Hellmuth Michaelis wrote:
>
> >From the keyboard of Juergen Lock:
>
> > And the other reason i'm looking at ijppp is ppp compression. It
> > currently supports deflate (rfc1979) and predictor1 (rfc1978), which
> > should at least help if the other end is running bsd or linux,
> > but if your o
> > Imagine: cp file file2, file and file2 reference the same exact blocks,
> > but modified chunks of file2 would be given their own private blocks.
>
> This is not a microsoft innovation, actually, I believe it was a VMS
> innovation. It's called a generational filesystem. the original is
> s
>From the keyboard of Julian Elischer:
> > > today... impressive stuff.) and is someone working on linking i4b
> > > and netgraph?
> >
> > There will be a netgraph node interface which will link an i4b B-channel
> > to netgraph. There are no plans from my side to netgraphify the D-channel
> >
It seems Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew
>Jacob writes:
> : I gave up on supporting it- too much work for too little gain, IMO.
>
> The same thing happened on the IDE side of things. Even with Soren's
> hacks, I never could get it to work well. It worked as well as
[.]
> Currently i'm using ppp instead of mppd mostly just because it supports
> deflate compression. I had a look at both mppd and ppp to see how the
> mentioned free stac compression would be integrateable and found them
> both similar, given they both come from iijppp. It looks like if it we
Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just got an onstream scsi tape drive only to discover that I should've
> checked the archives because it don't work.
Depends on the drive. If you got an Echo drive (SCxx), you're right.
The ADR drives--yes, they all use ADR tape technology, but confusing
> > > Imagine: cp file file2, file and file2 reference the same exact blocks,
> > > but modified chunks of file2 would be given their own private blocks.
> >
> > This is not a microsoft innovation, actually, I believe it was a VMS
> > innovation. It's called a generational filesystem. the origi
> > bash and ksh complain about unexpected ';'.
> > /bin/sh (FreeBSD) thinks it's ok and does nothing.
> > Which behaviour is more POSIXly correct?
>
> Neither bash nor ksh claim to be particularly POSIX compliant. our
> /bin/sh does. I seem to remember POSIX being ambiguous on this one, but
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:32:45AM +0100, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote:
> >From the keyboard of Juergen Lock:
>
> > And the other reason i'm looking at ijppp is ppp compression. It
> > currently supports deflate (rfc1979) and predictor1 (rfc1978), which
> > should at least help if the other end is
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 12:31:30AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Hellmuth Michaelis wrote:
> >
> > >From the keyboard of Juergen Lock:
> >
> > > And the other reason i'm looking at ijppp is ppp compression. It
> > > currently supports deflate (rfc1979) and predictor1 (rfc1978), which
> > > s
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
>
> > > bash and ksh complain about unexpected ';'.
> > > /bin/sh (FreeBSD) thinks it's ok and does nothing.
> > > Which behaviour is more POSIXly correct?
>
> >
> > Neither bash nor ksh claim to be particularly POSIX compliant. our
> > /bin/sh does. I seem to remember PO
I have created several kernel threads that can die after being idle for a
while. I did this by copying the kthread_create() funtion from CURRENT
over to FreeBSD 3.3-Release. Is there a way to remove the zombie threads
after they die or prevent them from creating? Any potential problems in
trying
You see- this why I dropped the notion of supporting the earlier unit- if
there's one with a real SCSI i/f, why bother? I mean, yes, it'll cost more,
but my take on that is "Don't get cheap on your backups".
On 5 Mar 2000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I have 2 cores from machines in the aforementioned state. What should I do?
For those not playing at home, it appears there is some sort of deadlock
situation in the NFS or VM system. The indication of this is a process that
blocks in 'vmpfw' for no apparent reason. All other transactions to t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've got this program in my head that takes a CVS tree and turns it
> into a branch ofanother CVS tree (e.g. FreeBSD rev 1.7 turns into
> rev 1.1.1.7) but it's never managed to make it out of my head, so
> it must be hard
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given that Bash in both standard and POSIX mode complains about 'for i
> in ; do echo $i; done', I would say that it's not POSIX compatible. What
> could/does depend on this behavior "working?"
It works for the rea
John Polstra wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Given that Bash in both standard and POSIX mode complains about 'for i
> > in ; do echo $i; done', I would say that it's not POSIX compatible. What
> > could/does depend on this behavio
From: Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: empty lists in for
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:39:49 -0800
> W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> >
> > > > bash and ksh complain about unexpected ';'.
> > > > /bin/sh (FreeBSD) thinks it's ok and does nothing.
> > > > Which behaviour is more POSIXly correct?
Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Agreed on all counts. By "this behavior" I was referring to the
> example.
Yep -- I was agreeing with you. :-)
John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> Even though it's my preferred shell, I certainly wouldn't say
> that Bash is any sort of standard, certainly not in the POSIX
> sense.
Well, one of Chet's stated goals is to be as POSIX as possible. I agree
that letting the standard speak for itself is a better id
From: Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Polstra already pointed this out, and Bash handles this like you
> would expect. There is a difference between expanding an empty list and
> trying to expand a list that isn't there.
Convince me that nothing like the following exists in the
por
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> To me, changing it right now on the eve of -release
> would be gratuitous. Later I would be fine with it.
>
> I still prefer /bin/sh being able to handle an empty
> literal list but would yield to the desires of others.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not sugge
On Saturday, March 04, 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Neither bash nor ksh claim to be particularly POSIX compliant. our
> /bin/sh does.
ksh doesn't claim to be POSIX compliant?
"ksh is intended to conform to the Shell Language Standard
developed by the IEEE POSIX 1003.2 Shell and Uti
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Given that Bash in both standard and POSIX mode complains about 'for i
> > in ; do echo $i; done', I would say that it's not POSIX compatible. What
> > could/does d
24 matches
Mail list logo
