brent> I've been searching for info regarding mounting the same device
brent> to multiple locations in the filesystem, i.e...
brent> # mount /dev/ad0s1e /usr
brent> # mount -r /dev/ad0s1e /var/jail//usr
brent> # mount -r /dev/ad0s1e /var/jail//usr
I can't comment on this specifically but
Hi,
I was "trying" to help a friend get a SurfBoard SB1000
cable modem working in a Linux box much to my pain. I mean trying
because I failed horribly. :(
At first, I tried looking for support under FreeBSD but
found none. Then, I tried to get it working under Linux since it
seems
Hi,
I've been searching for info regarding mounting the same device
to multiple locations in the filesystem, i.e...
# mount /dev/ad0s1e /usr
# mount -r /dev/ad0s1e /var/jail//usr
# mount -r /dev/ad0s1e /var/jail//usr
[Warning: I /know/ I know next-to-nothing about filesystems... bu
Hyong-Youb Kim wrote:
> First off, for each open file, does the kernel keep a unique vnode
> structure? If so, will it have at most one vm_object reference at any
> time?
Yes and not. It depends on what you mean by "for each open
file"; an open instance in user space is not the same thing
as an
"Justin C.Walker" wrote:
>
> On Monday, January 28, 2002, at 05:10 PM, Greg Shenaut wrote:
>
> >> I'd guess that the point deals with the use of "shared memory" between
> >> processes for the purposes of sharing data. Given the granularity of
> >> the PDP-11 "VM" hardware, it seemed like a bad
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this
I just got a 3com 3c996B-T with a bcm5701 chip. It doesn't work with a
kernel built from 4.5-RC source pulled Friday: the gigabit phy goes
unrecognized, gets attached as a ukphy, which (obviously) doesn't
support 1000baseTX.
Is this expected
On Tuesday, 29 January 2002 at 15:56:32 -0800, Dion Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:05:20AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:55:04 -0700, Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>> And, where have you heard that it's been relicensed?
>
> http://minnie
Greg,
Yes it is most certainly our intent to free up the ancient Unix
sources so that they can be used, essentially, for anything.
Caldera asks for some acknowledgement, and disclaims all the
usual stuff.
I cant completely answer the question about your archives since I
have not examined them an
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:05:20AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I'm going to wait and see what happens w/regards to the
> > talking heads on this, and if the consensus is that it's legal to
> > post, I'll upload the bits to freefall.
>
> It'
- Forwarded message from Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:55:04 -0700
> From: Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Dominic Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
> "Tony" == Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> I'll note that this happened because of the efforts of the
Tony> Unix Heritage Society, and their archive (which until recently
Tony> was password-protected and required a free licence from SCO,
... and prior to that, the U
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Williams write
s:
>> >> Caldera's License Agreement:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
>> >
>> >Thanks. However, this isn't as specific as I'd like it to be. It
>> >implies that Net1/Net2 are now 'legal', but it doesn't give explici
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:55:04PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> Thanks. I'm going to wait and see what happens w/regards to the talking
> heads on this, and if the consensus is that it's legal to post, I'll
> upload the bits to freefall.
I'll note that this happened because of the efforts of
> >> Caldera's License Agreement:
> >>
> >> http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
> >
> >Thanks. However, this isn't as specific as I'd like it to be. It
> >implies that Net1/Net2 are now 'legal', but it doesn't give explicit
> >release of said source code.
>
> Well, I have never hea
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:50:22PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> Thanks. However, this isn't as specific as I'd like it to be. It
> implies that Net1/Net2 are now 'legal', but it doesn't give explicit
> release of said source code.
Doesn't the text at the start of the letter explicitly say t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Williams write
s:
>> Caldera's License Agreement:
>>
>> http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
>
>Thanks. However, this isn't as specific as I'd like it to be. It
>implies that Net1/Net2 are now 'legal', but it doesn't give explicit
>release of sai
> > > > Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
> > > > is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
> > >
> > > Out of curiousity, why?
> >
> > "Out of curiousity" :)
>
> Kirk was surprised by how popular the CSRG archives CDs are.
I got one of t
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 23:37, Nate Williams wrote:
Hi,
> Out of curiousity, why?
Why not? It will be fun to have a look at it.
> And, where have you heard that it's been relicensed?
>
It was anounced some days ago, check the Caldera site.
(This too http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:47:04PM +, Dominic Marks wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:37:13PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
> > > is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
> >
> > Out of curiousity
> > > Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
> > > is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
> >
> > Out of curiousity, why?
>
> "Out of curiousity" :)
>
> Perhaps for the same reasons I spent a half an hour getting BSD 2.11
> running on a PDP-
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:37:13PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
> > is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
>
> Out of curiousity, why?
"Out of curiousity" :)
Perhaps for the same reasons I spent a ha
> Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
> is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
Out of curiousity, why?
And, where have you heard that it's been relicensed?
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-h
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Finch writes:
>Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
>is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
I hope so.
Unless I'm convinced not to, my version will go online whenever I
find the CD it's on...
--
Poul-H
Now that ancient unix has been relicensed with an old-style BSD licence,
is the FreeBSD-1.X cvs repository going to be made public?
Tony.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Where are you capturing the network traffic? I've noticed some checksum
weirdness in tcpdump with NICs that provide hardware checksum.
Are you seeing bad header checksums in netstat -s ?
Skye
Word on the street is that Dan Langille said:
> I am forwarding this on behalf of Bruce (his DNS is bo
I have a machine with an AMD 1ghz and an IBM UMDA 100 disk. Until about
12-13 days ago (Jan 16-17), this machine was nice and fast on disk IO.
I haven't done much io wise on the machine in the days since I did that
last buildworld, but when I tried to buildworld yesterday and today,
I am getting p
While adding a system call, I notice in file syscall-hide.h there are
many instances of HIDE_POSIX() and HIDE_BSD(). What is the purpose of
these macros? Maybe they are now obsolete?
Thanks!
-Zhihui
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Dan Langille wrote:
> Folks: have a look at this FreshPorts shell script and let me know if
> there is a better way to do this.
You could avoid polling (at the expense of a fork) by using wait_on
(PR #34414).
Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
First off, for each open file, does the kernel keep a unique vnode
structure? If so, will it have at most one vm_object reference at any
time? I am guessing that mmaping a file will create vm_object with a vnode
pager that references vnode. But then under what circumstances does vnode
not have a v
Ronald G Minnich wrote:
>
>where'd they get this? that's an odd statement. Shared memory was used all
>the time on Unix on -11s, that's the whole point of the shared text a.out
>format. Of course shared read-only text is not exactly the standard shared
>memory, but at the same time it shows feasi
Hi folks,
Boris Popov, the maintainer of smbfs and nwfs in FreeBSD, has mentioned
in discussions surrounding PR misc/33985, that there's a problem in
-STABLE affecting the building of modules on SMP systems.
If anyone could shed some light on this, I'd love to add your comments
to the audit tra
31 matches
Mail list logo
