-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Everyone,
On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their
End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security Team.
Since FreeBSD 6.4 is the last remaining supported release from the FreeBSD
6.x stable branc
Joe Shevland writes:
> My thoughts are below - remembering its a volunteer project, people
> spend their precious time to make it happen, and
> noneofthatwisthandingitsstilldamngood:
>
> a) if you don't like it, fix it.
> b) if you can't fix it, pay someone else to fix it
> c) if you can't fix it
On 9/21/2010 6:54 AM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
This thread, to this moment, has one practical statement: calls for
volunteers and other major notifications should go to announce@,
perhaps to Web site, too
... and since you've made that point, and several people in the project
leadership have agr
On 21/09/2010 11:49 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 15:16, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early
signs
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> I give up.
>
Thank $DEITY.
Cheers
Tom
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsub
Hi Andriy Gapon!
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:53:56 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>>> Hmm, it's really simple.
>>> If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the
>>> places
&g
Hi Willem Jan Withagen!
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:59:46 +0200; Willem Jan Withagen wrote about 'Re: HEADS
UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
> I'm a FreeBSD user as early as 1993, still have the first 1.0 CD here as
> nice remembrance. So I guess that I qualify
On 2010-09-21 15:16, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
some old FreeBSD users get tired from those chan
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 2010-09-21 13:39, {some mysterious person :-)} wrote:
> >>The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
> >>some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser
> >>POLA a
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[...]
> If you want to shape the future of the project, then participate in the places
> where the future is shaped. If you want to know what's coming up in the
> future,
> then watch the places where the future is shaped. If you don't do eit
On 2010-09-21 13:39, Andriy Gapon wrote:
The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser
POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based
releases, not so stable -STABL
on 21/09/2010 15:36 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
> Hi Andriy Gapon!
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:39:53 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
> FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>
>>> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There
Hi Andriy Gapon!
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:39:53 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
>> some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes,
> The Project is ultimately about the users, right? There are early signs that
> some old FreeBSD users get tired from those changes, those removals, lesser
> POLA adherence, marketing-not-technical-stuff for time-not-feature-based
> releases, not so stable -STABLE as it used to be, and so on, migr
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was
removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand?
No, component removed was (1), I've underlined.
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For a practi
On 09/08/2010 06:44, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> Hi Mark Linimon!
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
> FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>
>>>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:24:11 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> > Because the original I4B code didn't
> > work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix
> > that, the code had to be removed.
>
> No. The code needn't removal, the stack should be modified to be fast w
Hi Mark Linimon!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
>> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is bette
Hi Doug Barton!
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:37:07 -0700; Doug Barton wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
> On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>> 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncha
Hi v...@freebsd.org!
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:01:55 +0200; v...@freebsd.org wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
> On 09/07/10 23:31, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>> 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> The reason is performance for overall
> > The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than
> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)".
> "Make it work. Make it right. Make it fast. In that order", know this?
> Sacrificing "work" for "
[removed security@ which is not nearly related to topic]
On 09/07/10 23:31, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than
"doesn't work at all (due to a
On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
Just to clarify things a little for those following it:
the original I4B code was removed
^ (1)
for entirely practical r
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
Just to clarify things a little for those following it:
the original I4B code was removed
^ (1)
for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant
lo
> P.S. why is security@ in cc: ?
Original announcement:
> Message-id: <4c7e71dc.1040...@freebsd.org>
> From: FreeBSD Security Officer
> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:31:40 -0700 (17:31 CEST)
> To: FreeBSD Stable ,
> freebsd security
All respondents (I happened to be first, Wed, 01 Sep 2010 1
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
>> Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B
>> code
>> was removed for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the
>> Giant
>> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was remo
Hi Robert Watson!
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 11:47:29 +0100 (BST); Robert Watson wrote about 'Re: HEADS
UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
>>> It seems code exists :-)
>>>
>>> http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html
>>> I
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
- Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ?
It seems code exists :-)
http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html
ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD
8-current
http://www.sel
Hi,
Reference:
> From: vol...@vwsoft.com
> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:10:32 +0200
> Message-id: <4c7ec148.9040...@vwsoft.com>
vol...@vwsoft.com wrote:
> [trimmed cc list]
>
> Julian,
>
> On 09/01/10 18:09, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> >> On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD
[trimmed cc list]
Julian,
On 09/01/10 18:09, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their
FreeBSD -7& -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN.
Somebody told you wrong.
There's still i4b code in 7-STABLE. It'
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2010 18:53:46 Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > > FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
> > > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN.
> > >
> > > Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ?
> > > Perhaps via:
> > > - a stude
"Julian H. Stacey" writes:
Hello,
> FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
It seems that hps@ maintains an isdn stack outside of freebsd tree :
http://www.selasky.org/hans_petter/isdn4bsd/
Regards
Éric Masson
--
>Une RedHat (je ne connais pas les autres distributions) ce configure
On Wednesday 01 September 2010 18:53:46 Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
> > So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN.
> >
> > Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ?
> > Perhaps via:
> > - a student SOC project ?
> > - FreeBSD foundation
> FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
> So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN.
> Could FreeBSD reinsert ISDN back into current/8/7 support ?
> Perhaps via:
> - a student SOC project ?
> - FreeBSD foundation paying a FreeBSD consultant (I know one who has the
> expertise already, has
> On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their
FreeBSD -7 & -8 do not support ISDN I'm told.
So 6.4 is the last working FreeBSD ISDN.
DSL is faster than ISDN, but
Losing ISDN would be unfortunate:
- Not all can get DSL speed, if they live far from phone exchange.
- ISDN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Everyone,
On November 30th, FreeBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 8.0 will have reached their
End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security Team.
Since FreeBSD 6.4 is the last remaining supported release from the FreeBSD
6.x stable branc
36 matches
Mail list logo
