas that RMS believes in, then could there be A. some fundamental difference between watches and free software? or B. an error on RMS's part. and if B, then how would RMS react? Would he adjust his values or beliefs or attitudes?" Try thinking on it that way. It is my sincere belief that RMS would very willingly and openly question his own values and beliefs and assumptions in any such situation. It would benefit you to do the same.
Please think carefully on things that create within you such strong reactions.
Slashdot Mirror
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112126&
FullyIonized wrote:
The reasons for NOW, as mentioned by Ian, seem very much in line with what Plan9 tries to do. Wouldn't effort be better spent in developing:
a. Further documentation, especially for newbies. This would not only further Plan9's exposure, but also introduce more people to the really interesting and quite remarkable concepts on which it is based. Even further, any sort of demos or tutorials would be fantastic, since a lot of us get stuck into particular habits of computing and have trouble exploring new ways of doing things (which Plan9 seems to do all over the place). Plan9 is not targeted for a wider audience, but I feel confident that it would be possible, as well as beneficial, to achieve widespread exposure, if not acceptance, of it.
b. More apps and drivers. I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen it shouldn't be too difficult to write for the OS, since the existing source code is well documented (there's even a detailed, step-by-step walk-through of the kernel code!), and for those who might be able to write video drivers (which are especially needed), the features that need to be implemented or made available are very few. Plan9 seems really usable for those lab guys, and I bet with some more drivers and a few apps, it would be quite usable and accessible to the rest of us.
I'll admit that I have little personal experience with Plan9. I haven't had the time needed to invest in learning how to use it and how it works. But having recently read much of the available documentation (articles and man pages), I have gotten pretty darn excited about it and am planning to begin a more concerted effort in the near future.So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't vote for Gore or Bush, either. At least there is some response from Nader or his staff. And read what he has to say, he makes some very good points.
/.ers could be answered with things that /Nader has already said/! I find it remarkable that Nader is addressing these important issues, before we even ask about them (while at the same time, Gore and Bush focus on lame issues and refuse to take stances, lest they offend either the voters or the businesses with which they are buddy-buddy). Now THAT says something.
Let's also consider this: most of the questions asked by
It may at first seem that RMS's respones truly are childish and self-righteous, but consider this:
1. He is laying down the foundation for a discussion. There are certain facts that need to be straightened out before this can happen. This is much like clarifying definitions in a debate. Miscommunications are often the cause of arguments and conflicts. And in this case, it is quite apparent that some clarifications were in order.
2. RMS addresses a several assumptions made by Jorrit. It is critical, especially in the current technological and social climate, to question what are the driving motivations and VALUES behind what we think and what we do. Your reaction says to me "I don't want to consider what he says because he seems to act like an asshole". I think that RMS's way of discussing things can sometimes be a real turnoff, but he is not one to sacrifice his viewpoints for the sake of being nice. And it is important to note that he is never insulting during the whole of the discourse. He is simply exacting and precise. This is not bad. In a discussion, this sort of Socratic questioning and exactness might make you feel uncomfortable. But it goes to show that there are unaddressed issues underlying your statements, ideas, and assumptions. Bring them to light and face them.
3. RMS hits hard on the issues of VALUES. In an earlier comment someone mentioned that Bill Gates is less psychotic than RMS, his argument being that Gates simply follows what is expected from society, and he does it very well (ie, he works to attain MONEY and SUCCESS). Do you find Gates's values acceptable? If so, say it clearly. Then it is obvious that the crux of the matter is in our values. I do not believe that money and success are the proper values that should drive us in life. I find RMS's values much better.
4. Ahh, so you want to point out hypocrisy in RMS's statements and actions ("I wonder if RMS refuses to use all forms of non-free software, i.e. bank terminals, electronic watches, etc... That would be quite a hoot!" Would doing so really negate the strength of RMS's arguments? Perhaps, if your supposition is correct, he has (he isn't perfect, after all) negelected to consider these things, bank terminals, watches, in light of his values, just as so many of us are apt to do. That does not lessen the truth or validity of the philosophy and ideas that he espouses. Rather, why not consider, "/if/ RMS doesn't feel negatively about X things, and this attitude seems to stand in opposition to the ideas that RMS believes in, then could there be A. some fundamental difference between watches and free software? or B. an error on RMS's part. and if B, then how would RMS react? Would he adjust his values or beliefs or attitudes?" Try thinking on it that way. It is my sincere belief that RMS would very willingly and openly question his own values and beliefs and assumptions in any such situation. It would benefit you to do the same.
Please think carefully on things that create within you such strong reactions.
--
alex