> I'm not saying OpenBSD is a bad operating system. Far from it. However I
> would only use it for routers, firewalls, bridges, etc... Anything that
> has to do with networking because after all, OpenBSD's networking is
> great. Outside these areas OpenBSD is just too slow and doesn't support
> eno
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:19:24PM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote:
> Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Like many things in computing it just depends on what one is most
> > > comfortable with and using the right tool for the right job. One time
> > > that is events, the other
Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Like many things in computing it just depends on what one is most
> > comfortable with and using the right tool for the right job. One time
> > that is events, the other time that is threads...
> >
> > Greets,
> > Jeroen
> >
> Disagreed. Your
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Girish Venkatachalam wrote:
> [..]
> > You should take a look at these links.
> >
> > http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Ousterhout/Threads/index.shtml
>
> Note that those slides are from 1995, that is over 10 years ago. You do
> re
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:37:35PM -0400, Adam wrote:
> Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Threads a big PITA. Best avoided. Creates more problems than solves.
> >
> > OpenBSD is about neatness, cleanliness and stability.
> >
> > Threads don't have any of them. :-)
>
> First
>> >So far, every reply has been, "It's yours if you pay
>> >to ship it."
>> Count me in; I will help pay shipping as well.
>
>Count me in too, I have slightly limited funds but will help as much as I can.
>Please contact me off list if I can be of any use.
There isn't a shortage of multi-proces
> >So far, every reply has been, "It's yours if you pay
> >to ship it."
> Count me in; I will help pay shipping as well.
Count me in too, I have slightly limited funds but will help as much as I can.
Please contact me off list if I can be of any use.
Patsy
Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Threads a big PITA. Best avoided. Creates more problems than solves.
>
> OpenBSD is about neatness, cleanliness and stability.
>
> Threads don't have any of them. :-)
First of all, threads are a good choice for some tasks. Just because
openbsd'
On Monday 09 October 2006 22:44, you wrote:
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
Just to give you an idea how lazy the OpenBSD developers are, I got up this
morning and went dow
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:26:48PM -0400, Sam Chill wrote:
> On 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would think that there would be some sense of "urgency" to get the new
> >rthreads implementation up-an-running (at least for the i386 and AMD64
> >platforms) otherwise Open
On 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would think that there would be some sense of "urgency" to get the new
rthreads implementation up-an-running (at least for the i386 and AMD64
platforms) otherwise OpenBSD will become less and less viable as a
general purpose server pla
On 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would think that there would be some sense of "urgency" to get the new
rthreads implementation up-an-running (at least for the i386 and AMD64
platforms) otherwise OpenBSD will become less and less viable as a
general purpose server pla
I would think that there would be some sense of "urgency" to get the new
rthreads implementation up-an-running (at least for the i386 and AMD64
platforms) otherwise OpenBSD will become less and less viable as a
general purpose server platform (I like OpenBSD a lot) and really hate
to see this hap
Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, chefren wrote:
SNIP
+++chefren
p.s. Really nothing wrong with getting the E450 in the spotlight so
more people know of a lack of code and really nothing wrong with
knowing the project has a lack of money.
An e440, what a room heater. If a developer
I've gotten a few replies with people interested in
parting with E450s, 250s, 280s, and 220s (I have an
Ultra 2 to throw onto the pile, for what its worth).
So far, every reply has been, "It's yours if you pay
to ship it."
If any devs would find any of these useful, or know of
a dev who would fin
Good morning all
I've gotten a few replies with people interested in
parting with E450s, 250s, 280s, and 220s (I have an
Ultra 2 to throw onto the pile, for what its worth).
So far, every reply has been, "It's yours if you pay
to ship it."
If any devs would find any of these useful, or know of
a
On 10/10/06, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/10/06 4:46 AM, Kian Mohageri wrote:
> > On 10/9/06, Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I guess you didn't understand; OpenBSD does not exist for you or me, it
> >> exists for the developers.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a truth
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, chefren wrote:
SNIP
> +++chefren
>
>
> p.s. Really nothing wrong with getting the E450 in the spotlight so
> more people know of a lack of code and really nothing wrong with
> knowing the project has a lack of money.
An e440, what a room heater. If a developer feels like gett
On 10/10/06 4:46 AM, Kian Mohageri wrote:
On 10/9/06, Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you didn't understand; OpenBSD does not exist for you or me, it
exists for the developers.
This is a truth everybody should have to read before submitting their
complaint/feature request/ra
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> ropers
> Sent: 10 October 2006 12:22 AM
> To: Greg Thomas
> Cc: OpenBSD
> Subject: Re: Version 4.0 release
>
> > Would you like some cheese?
> >
> > Greg
>
On Monday 09 October 2006 17:44, you wrote:
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
Imagine saying something like, sorry but we have too much of a backlog to be
able to get to that.
On 10/9/06, Matt Radtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all you guys with those 450s and 250s--
If any of you would be willing to part with said
computer and if any devs would find that hardware
useful, I would be more than happy to help pay for,
perhaps even pay for all of, the shipping costs to
> Hands up, yet another person with a personal E450
> that was retired (from a
> bank!! 8-))
>
> I should go back and get some hard drives for it.
>
> Remember, the power supply handles are NOT load
> bearing! 8-)
Hey all you guys with those 450s and 250s--
If any of you would be willing to par
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:52:59 -0600
"Jack J. Woehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:36 PM, RedShift wrote:
>
> >
> > Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't
> > really float my boat.
>
> All good points, Glenn. OpenBSD also accepts hardware gifts and cash
On 10/9/06, Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't really
> > float my boat. I only do some high level programming and I know nothing
> > about kernel internals.
>
> I guess you didn't understand; OpenBSD does not exist for you or
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 06:36, RedShift wrote:
> You would think _somebody_ would at least make an attempt at it.
You would think so but funny how that someone, who is supposed to do this on
their free time and maybe on their own expense, is always someone else.
> I can
> imagine OpenBS
Quoting Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The willingness to take in code submissions is almost surprising,
> really. Surely no person has any right to *gripe*!
I'm really surprised by the attitude of some people.
Generous person: Here, have a free car.
Ungrateful person: Aww, it's RED! I
On 10/9/06, Greg Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have one at work that was retired in 2002. I've never had a chance
> to install OpenBSD on it, it's quad processor but probably doesn't
> have a RAID controller. I haven't even had a chance to fire it up in
> years.
Hands up, yet another
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 05:16:09PM -0600, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Bryan Irvine wrote:
>
> > [1] I'm pretty sure the 250 and 450 are similar, though I could be
> > wrong.
>
> Similar, but the 250 is typically "half a 450", two procs instead of
> four
> and less of ot
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:36:03AM +0200, RedShift wrote:
>
> Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't really
> float my boat. I only do some high level programming and I know nothing
> about kernel internals. I use it where it fits me and equals customer
> benefit. If it d
David B.([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2006.10.09 15:44:37 -0600:
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't ha
On 10/9/06, Jack J. Woehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Thanks at least for a very secure OS. I've been online now for 6
>> months on
>> this E450 with
>> no hacks.
>
> We welcome code submissions. I think you have no idea at all how much
> effo
I only use OpenBSD nowadays. I'll toy with other operating systems, but I
generally just stick to OpenBSD. It suits all of my needs. I can never
remember speed being a huge issue. I wish there was better SMP support, and
in your situation I'd also be wishing for better RAID support. The work so
far
On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Bryan Irvine wrote:
> [1] I'm pretty sure the 250 and 450 are similar, though I could be
> wrong.
Similar, but the 250 is typically "half a 450", two procs instead of
four
and less of other resources, otherwise quite similar.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Developm
On 10/9/06, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually I agree with David B. here. I know developing an OS is a huge
task and with nothing but security on your mind, building bridges seems
a trivial task compared to it. However having more than one processor is
rapidly becoming a commodity and
Sorry about the subject line. The spam filter here flagged the message
and I keep forgetting to check to see if it changed the subject.
-Damian
On 10/10/06, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a 5 year old RAID controller is not supported, what can
be expected in the future? Yes I'm sure there isn't enough documentation
available, license disagreements, etc... but come on, it's 5 years old!
it is that easy: if you can't use the os,
On 10/9/06, Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:59:29PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> > raidframe,
> > and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
> >
> > I'm using onl
This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
crappy i686 box
I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, but I'm sure Theo and
company could whip something up for you.
Just send another $125,000 check to:
Theo de Raadt
OpenBSD
812 23rd Ave SE
Calgary, Alberta, Can
On 10/9/06, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
>> raidframe,
>> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>>
>> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:36 PM, RedShift wrote:
>
> Asking for code submission if you want feature x or y doesn't
> really float my boat.
All good points, Glenn. OpenBSD also accepts hardware gifts and cash
as a means
of accelerating development on a given platform.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:59:29PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> > raidframe,
> > and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
> >
> > I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
raidframe,
and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
can't hardware raid
my enterprise fiberchannel ar
Would you like some cheese?
Greg
Venezuelan Beaver Cheese?
On 10/9/06, David B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a $125,000 machine 5 years ago, and I treat it no better than some
crappy i686 box
because security is my primary issue. If I went with another OS, I could
get a lot of the
functionality I want, but what good is it, if some 12 y/o kid in pa
On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Thanks at least for a very secure OS. I've been online now for 6
>> months on
>> this E450 with
>> no hacks.
>
> We welcome code submissions. I think you have no idea at all how much
> effort it takes to support all the things we do, and you
On 10/9/06, David B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
raidframe,
and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
can't hardware raid
my e
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives out of 30 because I
> can't hardware raid
> my enterprise fiberchannel array, I ca
We are accepting diffs.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:44:37PM -0600, David B. wrote:
> I see 4.0 is coming out, and yet, no hardware raid support, no fixes for
> raidframe,
> and still no SMP support, for sparc64 on Ultrasparc II machines.
>
> I'm using only 1 processor out of 4, and 4 hard drives
49 matches
Mail list logo
