In message
<14162.35022.502546.522...@r84aap011262.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com>
Robert Huff writes:
: How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
: machines.)
On my stable machines never, or very rarely. I have machines in my
basement that tend to have 200-500 day uptimes be
In message <199905302213.raa05...@home.dragondata.com> Kevin Day writes:
: 1) The kernel config options are only documented in LINT, which really isn't
: meant for that sorta thing, and I'll admit, they're not documented well.
: (contrast linux's config where you can hit ? and get a few paragraphs
> I've seen references to people writing Towers of Hanoi in troff, but
> I don't have a pointer to the actual code.
Can't help you there, but here's something for you:
/hanoi{/x{{exit}}def /e{exch}def /d{dup}def /l{loop}def /n exch def /m 2 n 1
sub exp cvi def[m{d 0 eq x if d[e d 0{1 add e 2 div
Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > But what about new-bus?
>
> newbus was well announced. any FreeBSD committer was extended newbus
> commit privledges as well. The cvs tree was public as well.
I think the new-bus CVS repository was made public on Apr 11, 1999.
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Motoyuki Konno wrote:
> But what about new-bus?
newbus was well announced. any FreeBSD committer was extended newbus
commit privledges as well. The cvs tree was public as well.
- bill fumerola - bi...@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 - b
"Still no sight of land. How long is it?"
"'Ave we started again, then?"
*yawn*
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Chuck Robey wrote:
> You see, some folks in Japan went off on their own and developed a
> "newconfig", which has a lot fo things in common with the work that
> Peter's gone and done, but also has some basic differences. They worked
> pretty much totally in silence. so when core told Peter to go ah
Leo Papandreou wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:31:57PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
>> And, as far as *word processors* go, troff, nroff, and ed pretty
>> much suck.
...
>Thats absolutely correct. They have no built-in diversion to cope
>with writer's block. With MS-Word you can futz with fonts for
> "Wes" == Wes Peters writes:
Wes> If you mean "lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
Wes> more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,"
Wes> I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
Wes> was never meant to be a word proc
Wes Peters writes:
> And, as far as *word processors* go, troff, nroff, and ed pretty
> much suck. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree they are useful
> tools, as borne out by the number of books that have been typeset
> over the years using troff. But a word processor they DO NOT make.
Clea
Wes Peters writes:
> David Scheidt wrote:
> > I should point out that UNIX's suitably as a document processing
> > enviornment is one of the reasons that UNIX received support from
> > BTL management. The fact that it was stable, ran on cheap hardware,
> > and a cool programing enviornment were b
Darryl Okahata wrote:
>
> Wes Peters wrote:
>
> > If you mean "lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
> > more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,"
> > I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
> > was never meant to be a word
Wes Peters wrote:
> If you mean "lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
> more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,"
> I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
> was never meant to be a word processor loader, and complete overk
Mike Smith wrote:
> > Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> > any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> > asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> > configures a kernel conf file for them?
> >
> > If
David Scheidt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> > If you mean "lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
> > more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,"
> > I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
> > was never
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
> If you mean "lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
> more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,"
> I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
> was never meant to be a word processor loader,
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > You guys should be aware that work is going on to change, in a rather
> > major way, not just the config file, not just the configuration method,
> > but the entire way that devices are detect
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> You guys should be aware that work is going on to change, in a rather
> major way, not just the config file, not just the configuration method,
> but the entire way that devices are detected and drivers added.
Is this documented anyw
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
> +[ Spike ]-
> |
> | a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going to
> | lose to Linux if only from the sheer momentum of twenty million rabid
> | Linux fanatics. And realistic
> You don't want FreeBSD to have more users? Do you think it already has
> enough users? How many users is enough? What is the goal of the FreeBSD
> project? To be the test platform for new kernel ideas exclusively? Why
> do you tolerate the presence of the X on the FreeBSD CD-ROMs then?
I think t
> I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
This is one of those reocurring threads.. Everyone to contribute
to it so far has either had no better ideas for "front ending"
the kernel configuration process or lots of ideas but no time
to implement them, resulting in the sa
Darryl Okahata wrote:
>
> David Scheidt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
> >
> > > That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
> > > Unix variant folks.
> >
> > Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
> > long. Linux ten
Bill Huey wrote:
>
> > Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
> > long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
>
> You must be joking me. Just about every other systems person I've talked
> to in past 5 years, (including me) would highly
I found the question/answer kernel configuration maddening
on Linux.
Linux has a tk based script (xconfig) which is pretty good...
Marty Leisner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
m...@smith.net.au said:
:- there are certain classes of users that it's in our interests _not_
:- to attract.
So, Mike, when will you be issuing the official FreeBSD Qualification Test
(FQT), and issuing a License to Use FreeBSD (LUF)?
Sheesh! :-(
---
David Scheidt wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> > That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
> > Unix variant folks.
>
> Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
> long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, wh
> Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
> long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
You must be joking me. Just about every other systems person I've talked
to in past 5 years, (including me) would highly disagree with that citing
tha
On Sun, 30 May 1999 21:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Huey wrote:
> Possibly, but the thing that bothers me is that I've heard more
> derogatory comments directed against Linux user on this list
> than I have seen come from Microsoft.
...because Microsoft isn't Unix, so being displeased with its ap
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Robert Huff wrote:
: How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
:machines.)
: I rebuild/reinstall every two weeks, plus or minus a day or
:two.
I only run -RELEASE. Usually the latest. I build a kernel customized for
my machine with every new
Chris D. Faulhaber writes:
> I somewhat agree. A custom kernel is useful for setting up and
> tuning parameters (e.g. softupdates); however, unlike Linux, we
> don't have a new kernel every week to reconfigure.
How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
machines.)
+[ Spike ]-
|
| a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going to
| lose to Linux if only from the sheer momentum of twenty million rabid
| Linux fanatics. And realistically, we aren't doing a damn thing about it.
Technical disc
On Sun, 30 May 1999 18:14:31 EST, Constantine Shkolnyy wrote:
> You don't want FreeBSD to have more users?
[...]
> Making the script is like making more documentation. Is the current
> FreeBSD documentation so plentiful that making more documentation would
> harm somebody?
This issue is much si
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:36:08PM +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
> David Scheidt wrote:
>
> > "Linux is for people that hate Microsoft. FreeBSD is for people who
> > love Unix."
>
> I like "Linux is Luke Skywalker; FreeBSD is Yoda."
linux -- the operating system for kiddies, written by kiddies.
David Scheidt wrote:
> "Linux is for people that hate Microsoft. FreeBSD is for people who
> love Unix."
I like "Linux is Luke Skywalker; FreeBSD is Yoda."
- mark
Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
> That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
> Unix variant folks.
>
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
anything but how to f
> Context. When people complain about Linux users expecting everything
> to work like Linux, then it's usually safe to assume that the behavior
> in question *does* vary between Linux and other Unix systems, or at
> lease Linux and FreeBSD.
Possibly, but the thing that bothers me is that I've he
Spike wrote:
>
> I think that in ten years, Linux will be going strong and FreeBSD
> will have whithered. I don't think this is because FreeBSD is
> technically flawed, or that the core team and developers aren't doing
> a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going t
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Chris D. Faulhaber wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Birrell wrote:
>
> > Why build a kernel at all? The generic kernel should do that application
> > just fine. Only build a custom kernel if you have a good reason to do
> > so.
> >
>
> I somewhat agree. A custom kernel i
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 07:49:24PM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> The Linux way of doing things isn't terribly different than any other
> Unix based OS out there. I don't really understand this wierd anti-Linix
> stuff from the FreeBSD folks.
Context. When people complain about Linux users expecting
> Making such a script is specifically targetted at a small group of
> users; those accustomed to the Linux way of doing things and too
> inflexible or untalented to learn a new way.
The Linux way of doing things isn't terribly different than any other
Unix based OS out there. I don't really un
On Sun, 30 May 1999, [ISO-9550] ?? wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > > I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
> >
> > I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
>
> Oh man! So, what kind of people do 'we' want the
On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> Why build a kernel at all? The generic kernel should do that application
> just fine. Only build a custom kernel if you have a good reason to do
> so.
>
I somewhat agree. A custom kernel is useful for setting up and tuning
parameters (e.g. softupdates)
> On Sunday, May 30, 1999 5:39 PM, Mike Smith [SMTP:m...@smith.net.au] wrote:
> > > I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
> >
> > I'm not sure we want those sort of people.
>
> You don't want FreeBSD to have more users?
We want more users, sure. But we're not despe
> > Ideally, no interaction at all will be required.
> Just give me knobs to turn everything off.
How does "no interaction required" translate to "everything will be on"?
Give us a little more credit than that. 8)
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man.
David Scheidt wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
>
> What sort of people is FreeBSD after then? There are all sorts of people
> who need a mailserver, or a webserver, or whatever, who would otherwise get
> som
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
>
> I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
Oh man! So, what kind of people do 'we' want then?
Who are we? Are you speaking of FreeBSD community? I hope NOT!
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
What sort of people is FreeBSD after then? There are all sorts of people
who need a mailserver, or a webserver, or whatever, who would otherwise get
someone to sell them an NT based solut
On Sunday, May 30, 1999 5:39 PM, Mike Smith [SMTP:m...@smith.net.au] wrote:
> > I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
>
> I'm not sure we want those sort of people.
You don't want FreeBSD to have more users? Do you think it already has
enough users? How many users is
> > > Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> > > any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> > > asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> > > configures a kernel conf file for them?
> > >
> > > If not, I'
> > Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> > any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> > asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> > configures a kernel conf file for them?
> >
> > If not, I'll volunteer
> > Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> > any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> > asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> > configures a kernel conf file for them?
> >
> > If not, I'll volunteer
> Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> configures a kernel conf file for them?
>
> If not, I'll volunteer to write on
> On Sun, 30 May 1999, Yaroslav Halchinsky wrote:
>
> > Don't you find editing config file MUCH more easy thing than answering
> > series of dumb questins again and again?
>
> *I* do, yes. In fact, I hate any other way. But I've heard it as a
> about 10 times now from people currently using Linu
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Yaroslav Halchinsky wrote:
> Don't you find editing config file MUCH more easy thing than answering
> series of dumb questins again and again?
*I* do, yes. In fact, I hate any other way. But I've heard it as a
about 10 times now from people currently using Linux. And oddly
> Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
> any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
> asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
> configures a kernel conf file for them?
Don't you find editing config file MUC
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions ("Do you want to run SCO binaries", etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to write one...
Matt
56 matches
Mail list logo
