Jon Noack wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
Careful there.one major reason I use FreeBSD is that, compared
with the other operating systems I can use, major breakages are rare.
I expect the policy that prevents you from deploying the most
featureful OS available is there to avoid the late-night pain
re
Eli Dart wrote:
> Careful there.one major reason I use FreeBSD is that, compared
> with the other operating systems I can use, major breakages are rare.
>
> I expect the policy that prevents you from deploying the most
> featureful OS available is there to avoid the late-night pain
> required t
In reply to Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> On August 25, 2004 06:44 am, Marko Zec wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 August 2004 00:15, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these things, you will
> > > be punnished by
> > > getting a CVS commit bit..?
On August 25, 2004 06:44 am, Marko Zec wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 August 2004 00:15, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these things, you will
> > be punnished by
> > getting a CVS commit bit..?
>
> Well, I didn't write the code myself, just ported it from -C
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 00:15, Julian Elischer wrote:
> You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these things, you will
> be punnished by
> getting a CVS commit bit..?
Well, I didn't write the code myself, just ported it from -CURRENT. Anyhow,
glad to see that people still care abou
ROTECTED] Behalf Of Julian Elischer
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:15 AM
> > To: Marko Zec
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: TCP SACK backport to -STABLE
> >
> >
> > You do know don't you, that if you continue
Marko Zec wrote:
I've prepared a more or less blind backport of the TCP SACK code which was
recently introduced in -CURRENT. Didn't put the patch through lots of
testing, but it just seems to work... The patch is available from the URL
bellow and should apply cleanly against both 4.10-RELEASE
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: TCP SACK backport to -STABLE
>
>
> You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these
> things, you will
> be punnished by
> getting a CVS commit bit..?
>
>
> Marko Zec wrote:
>
> >I've prepared a more or
You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these things, you will
be punnished by
getting a CVS commit bit..?
Marko Zec wrote:
I've prepared a more or less blind backport of the TCP SACK code which was
recently introduced in -CURRENT. Didn't put the patch through lots of
testing, but it
I've prepared a more or less blind backport of the TCP SACK code which was
recently introduced in -CURRENT. Didn't put the patch through lots of
testing, but it just seems to work... The patch is available from the URL
bellow and should apply cleanly against both 4.10-RELEASE and -STABLE.
htt
10 matches
Mail list logo
