[9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom?

Eugene Gorodinsky

unread,

Feb 13, 2011, 5:52:17 AM2/13/11

to

This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork?

Sergey Zhilkin

unread,

Feb 13, 2011, 9:54:21 AM2/13/11

to

Hello ! :)

Go to the http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/ and read the few lines of text.

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Eugene Gorodinsky <e.goro...@gmail.com> wrote:

This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork?

--
С наилучшими пожеланиями
Жилкин Сергей
With best regards
Zhilkin Sergey

Eugene Gorodinsky

unread,

Feb 14, 2011, 2:00:44 AM2/14/11

to

Been there, done that. Not a line of text saying why 9atom appeared nor why the changes are not merged back into plan9.

2011/2/13 Sergey Zhilkin <szhi...@gmail.com>

Anthony Sorace

unread,

Feb 14, 2011, 2:12:10 AM2/14/11

to

No big mystery: the Bell Labs folks are more
conservative about folding in certain kinds
of changes than Erik is.

PGP.sig

Eugene Gorodinsky

unread,

Feb 14, 2011, 2:53:49 AM2/14/11

to

Any specific rules as to which changes are going to be accepted and which are not?

2011/2/14 Anthony Sorace <a...@9srv.net>

Sergey Zhilkin

unread,

Feb 14, 2011, 10:46:39 AM2/14/11

to

Ask Geoff :)

I think, that plan9 code-base is used somewhere else at Alcatel-Lucent. :)

2011/2/14 Eugene Gorodinsky <e.goro...@gmail.com>

erik quanstrom

unread,

Feb 14, 2011, 4:12:11 PM2/14/11

to

On Mon Feb 14 02:01:04 EST 2011, e.goro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Been there, done that. Not a line of text saying why 9atom appeared
> nor why the changes are not merged back into plan9.

there was at least one person i told that a certain bit of
atom hardware "works great," only to find out that it did
not work great with the distribution iso. i created 9atom
as a stopgap but it has continued to be useful since the
standard distribution doesn't support ken's file server and
not everything has been merged back in. it will be great
to get everything merged back in at some point.

i see its ongoing utility for me as a way to get some things
i'm working on packaged up so people can use them. for example,
one big change in 9atom is unicode 6.0 support. (that is,
32-bit runes.) i've used it to do a bit with cuniform.

i hope 9atom doesn't offend anyone. gripe at me off
like if you want to.

i hope to get the cannonical sources online in the near
future.

- erik

Fernan Bolando

unread,

Feb 15, 2011, 3:10:44 AM2/15/11

to

--This is just how I see this, you can choose to ignore the rest of the message.

i have always considered 9atom and a few other independent plan9 stuff
as something similar to the openbsd release strategy. Theres a stable
release and a current. 9atom is more like openbsd-current it's
bleeding edge, but it should be _more_ stable and has _more_ hardware
support. The official iso is more like openbsd-stable unless something
is broken you will only see bug fixes, until bell-labs considers the
new stuff as stable.

Jacek Masiulaniec

unread,

Feb 21, 2011, 3:29:25 PM2/21/11

to

On 15 February 2011 08:08, Fernan Bolando <fernan...@mailc.net> wrote:
> i have always considered 9atom and a few other independent plan9 stuff
> as something similar to the openbsd release strategy. Theres a stable
> release and a current. 9atom is more like openbsd-current it's
> bleeding edge, but it should be _more_ stable and has _more_ hardware
> support. The official iso is more like openbsd-stable unless something
> is broken you will only see bug fixes, until bell-labs considers the
> new stuff as stable.

This is near total misrepresentation of the OpenBSD release process.