On 13 Jan 2017, at 01:00, Ernie Luzar wrote:
>
> VT should have had better testing before becoming the default in 11.0.
The choice was VT or no acceleration in X11, because all of the new DRI drivers
depend on KMS, which requires VT. We only got VT in a useable state (and
therefore useable ac
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:23:13PM -0700, Alan Somers wrote:
> That error message can mean many different things. You need to boot
> in verbose mode to get a better idea.
As a test I created a netbootable image from -current the other day.
All I had available to test was an X1 which booted fine.
Am 14.01.2017 um 00:11 schrieb Alan Somers:
> I take it back. The first three columns _are_ rendered, but they
> don't show up on some monitiors. It's as if those monitors require a
> minimum amount of overscan on the left side of the screen, and vt(4)
> doesn't provide enough. Can that be tuned
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 4:43 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2017, at 01:00, Ernie Luzar wrote:
>>
>> VT should have had better testing before becoming the default in 11.0.
>
> The choice was VT or no acceleration in X11, because all of the new DRI
> drivers depend on KMS, which requires V
Hi
The most recent info I have is that the (UEFI) boot loader can only boot
from the first UFS partition it finds. Has support for multiple
installations been implemented? If so, how can I choose to boot from the
first or second UFS partition?
Thanks!
_
Hi
It's been almost a year since the Secure Boot wiki has been updated.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/SecureBoot
What is the current status and roadmap?
Thanks!
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
It depends(tm). I think the VT code just does "640x480x4bpp" and lets
the BIOS sort it out. A lot of things don't cope well with 640x480
these days - they try autodetecting picture edges, but a black border
makes that very difficult.
-adrian
On 14 January 2017 at 08:57, Matthias Andree wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
> It depends(tm). I think the VT code just does "640x480x4bpp" and lets
> the BIOS sort it out. A lot of things don't cope well with 640x480
> these days - they try autodetecting picture edges, but a black border
> makes that very difficult.
>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since 2 or 3 weeks ago, I noticed that my old Penryn-based Intel Pentium
> T4200 notebook lagged a lot. System time was running a lot slower,
> sometimes even looked like it freezed. Keystroke repeat rate was slow too.
>
> Since s
Johannes Lundberg wrote:
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SecureBoot
>
Interested in this too - though for proprietary systems where we have
control over BIOS. The design should hopefully accommodate both.
In particular any plan for how the loader would verify kernel and any
pre-loaded modules, and
hi,
no, the vt_vga backend doesn't yet do VESA.
I keep meaning to sit down and fix this, but life and wifi gets in the way.
-adrian
On 14 January 2017 at 16:27, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Adrian Chadd
> wrote:
>>
>> It depends(tm). I think the VT code just does
You can add these things to the vt to-do list
Change the default font to look like sc.
Add copy/paste function like sc has.
Add splash screen support like sc has.
Adrian Chadd wrote:
hi,
no, the vt_vga backend doesn't yet do VESA.
I keep meaning to sit down and fix this, but life and wifi g
heh.
As always, patches gratefully accepted. :)
-adrian
On 14 January 2017 at 21:07, Ernie Luzar wrote:
>
> You can add these things to the vt to-do list
>
> Change the default font to look like sc.
> Add copy/paste function like sc has.
> Add splash screen support like sc has.
>
>
>
> Adria
On 15/01/2017 10:11 AM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote:
Hi all,
since 2 or 3 weeks ago, I noticed that my old Penryn-based Intel Pentium
T4200 notebook lagged a lot. System time was running a lot slower,
sometimes even looked like it freezed. Keystroke
Dne 15.1.2017 v 3:38 Simon J. Gerraty napsal(a):
> Johannes Lundberg wrote:
>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SecureBoot
>>
> Interested in this too - though for proprietary systems where we have
> control over BIOS. The design should hopefully accommodate both.
>
> In particular any plan for how the
15 matches
Mail list logo