Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. No that is incorrect. I got my data from MS when I tried to check it out. Our confusion I think is because we are talking about different products. I wasn't aware of the stand-alone free version of

Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0

On 1/10/2011 12:15 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt mailto:t...@mittelstaedt.us>> wrote: Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. No that is incorrect. I got my data from MS when I tried to check it out. The second you say "got my data from MS" y

Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org

Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker

Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > On 1/10/2011 12:15 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt > > wrote: >> >>Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. >> >> >> No that is incorrect. I got my data from

Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 04:42:28PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > I think the Luvalley architecture is fascinating but one of the larger > problems that has always been faced by the Open Source Community has > been lack of device driver support for all of the many peripherals and > motherboar