On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 01:18:34PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> I thought you were genuinely interested in solving this "issue".
> Isn't it in the interest of the members of the list to take part in
> ONE ballot, having ALL sensible suggestions to choose? Frankly, your
> refusal to include th
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
> glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
> are common on other unixes.
Maybe what he was saying, but that's obviously not the real issu
#x27;t have any concrete suggestions here).
I suppose another idea would be to just remove BSD from the name --
maybe substitute in something "berkeley-ish" whatever that might be...
--
Raul Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:54:04AM +0200, Fabbione wrote:
> > (1) Which BSD would you prefer to use as a base? (Free, Net, Open)
>
> Well the one that can be ported to many platform as possible.
Agreed. However, in principle, there could eventually be multiple BSD
ports, if we can find the ftp a
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:11:17PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> And there we disagree... anything less than proper dependency-aware
> upgrade simply doesn't count. This is a *hard* problem which is why
> so much of the value of dpkg is in the "interesting" cases it
> handles. It would be nice
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 04:11:01PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> What do you think the port maintainer does?
Actually, one thing I've been wanting to do for awhile is build a variant
install (or, more likely, a wrapper for install) which registers what
it does in the dpkg database. The package nam
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What did Jolitz write?
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:32:30PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Bill Jolitz fathered 386BSD.
Which, as I understand it, was the starting point for NetBSD, FreeBSD
and OpenBSD.
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:22:55AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> >] apropos jail
> jail(2) - Imprison current process and future decendants
>
> This is different, it's a FreeBSD 4.0 kernel-based thing. It's much more
> powerful than chroot but similar. It's chroot plus it restricts root's
> capabiliti
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 09:46:15PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> I don't think this would address the issue properly either. For one thing,
> there are some pieces to the system that simply have to be FreeBSD
> binaries, like the kld* utils.
You're right. Though that's a fairly constrained case and
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:56:04PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Are you suggesting to use the linux compatiblity mode to make
> mismatched worlds and kernels less of a problem? I'm not seeing the
> logic in that.
The context is how to produce a debian/bsd system. Someone suggested
that the changes
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:51:45PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:36:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Perhaps fork is the wrong term for a split which occurred because
> > the primary author did a rewrite.
>
> Primary author of what?
What did
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:27:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is presuming that the issues can't be dealt with in libc [or in
> > the linux compat library.]
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:16:37PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Every issue can be delt with, in some way. If y
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:11:09PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Free/Net would unfork? There never really was a fork per se.
> after Jolitz abandoned 386BSD, people posted patches for everyone to use.
>
> Eventually these patch kits became two OSs- neither forked from another.
Perhaps fork is the
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 10:13:05PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> # Anyways, given this supposedly wonderful support for linux binaries,
>
> It _is_ wonderful! Have you ever tried it?
It works fine on most applications, but it's mis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:26:44PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> Read my essay at http://bugg.strangled.net/debbsd.txt
Hmm.. on Linux this issue is mostly dealt with in the C library.
> I explain why Debian / FreeBSD could be bad to everyone, including
> existing FreeBSD users.
This is presuming
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Dan Papasian wrote:
> It isn't a bad thing. But the UNIX way always has been put the
> software that is part of the base OS's into /usr, and software
> installed over it into /usr/local.
>
> Considering with Debian you have a hodepodge of packages from
> di
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 03:33:03AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> : Ahh, but that's just the thing! ;-) All that stuff in the main tree _does_
> : come from the distributor -- which in this case is Debian. This is
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:37:46AM -0500, Jerry Alexandratos wrote:
> No, it's bundled
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Well, Debian diskspace is already blowing out (for the archive, not
> > for installed systems). If the emulation works just as well, we can
> > save a lot of time by not recompiling.
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:02:07AM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Well
18 matches
Mail list logo
