A few things here. apmd is not the same as apm. So check your
/etc/rc.conf to see if you have both apm_enable and apmd_enable set to
"YES". apmd is just a daemon to take care of some apm events, but for
shutdown -p it's not needed.
Try 'apmconf -e' on the command line.
If you still get 'apm: can
>I just want to correct one misunderstanding. 'The Hobbit' is the author
of
>netcat, not l0pht.
Ack! I thought he was part of l0pht my apologies for any
inaccuracy.
I still stand by that either netcat or socket (which I hear does pretty
much the same) should be included.
/me jumps on -small
>I'm the last person who you'd speak to for an authoritative answer to
a
>FreeBSD question, but I'll try fielding it.
Same here =)
What I have gathered about spinning on a lock is that it is indeed
waiting for a lock, but not sleeping so that the process doesn't get
context switches etc. and thu
>If you want a better fixit floppy, you should consider the new custom
>disk pair with PicoBSD (see picobsd(8) in -CURRENT). It includes
>everything on the old fixit floppy, also real tar and a number of
>other programs, including rsh. There's still space on there; what
>else could we put there?
This discussion sort of sparked my interest, so I started looking at
what exactly is on the fixit floppy. As I expected there was a load of
crunched binaries (interesting technique btw) but my eye fell on tar. It
wasn't a hardlink to the crunched binary like the others, it was a shell
script. The
>Waht I was thinking about doing, was first writting, (probably using
the
>nullfs code a a base) a userfs, that would allow me to run most of
the
>guts of the filesystem code in a user process. Then I would write the
UDF
>filesystem to run in a user process.
>What do you think, am I nuts? Is the
Please RTFM at
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL
DocWilco
>>> Mahyus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/18 1:18 PM >>>
subscribe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe:
>OK, with everyones help (well, waiting for the right time of day ;-)),
I
>was able to reproduce this. The initial threads last active time was
>not getting initialized to a sane value, causing negative
computations
>of the threads timeslice depending on what time of day it was. Funny
>thing was
I'm running 3.4-RELEASE.
DocWilco
>>> Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/13 12:57 PM >>>
> I'm forwarding this from the GTK development list. According to Owen
> their is something wrong with the threads implementation
>
> Is that true? or is it a "It's not the way Linux works
I'm forwarding this from the GTK development list. According to Owen
their is something wrong with the threads implementation
Is that true? or is it a "It's not the way Linux works, so it must be
wrong"-pigheadedness? =)
DocWilco
"ROGIER MULH
Hi,
I recently upgraded from 3.2-R to 3.4-R and there's a huge difference
in running xmms.
On 3.2-R I had to give it a realtime priority (lowest rtprio, 31,
worked fine) to make it run smoothly. With that realtime prio it usually
worked fine, except when it ran into a bug that made it go into an
11 matches
Mail list logo
