On 18/02/2008, at 8:31 PM, System Administrator wrote:
After spending the weekend testing this every which way and searching
the net and archives to no avail, I need a few more eyes to help
determine whether this is a bug, a feature, or some minor stupidity on
my part...
[cut]
into a file to
Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is impor
After spending the weekend testing this every which way and searching
the net and archives to no avail, I need a few more eyes to help
determine whether this is a bug, a feature, or some minor stupidity on
my part...
First the environment:
OpenBSD 4.2-stable (GENERIC) #1: Fri Feb 1 02:28:33 E
On Feb 18, 2008 1:55 AM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> > think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system,
>
> you have that much porn that you need a 128bit fs?
Ya I do :)
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:20:22PM -0500, System Administrator wrote:
> To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this
> troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got
> absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the
> hopes t
> Leonardo, I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, I've always paid
> for it by buying CDs, unlike you who might have done an FTP install,
> you're a cheap-skate aren't you.
> Go buy yourself a CD set, contribute to the OpenBSD foundation, or
> better still, since you are talking about flying pig
On Feb 18, 2008 7:57 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own
> > code well enough to have completed it.
> > BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about
> > how you've put in your blood, swea
Lies
chefren wrote:
> ... Richard Stallman stopped [coding] doing so long time ago...
> B) Richard Stallman puts users first, =like you!=, Richard Stallman
>=believes= users are more important than coders so coders should be
>enslaved by the users. Which is plain STUPID since without code
I forgot to post a followup to this. I had a buddy of mine who ran
into a similiar issue the other day which was the exact problem I had
had. I figured it out way back when(year ago?) and if he just ran into
the problem now Im sure others have and will in the future.
The issue was the network the
On Feb 17, 2008 11:16 PM, Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Higgs wrote:
> > Assuming that a software program is not system-critical or requires
> > high security, and it benefits greatly from a shared memory/resource
> > model, I fail to see why threading can not be cost-effective.
Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "threads" is a particular programming model of multiple execution
> contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
> environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable software.
Are you really unable to see the irony i
On Feb 18, 2008 2:22 AM, raven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto:
> > Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
> > to my mails.
> >
> >
> I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
> But, you still dumb.
English isn't my
On Feb 18, 2008 2:25 AM, Kenneth R Westerback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Let me take a stab of responding to this...
> >
> > Thanks for responding...
>
On Feb 18, 2008 1:52 AM, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Its good to know that Ted did
--- Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "threads" is a particular programming model of multiple execution
> contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
> environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable
> software.
>
Only because people design threaded pr
David Higgs wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that
On Feb 17, 2008 7:15 AM, Peter Haag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --On February 17, 2008 11:28:42 AM +0100 Peter Haag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |
> |
> | --On February 16, 2008 11:20:29 PM -0500 Richard Daemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> |
> | | Hi,
> | |
> | | I'm really stumped on thi
To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this
troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got
absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the
hopes that at least some of the future would be posters will research
before posting.
> Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own
> code well enough to have completed it.
> BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about
> how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to
> understand the point that without us users you are
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Geoff Steckel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
> >>> are very bad ideas.
> >> that might be true for thos
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, "threads ar
--- Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to run more of the same you fork.
>
> Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
> Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
> people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those u
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is important.
On Sun, Feb 17, 20
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoff Steckel wrote:
>
> > Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
> > are very bad ideas.
>
> that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
> for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, "threads are bad" stri
> If all our users bought a CD set there would be a *lot* more
> development going on by dedicated/paid developers. If corporations
> needing paperwork to donate would contact www.openbsdfoundation.org
> and donate there would be a lot more development going on. And if pigs
> could code as well as
Hi,
> It gets stranger.
> How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user?
> Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system.
> And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via
> CDs which need to be purchased.
aehm, hello ? I do buy the c
Jussi Peltola ha scritto:
For each message in this thread that I consider insulting (10 so far), I
will donate 1 euro to OpenBSD to compensate for lost developer time
reading such messages. Being a student my budget can't take more, but at
least I try to be grateful.
Keep up the good work making
Zbigniew Baniewski ha scritto:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:52:34PM +0100, raven wrote:
Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
to my mails.
I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
But, you still dumb.
I can see seve
For each message in this thread that I consider insulting (10 so far), I
will donate 1 euro to OpenBSD to compensate for lost developer time
reading such messages. Being a student my budget can't take more, but at
least I try to be grateful.
Keep up the good work making an OS that is only fixed wh
- Original Message -
From: "Mayuresh Kathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OpenBSD-Misc"
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 1:04 AM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh K
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:55AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> So what you are saying is that what the god father of BSD file systems
> (Marshal Kirk McKusik) is doing is wrong?
Last year i went to a 2 day kernel internals tutorial run by Kirk
MsKusik
and he was more than aware
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:55AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> That's why I called you an idiot.
> The project is not a research project, but a real live production
> grade code working under Solaris 10.
There is a saying "horses for courses". It means use something fit for
the job. You don't
On 2/17/08 10:14 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about
how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to
understand the point that without us users you are nothing.
Ehhh... 2 Big Mistakes...
A) Marco does code, as far as I
On 2/17/08 8:04 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
I'm not belittling the developers,
You do. They =give= software to you, for free, and you say it's not good
enough. The only reason I reply is that in general your posts are refreshing
but on this you are plain wrong.
> just that I really got irrit
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:52:34PM +0100, raven wrote:
> >Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
> >to my mails.
> >
> >
> I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
> But, you still dumb.
I can see several _public_ answers to _quite pri
On Feb 17, 2008 2:49 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not telling Ted what to do at all, you're just assuming it in your
> blind fury over me coming out with the truth that most of *your*
> coding effort is directly or indirectly supported by non-developer
> users who do so by bu
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:55AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 1:04 AM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> > > laid down some
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:55AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> I'm not telling Ted what to do at all, you're just assuming it in your
> blind fury over me coming out with the truth that most of *your*
> coding effort is directly or indirectly supported by non-developer
> users who do so by buyin
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:31:00PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> Hm, should be the way you try to contact them,
You mean, a question like: "Hallo, looking for a contact to *** ***, OpenBSD
developer - is this e-mail address a valid contact?" isn't quite proper way?
--
p
On 2/17/08 3:13 PM, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:
Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
Ask them.
During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
responded even with "get lost".
Hm, s
On Feb 18, 2008 1:04 AM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> > laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
> > basic level
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me take a stab of responding to this...
>
> Thanks for responding...
>
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto:
Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
to my mails.
I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
But, you still dumb.
~Mayuresh
Francesco
On Feb 18, 2008 1:23 AM, Todd Alan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> > laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
> > basic level.
> > But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some mor
On Feb 17, 2008 2:58 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > His code is free to anyone that wants it for free. Do you not
> > understand how the BSD l
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system,
you have that much porn that you need a 128bit fs?
On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his
and
laid down some ground work for future d
Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
to my mails.
~Mayuresh
On Feb 18, 2008 1:36 AM, raven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto:
> > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> > laid down some ground work for future
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Hi,
Today I compile the current Kernel and the bsd.mp works fine in my Intel
CoreQuad 6600 (2.4Ghz)
Its great :-D
Diego Fernando Nieto Moreno
---
www.compumundohypermegared.org
Comunidad de Usuarios OpenBSD Colombia,
the dmesg is:
OpenBSD 4.2-current (GENERIC.MP) #0:
Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto:
Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
basic level.
But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his
time and effort to complete what he started.
Als
On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> > laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
> > basic level.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> Yes, but sometimes (rare case, I agree) you've got to install something,
> which has /usr/local "hardcoded". And then it's no longer a switch - you've
> got to edit Makefile "manually". And yes - I can edit such file and change
>
On Feb 17, 2008 6:37 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/02/17 18:06, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > > It would be great if developers also start working on i
On Feb 17, 2008 12:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me take a stab of responding to this...
>
> Thanks for responding...
>
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
> basic level.
> But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his
>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and
> laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its
> basic level.
> But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his
> tim
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> If - for example (just example!) - one
> doesn't even has to remember, that at the "./configure" stage there wasn't
> any need to switch to another directory-tree.
"...that there was..." of course
--
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:49PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> why? if you are manually running ./configure, is it that much more
> to add --prefix=/opt or whatever? if the argument is to keep manually
> installed programs separate, isn't that the responsibility of the
> person doing the manual
On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me take a stab of responding to this...
Thanks for responding...
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
> >
> > I've been following the
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
few modern features.
'Modern' is an adjective used by and on people subject to the
influence of advertising and PR. "All New!" "Now in an Orange
Box" "We've changed our logo!" En
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:58:44PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:41:46PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
>
> > > Yes, there's no point in making silly changes.
> >
> > Case in point: Suggesting that the ports and
> > packages infrastructure be modified
>
> I'm not
Daniel Hagerty wrote:
> > From: Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:26:51 -0600
> >
> > Here is the catch, he is right and you are not.
>
> The topic is the evilness of threading and how it relates to
> spl(). You are welcome to offer actual content on the su
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:05:35PM -0500, Daniel Hagerty wrote:
> > From: Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:26:51 -0600
> >
> > Here is the catch, he is right and you are not.
>
> The topic is the evilness of threading and how it relates to
> spl(). You are
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:
Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
Ask them.
During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
responded even with "get lost".
How
> From: Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:26:51 -0600
>
> Here is the catch, he is right and you are not.
The topic is the evilness of threading and how it relates to
spl(). You are welcome to offer actual content on the subject. Proof
by violent assertion i
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:41:46PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> > Yes, there's no point in making silly changes.
>
> Case in point: Suggesting that the ports and
> packages infrastructure be modified
I'm not sure (not being OpenBSD developer), that one has to use such Very
Important Terms li
Let me take a stab of responding to this...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
>
> I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
> comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads co
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:01:14PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
>
> Yes, there's no point in making silly changes.
Case in point: Suggesting that the ports and
packages infrastructure be modified to install
third party software other than where the
developers seem to want it so go (aka /usr/
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:32:19PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Shut-up and hack...
in short, that's the best way to make suggestions.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Feb 17, 2008 10:24 PM, Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
>
> Ha! Good you say so. Now I am absolutely sure you are trolling.
Shut-up and hack...
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
Ha! Good you say so. Now I am absolutely sure you are trolling.
# Han
Here is the catch, he is right and you are not.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:18:39AM -0500, Daniel Hagerty wrote:
> Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I assume that anyone posting here wants programs that work
> > correctly all the time, or as close to that as humanly possible.
> > If
Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that anyone posting here wants programs that work
> correctly all the time, or as close to that as humanly possible.
> If we don't agree about that, please stop reading here.
I believe that openbsd should immediately convert all programs in
Zbigniew Baniewski wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100:
>>> Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
Oh, that's an easy one.
1. Most suggestions go nowhere because those who like them lack
the skills or the time to implement them, or the time to acquire
the
On Feb 17, 2008 7:36 AM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> > > features currently offered by Op
On Feb 17, 2008 7:36 AM, openbsd misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Im Auftrag von Tony Abernethy
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008 13:20
> > An: 'Mayuresh Kathe'; 'OpenBSD-Misc'
> > Betreff: Re: What
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:49:53AM -0600, Will Maier wrote:
> You don't get it. This system isn't for you, even if you donate a
> bazillion dollars. This system is for the people who make it.
OK - as I understand, it's the answer for my question: "Are they willing to
take a suggestions from the u
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> > I can imagine one response: Port whatever it is, or else
>
> That cannot be a valid response, when given to the _user_.
You don't get it. This system isn't f
On Feb 17, 2008 10:22 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:
>
> > Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this? Or YOU could do the
> > equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base
> > directory. This do
On Feb 17, 2008 9:30 AM, William Boshuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
> >
> > I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
> > comment that he's stop
On Sunday 17 February 2008 14.27.21 Jussi Peltola wrote:
> Try
> $ printf \\a
>
> If it beeps, your shell or whatever program you run just isn't
> generating the beeps. If it doesn't, something along the way is
> breaking the beeps. Screen is one of such programs if you configure
> it to do that.
On Feb 17, 2008 10:18 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
>
> > In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software
> > installed by the project's third party software management
> > tools out of /usr/local, so
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:26:48AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:
> Sure it is. If you have permission to install to /usr/local, you are
> not a user, you are an admin.
Isn't it just semantics?
OK, I understand, you see no gains in proposed change.
--
pozdrawiam / re
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:
> Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this? Or YOU could do the
> equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base
> directory. This doesn't need any funding either.
And did I ask for any funding? When?
Of course,
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software
> installed by the project's third party software management
> tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for
^
> users who want to insta
On Feb 17, 2008 9:10 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I
> wrote already - OK, once more:
>
> I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"
> gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarc
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:
>
> > >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
> >
> > Ask them.
>
> During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
On Feb 16, 2008 8:59 AM, Matthieu Herrb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2008 5:31 PM, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Upon 'make build', the directory lib/fontconfig errors out on not
> > being able to find freetype-config.
>
> you need to have /usr/X11R6/bin in your PATH to
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
>
> I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
> comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because
> he doesn't have the time for it
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:
> >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
>
> Ask them.
During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
responded even with "get lost".
> However, you will get far further with suggesti
>> By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
>> currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
>> they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
>> what you want, other times it doesn't.
>
>Are they willing to take a suggestions
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:07:06PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
> currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
> they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
> what you want, oth
I assume that anyone posting here wants programs that work
correctly all the time, or as close to that as humanly possible.
If we don't agree about that, please stop reading here.
Let's take threads out of the "features" debate.
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very
Try
$ printf \\a
If it beeps, your shell or whatever program you run just isn't
generating the beeps. If it doesn't, something along the way is breaking
the beeps. Screen is one of such programs if you configure it to do
that.
--
Jussi Peltola
Tony Abernethy ha scritto:
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
few modern features.
H related?
Improving the file system to be a little more fast than now... for example.
wpa[2] as Hagen Volpers say...
network stack
LIVAI Daniel ha scritto:
Hi!
When using console on my local box, I can hear the pcspeaker beeping
when it needs to (eg. mistyping some path).
Is it possible to do this while connected to an OBSD box over ssh.
eh? What you mean ?
Example: You're in a position X of the world, and your pc on Y
On 2008/02/17 18:06, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> > > features currently offered by OpenBSD.
> >
> > eh?
By thi
Hi!
When using console on my local box, I can hear the pcspeaker beeping
when it needs to (eg. mistyping some path).
Is it possible to do this while connected to an OBSD box over ssh.
Thanks!
Daniel
--
LIVAI Daniel
Public key ID = 4AC0A4B1
Key fingerprint = D037 03B9 C12D D338 4412 2D83 1373 9
On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> > features currently offered by OpenBSD.
>
> eh?
think soft-updates with background fsck,
think a generally us
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
