6 ms·

I'm curious, have you used Plan9? If yes, how long did you use it?

by 1010100101 15y ago

lubutu 15y ago
I have, yes. I own a Pentium 4 which runs Plan 9, and have done for two years or so.
- 1010100101 15y ago
  I'll throw in my .02. I see the context-switch as one between text and graphics. If I'm working on the command line, then most times I have no need to have X11 running. I'm working exclusively with text. I can boot to a command line and start working. No X11 is needed. But when a need arises for graphics, e.g., to read a PDF composed of scanned images (not pure Postscript), then I have to "context-switch" to the X11 context. I find that switching back and forth between these two contexts is not smooth and can easily lead to instability. There is often a presumption, as in Plan9, that we will just switch once: to the graphical environment. And not return to the original console. To me, neither an X11 terminal emulator nor the Plan9 environment is "the console". It's another layer of abstraction on top of the console. That is a lot of overhead I do not need if I'm just working with text.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    Isn't that problem solved by virtual terminals?
    - 101001010101 15y ago
      Sort of. But you have to keep X11 running on another vt. Stopping and restarting X many times in a session is a different story. At least for me. And even in the case I keep X11 running on another vt, I've found that when using no wm, or a simple one like evilwm, switching back and forth from console (on one vt) to X11 (on another vt) many times does not work well. Eventually it fails. This is on {Net,Free,Open}BSD. I don't think that Plan9 has vt's as such. It's more like what the article envisions, with graphics capabilities seemingly woven into the terminal. But you're pretty much stuck in an X11 type environment. Plan9 experts correct me if I'm wrong. I've always found this "context switch" from console to graphics is like a one-way street. You're not really expected to keep shutting down the graphics and going back to the console. At least I've never found anyone who does that.
      - user911302966 15y ago
        {Net,Free,Open}BSD... which one? All three? I'm a NetBSD user that uses a tiling window manager (i3 - not ion3, it's different). ALT+1 and ALT+2 are where I keep my urxvts, ALT+3 my web browser, etc. The switch happens instantaneously. Am I mistaken in my understanding of your issue, or is this helpful?
        101001010101 15y ago
        Yes, it works well enough if you keep X11 and your X11 apps running. But what I'm striving for is a little different. More lightweight. Graphics and graphical apps are only launched when they are needed. X11 is not running constantly. I have not tried i3 and I'm going to give it a go. Are you ever keen to chat with another NetBSD user off HN?

I'm curious, have you used Plan9? If yes, how long did you use it?

lubutu 15y ago

I have, yes. I own a Pentium 4 which runs Plan 9, and have done for two years or so.

1010100101 15y ago
I'll throw in my .02. I see the context-switch as one between text and graphics. If I'm working on the command line, then most times I have no need to have X11 running. I'm working exclusively with text. I can boot to a command line and start working. No X11 is needed. But when a need arises for graphics, e.g., to read a PDF composed of scanned images (not pure Postscript), then I have to "context-switch" to the X11 context. I find that switching back and forth between these two contexts is not smooth and can easily lead to instability. There is often a presumption, as in Plan9, that we will just switch once: to the graphical environment. And not return to the original console. To me, neither an X11 terminal emulator nor the Plan9 environment is "the console". It's another layer of abstraction on top of the console. That is a lot of overhead I do not need if I'm just working with text.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  Isn't that problem solved by virtual terminals?
  - 101001010101 15y ago
    Sort of. But you have to keep X11 running on another vt. Stopping and restarting X many times in a session is a different story. At least for me. And even in the case I keep X11 running on another vt, I've found that when using no wm, or a simple one like evilwm, switching back and forth from console (on one vt) to X11 (on another vt) many times does not work well. Eventually it fails. This is on {Net,Free,Open}BSD. I don't think that Plan9 has vt's as such. It's more like what the article envisions, with graphics capabilities seemingly woven into the terminal. But you're pretty much stuck in an X11 type environment. Plan9 experts correct me if I'm wrong. I've always found this "context switch" from console to graphics is like a one-way street. You're not really expected to keep shutting down the graphics and going back to the console. At least I've never found anyone who does that.
    - user911302966 15y ago
      {Net,Free,Open}BSD... which one? All three? I'm a NetBSD user that uses a tiling window manager (i3 - not ion3, it's different). ALT+1 and ALT+2 are where I keep my urxvts, ALT+3 my web browser, etc. The switch happens instantaneously. Am I mistaken in my understanding of your issue, or is this helpful?
      - 101001010101 15y ago
        Yes, it works well enough if you keep X11 and your X11 apps running. But what I'm striving for is a little different. More lightweight. Graphics and graphical apps are only launched when they are needed. X11 is not running constantly. I have not tried i3 and I'm going to give it a go. Are you ever keen to chat with another NetBSD user off HN?