On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 10:49 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> What is the point of this discussion?
>
> Do you think it will lead to something changing?
If you're asking me: I was just adding to and clarifying what Henning
wrote based on what I knew.
If you're asking Sascha: you should have replied
oooh debian does it, now there is a solid reason.
gnu/ is being emptied not filled up. Why do people keep asking these
same dumb questions though?
Why in the world switch if there is something that is perfectly
adequate?
It is this bullshit switcheroo that always gets linux into trouble.
On M
On 2005 May 11, at 9:32 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:13 +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> exim: dunno license currently,
>
> Debian uses exim as the MTA by default, so it's almost certainly free
> enough to stick in gnu/.
Things are being removed from there. Nothing new will
What is the point of this discussion?
Do you think it will lead to something changing?
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:13 +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > exim: dunno license currently,
>
> Debian uses exim as the MTA by default, so it's almost certainly free
> enough to stick in gnu/.
>
> > but awk
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:13 +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> exim: dunno license currently,
Debian uses exim as the MTA by default, so it's almost certainly free
enough to stick in gnu/.
> but awkward 80s design, poor implementation, just plain sucks
At the risk of starting a flamewar, people say
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:49:56PM -0700, Ben Goren wrote:
> On 2005 May 9, at 6:09 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >>> Even if the plan9
> >>> compiler looks nice.
> >>
> >> Forgive me if I'm out of the loop, but has the license changed since
> >> two years ago?
> >
> > yes, that's the entire point.
>
Ben, Henning's, "yes, that's the entire point," referred to there being no
plan9 code that is reusable in OpenBSD, it was not saying that there was
suddenly a relicensing.
As to when OpenBSD will be GCCless, well, start a project to make a compiler
that is liberally licensed and supports all of
On 2005 May 9, at 6:09 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
>>> Even if the plan9
>>> compiler looks nice.
>>
>> Forgive me if I'm out of the loop, but has the license changed since
>> two years ago?
>
> yes, that's the entire point.
I don't suppose anybody could elaborate? I'm not having any luck
finding
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-10 02:16]:
> Why?
> http://www.openbsd.org/37.html
>
> Lets read it together:
>
> "Improved hardware support, including:"
> - a lot of drivers
it nowhere sdays on all archs. learn to read.
the platform pages clearly state what is supported on whi
* Ben Goren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-10 01:31]:
> On 2005 May 9, at 2:23 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>
> > Even if the plan9
> > compiler looks nice.
>
> Forgive me if I'm out of the loop, but has the license changed since
> two years ago?
yes, that's the entire point.
--
BS Web Services, http
> --On 09 May 2005 23:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So maybe the Dev-team would be so friendly to write (for 3.8. e.g.?)
>> the archs behind the drivers.
>
> The list of drivers supported on each arch, are on the webpage about
> that arch.
Why?
http://www.openbsd.org/37.html
Lets read i
On 2005 May 9, at 2:23 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
> Even if the plan9
> compiler looks nice.
Forgive me if I'm out of the loop, but has the license changed since
two years ago?
http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0306/msg01274.html
(That's just the start of the thread. Read at least th
>> Some birds told me Theo got a hint about a compiler at the FosDem...
>> And yes gcc will be replaced one day... but not now, nor in 3.8...
>> Maybe in 3.9/4.0..
>
> Some birds tell me you speak out of your arse. Even if the plan9
> compiler looks nice.
>
You made my day! Still grinning :-)
Jonat
--On 09 May 2005 23:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So maybe the Dev-team would be so friendly to write (for 3.8. e.g.?)
the archs behind the drivers.
The list of drivers supported on each arch, are on the webpage about
that arch.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I personaly don't care a lot for the compiler (even i would prefere a
>> BSD-Licensed compiler)... but for the drivers (e.g. ath for amd64).
>> And after I bought an ath-base card I noticed why ppl. wanna get
>> ral-based cards...
>
> Why is ral preferred over ath (in
> Some birds told me Theo got a hint about a compiler at the FosDem...
> And yes gcc will be replaced one day... but not now, nor in 3.8...
> Maybe in 3.9/4.0..
Some birds tell me you speak out of your arse. Even if the plan9
compiler looks nice.
> So maybe the Dev-team would be so friendly to wr
> Quoting Anil Madhavapeddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Yeah, Tendra's pretty dead. I'd wager it would be to easier to glue
>> a register allocator onto /usr/ports/devel/cil and have a nice clean
>> start.
>
> Rather nice thought. While we are at it why don't we take most of the
> ccured
> code in an
Quoting Anil Madhavapeddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Yeah, Tendra's pretty dead. I'd wager it would be to easier to glue
> a register allocator onto /usr/ports/devel/cil and have a nice clean
> start.
Rather nice thought. While we are at it why don't we take most of the ccured
code in and bind with t
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 07:38:16PM +0200, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:
> Quoting Sascha Retzki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > 3.) Did anybody look close enough on TenDRA yet? I'd like to know how much
> > GNUism is in OpenBSDs base, building mechanism, so basicly it adds up to:
> > How long do we/you
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:13:19PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Sascha Retzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-09 17:22]:
> > 1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does?
>
> hah. besides that beeing stupid, let's see what options we have...
amen.
> > 2.) Do you plan to
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:08:38AM -0700, Ben Goren wrote:
> Unix uses X for its windowing environment. If and when this ever
> changes, I'm sure The Powers That Be will consider the alternatives.
>
> Until then, this is like asking if people like using spoons for their
> soup, and if they'd con
Quoting Sascha Retzki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 3.) Did anybody look close enough on TenDRA yet? I'd like to know how much
> GNUism is in OpenBSDs base, building mechanism, so basicly it adds up to:
> How long do we/you have to wait till TenDRA can be used?
Tendra is, unfortunately, not that interes
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#36 comes to mind. Currently,
> OpenBSD includes XFree86 4.4.0.
No, currently, OpenBSD includes X.org 6.8.2. OpenBSD has NEVER included
XFree86 4.4.0, which is not considered free enough. What has been
included in 3.6 was all the ``old-license'' XFree86 code, wi
> 1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does? Or
> do you already (first check said no, but maybe I missed something)?
There are no such plans; other MTA are available in the ports tree.
> 2.) Do you plan to distribute PAM in base?
No. OpenBSD uses so-called ``BSD aut
* Sascha Retzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-09 17:22]:
> 1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does?
hah. besides that beeing stupid, let's see what options we have...
-qmail: unfree
-postfix: unfree
-exim: dunno license currently, but awkward 80s design, poor
implem
* Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-09 18:09]:
> On 5/9/05, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Currently, OpenBSD includes XFree86 4.4.0.
>
> That is, includes an unencumbered X. See the FAQ (#1) on this.
to be clear, OpenBSD includes X.org these days. The latest XFree we
sh
All these questions have been thoroughly discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please
search the archives for detailed information. I'll add quick notes as
I'm waiting for something to finish right now and have a quick moment
with nothing better to do.
It's worth noting that I'm not a developer, so I'
On 5/9/05, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently, OpenBSD includes XFree86 4.4.0.
That is, includes an unencumbered X. See the FAQ (#1) on this.
Cheers,
Rogier
--
If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.
You should do your homework before posting questions like these.
On 5/9/05, Sascha Retzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does? Or
> do you already (first check said no, but maybe I missed something)?
If by 'distribute' you mean 'dist
Hello!
I'm no official OpenBSD developper, it's just my impressions.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:16:14PM +0200, Sascha Retzki wrote:
>Hello folks,
>1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does? Or
>do you already (first check said no, but maybe I missed something)?
I do
re
the source is freely available and that along w/ cvs
logs shall give you answers to most of your questions
cu
Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Sascha Retzki:
> Hello folks,
>
> 1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does? Or
> do you already (firs
Hello folks,
1.) Do you plan to distribute several MTAs, like NetBSD currently does? Or
do you already (first check said no, but maybe I missed something)?
2.) Do you plan to distribute PAM in base?
3.) Did anybody look close enough on TenDRA yet? I'd like to know how much
GNUism is in OpenBSDs
32 matches
Mail list logo
