On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 18-Dec-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The pessimization that was being discussed right before that happened
> > was "harvesting entropy for /dev/random". I can provide mailing list
> > quotes about that bracketing those dates.
>
> No, the pessimization
> From: "Craig Reyenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I can't believe this thread is still polluting the email system. 386's are
> old, slow, and virtually useless. I think that the time wasted on supporting
> junk hardware would be better spent on utilising the features and
> capabilities of new hardware.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:09:10 -0800 Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think anyone wants that to happen
> (though I wouldn't put it past
> some people to want to do that).
FWIW, all I've really been doing is defending the idea that some people want
the code to run on a 386, howeve
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:47:24 -0800 Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * De: Terry Lambert [ Data: 2002-12-17 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: 80386 out of GENERIC ]
> > Apparently, one of the primary markets for
> FreeBSD is embedded
> > devices.
>
> Are you im
Original Message -
From: "Leif Neland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 02:12
Subject: Re: 80386 out of GENERIC
> But still, would it be impossible to have both a GENERIC and a GENERIC386
> kernel in the distribution?
>
On 18-Dec-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> This has nothing to do with /dev/random. Please stop with the constant
>> FUDing Terry.
>
>| Revision 1.296 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sun Jan 14
>| 10:11:10 2001 UTC (23 months ago) by jhb
>| Branch: MAIN
>| Chang
Leif Neland wrote:
But still, would it be impossible to have both a GENERIC and a GENERIC386
kernel in the distribution?
Impossible, no... but would anyone use it? Seems to me that it would
just take up space. And it's one more thing for the build gurus to keep
a configuration for (though ma
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:33:42PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:05:40AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > > I suppose it would be a good idea to include an alternatvie i386
> > > kernel on the CD-ROM. There may be a sp
But still, would it be impossible to have both a GENERIC and a GENERIC386
kernel in the distribution?
Or is the whole system compiled in non-386 mode?
Even so, if just one site. www.386.freebsd.org were having a 386-enabled
version available, wouldn't that make everybody happy?
Leif
To Unsubsc
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:05:40AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > I suppose it would be a good idea to include an alternatvie i386
> > kernel on the CD-ROM. There may be a space issue, of course. How
> > many people participating in this thread
* De: David Cuthbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-12-17 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: 80386 out of GENERIC ]
> Juli Mallett wrote:
> > Are you implying that these people, who are undoubtedly adding and
> > removing lots of things in the kernel, to make things fit, and to
>
Juli Mallett wrote:
Are you implying that these people, who are undoubtedly adding and
removing lots of things in the kernel, to make things fit, and to
make things do their jobs, can't be bothered to use the appropriate
CPU settings?
Not sure where you got that from Terry's post, but...
As a s
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-12-17 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: 80386 out of GENERIC ]
> Apparently, one of the primary markets for FreeBSD is embedded
> devices.
Are you implying that these people, who are undoubtedly adding and
removing lots of things in the ker
Chris Doherty wrote:
> > p.s. I somehow suspect that embedded systems vendors aren't installing from
> > the CDROM.
>
> why is this an issue?
>
> 1) supporting every computer made since 1964 is NetBSD's job, not
>FreeBSD's.
>
> 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2
John Baldwin wrote:
> This has nothing to do with /dev/random. Please stop with the constant
> FUDing Terry.
| Revision 1.296 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sun Jan 14
| 10:11:10 2001 UTC (23 months ago) by jhb
| Branch: MAIN
| Changes since 1.295: +2 -2 lines
| Diff to previous
On 2002-12-16 23:24, Gary Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >I still have the Pentium 133 with 64 MB or memory that I used to run
> >5.0-CURRENT until a few weeks ago. I haven't got any real numbers,
> >but the general `feel' of the syste
- Original Message -
From: "Cliff L. Biffle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)
> On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> > At 5:58
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:05:40AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 December 2002 at 20:53:05 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Alex wrote:
> >> It means that you can not install FreeBSD on a 386 unless you have a
> >> 486+ machine that can compile a new FreeBSD system and have a w
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> >Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ?
>
> gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when
> you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.
At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ?
gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when
you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.2.1 produces
does not seem any slower than the code produced by gcc 2
> 12MB? The last time I tried on a 16MB machine, it core dumped because
> it ran out of memory. I had to put 24MB in the machine before it
> would work (I couldn't try 20MB due to onhand SIMMs).
Uhh, I think we should move forward, like everyone else says. I mean, I
don't throw computers away,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:45:22AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> > >
> > > 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let
> >
I have a 486 running as a firewall. I honestly didn't even
think about trying 5.0 on that thing, forget a 386. So you
don't get upset when Windows XP requires a Pentium two million
with a bejigabyte of RAM but you complain when 5.0 Won't run on
a 386?
Adam
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Read the top of /usr/src/UPDATING
Explains most of the "slow" problems.
At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> >
> > 2) I'm scared that 5.0
On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> >
> > 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let
> >alone a 386.
>
> I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how
On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
>
> 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let
>alone a 386.
I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how snappy it is.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johnson David writes:
>On Saturday 14 December 2002 08:53 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> The best answer out there is "the majority has spoken", with
>> the idea being that if you are deploying on 386 hardware, you
>> are an embedded systems vendor, and are willing to
On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 12:02:10 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suppose it would be a good idea to include an alternatvie i386
>> kernel on the CD-ROM. There may be a space issue, of course.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I suppose it would be a good idea to include an alternatvie i386
: kernel on the CD-ROM. There may be a space issue, of course. How
: many people participating in this thread have an i386 with at least
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:55:14AM -0800, Johnson David said:
> Okay, here's a compromise solution for all those people still needing 386
> support out of the box: make a 5.0-mini-386.iso image.
>
> p.s. I somehow suspect that embedded systems vendors aren't installing from
> the CDROM.
why is
Yes, and then make 5.0-useless-Tandy1000.iso for the other 8 guys that could
use it.
-Craig
- Original Message -
From: "Johnson David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16
On Saturday 14 December 2002 08:53 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The best answer out there is "the majority has spoken", with
> the idea being that if you are deploying on 386 hardware, you
> are an embedded systems vendor, and are willing to live with
> the process effectively being a cross-compilat
On 15-Dec-2002 Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
>> The only remotely good reason I have heard for removing support for 386
>> in the default configuration is that having it in would pessimize
>> performance too much for more modern CPUs. How valid that reason is I
>>
On 15-Dec-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>> It means that you can not install FreeBSD on a 386 unless you have a
>> 486+ machine that can compile a new FreeBSD system and have a way to
>> get that version to the 386.
>
> Yes, this is true. Several of us were annoyed by the change,
> whi
On 14-Dec-2002 Alex wrote:
>
> Dear/Beste phk,
>
> Saturday, December 14, 2002, 10:14:20 PM, you wrote:
>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex writes:
>>>
>>>Dear/Beste Johnson,
>>>
>>>I read this on the advocacy list.
>>>
>>>Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 7:56:44 PM, you wrote:
>>>
Suppor
At 4:45 PM -0800 2002/12/15, Avleen Vig wrote:
How difficult would the following be to develop, in your opinion?
A boot disk image (like the sets of images on the website tm) that will
boot on 386's as well as more modern CPU's that can newfs and disklabel
your drives, download the source, an
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > Add to this that Bosko's workaround for the CPU bug with PSE/PGE
> > includes loading the kernel at 4M rather than 1M.
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. i386's have a 32 bit address space,
> and long ago we loaded at 0xf000 (3.75M). Then we dropped it to
> 0xc
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> FreeBSD still runs on all 386 family CPUs, the only difference is that
> >> if you want to run it on a 80386 you need to enable an option in
> >> your kernel config file.
> >> It will out of the box run on 486 and anything later.
> >
> >It means t
On Saturday, 14 December 2002 at 20:53:05 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>> It means that you can not install FreeBSD on a 386 unless you have a
>> 486+ machine that can compile a new FreeBSD system and have a way to
>> get that version to the 386.
>
> Yes, this is true. Several of us w
On Saturday, 14 December 2002 at 20:55:05 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "M. Warner Losh" wrote:
>> One problem with most 386 boxes is that they have very little memory.
>> sysinstall is a big, bloated pig dog these days that takes more RAM
>> than most 386 boxes have. This is true also for many 48
walt wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Because few if any 80386 computers have the ram it takes to run sysinstall.
>
> Was sysinstall around when 386 was new? Just curious what's changed since
> then to make it bigger.
The sheer number of new drivers, for one thing.
--
Daniel C. Sobr
< said:
> Was sysinstall around when 386 was new? Just curious what's changed since
> then to make it bigger.
The 80386 came out in 1986. FreeBSD 1.0 came out in 1994, and I don't
think we even had sysinstall then.
I did a lot of 386BSD work on a 386SX/16, which was already old by the
time I g
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, walt writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Because few if any 80386 computers have the ram it takes to run sysinstall.
>
>Was sysinstall around when 386 was new? Just curious what's changed since
>then to make it bigger.
sysinstall arrived in the 486 days.
Lots o
>Was sysinstall around when 386 was new?
No, and neither was FreeBSD.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because few if any 80386 computers have the ram it takes to run sysinstall.
Was sysinstall around when 386 was new? Just curious what's changed since
then to make it bigger.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the bod
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Lawson wri
tes:
>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
>> The only remotely good reason I have heard for removing support for 386
>> in the default configuration is that having it in would pessimize
>> performance too much for more modern CPUs. How valid th
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> The only remotely good reason I have heard for removing support for 386
> in the default configuration is that having it in would pessimize
> performance too much for more modern CPUs. How valid that reason is I
> cannot judge, but I guess it is possible
inal Message -
> From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 23:
t;; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 23:55
Subject: Re: 80386 out of GENERIC
> "M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> > One problem with most 386 boxes is that they have very little memory.
> > sysinstall is a big, bloated pig dog thes
"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> One problem with most 386 boxes is that they have very little memory.
> sysinstall is a big, bloated pig dog these days that takes more RAM
> than most 386 boxes have. This is true also for many 486 boxes too.
> So even if 386 stuff were in the default kernel, you'd likel
Alex wrote:
> It means that you can not install FreeBSD on a 386 unless you have a
> 486+ machine that can compile a new FreeBSD system and have a way to
> get that version to the 386.
Yes, this is true. Several of us were annoyed by the change,
which appeared at the time to have been done solely
Alex wrote:
>
> >> > Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC
> >> > kernel. The default FreeBSD kernel is now more optimized for modern
> >> > CPUs. No longer do you have to settle for performance draining
> >> > compatibility with hardware you haven't owned in a decade.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: >I don't feel this is a good decision. (I still have a 486, act as a
: >small server and a 286 witch is in storage) This basally means that
: >any one who doesn't have the latest processor can't install FreeBSD.
:
: No it does
Dear/Beste Mark,
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 11:15:24 PM, you wrote:
>> > Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC
>> > kernel. The default FreeBSD kernel is now more optimized for modern
>> > CPUs. No longer do you have to settle for performance draining
>> > compatibi
> It means that you can not install FreeBSD on a 386 unless you have a
> 486+ machine that can compile a new FreeBSD system and have a way to
> get that version to the 386.
Another option is to install 4.x and upgrade to 5.x
--
Best regards/Met vriendelijke groet,
Alex
To Unsubscribe: send mai
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex writes:
>>>I don't feel this is a good decision. (I still have a 486, act as a
>>>small server and a 286 witch is in storage) This basally means that
>>>any one who doesn't have the latest processor can't install FreeBSD.
>
>> No it doesn't mean that.
>
>> Free
Dear/Beste phk,
Saturday, December 14, 2002, 10:14:20 PM, you wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex writes:
>>
>>Dear/Beste Johnson,
>>
>>I read this on the advocacy list.
>>
>>Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 7:56:44 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from
> > Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC
> > kernel. The default FreeBSD kernel is now more optimized for modern
> > CPUs. No longer do you have to settle for performance draining
> > compatibility with hardware you haven't owned in a decade.
>
> I don't feel this is a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alex writes:
>
>Dear/Beste Johnson,
>
>I read this on the advocacy list.
>
>Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 7:56:44 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC kernel. The
>> default FreeBSD kernel is now more optimized for moder
Dear/Beste Johnson,
I read this on the advocacy list.
Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 7:56:44 PM, you wrote:
> Support for the 80386 processor has been removed from the GENERIC kernel. The
> default FreeBSD kernel is now more optimized for modern CPUs. No longer do
> you have to settle for perform
60 matches
Mail list logo
