Is FreeBSD dead ?
Hi, I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or the single user evaluation of BSDI... Il FreeBSD dedicated to become the 'RedHat' of BSD (when you know the junk sold by redhat. I think it is time to think to something else NetBSD ? OpenBSD ? Linux (which one?) I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) -- Didier Derny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
On Fri 2000-03-10 (11:02), Didier Derny wrote: I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. Let's hope your mailbox doesn't get filled with replies. Which announcement did you read? You really should read the daemonnews one, as it covers a lot of stuff that should reassure you. The slashdot interviews with Bob, Jordan, and Mike should also do so. In my discussions with the various stakeholders, I must say I'm confident of this move. I think it is time to think to something else NetBSD ? OpenBSD ? Linux (which one?) One of the things that I can assure you, is that if anything untoward occurs (which I'm sure will not) it's easy enough to just rename the project and carry on with the existing code. There's nothing that can be done to prevent it, and you'd basically have FreeBSD again. Walnut Creek doesn't own FreeBSD, so BSDI can't buy FreeBSD via Walnut Creek. So, no, FreeBSD certainly isn't dead. If anything, things will become even more lively! (: Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:02:38 GMT, Didier Derny wrote: I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. You're going to feel like a real idiot when you actually read the announcement properly. Go back and read it through from beginning to end. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
hi, there! On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote: I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or the single user evaluation of BSDI... Il FreeBSD dedicated to become the 'RedHat' of BSD (when you know the junk sold by redhat. I think it is time to think to something else NetBSD ? OpenBSD ? Linux (which one?) I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) FUD /fjoe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
Hi, You're going to feel like a real idiot when you actually read the announcement properly. Go back and read it through from beginning to end. :-) That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot blame him. I'm reassured by the comments that have been made, both here and other places, but I am afraid that whilst not jumping ship, I will be watching the development of FreeBSD with a /very/ suspicious eye. I find it difficult to believe that a group of people who have worked so hard for so long to produce a superior product will walk away from it, or see it corrupted. However, on the other hand, when I hear managment type terms such as "features" and "adding value" with reference to the commercial offering I do wonder just how the FreeBSD project will be affected in _reality_ and not just in _theory_. I am personally waiting to hear more information, particularly from the commercial side, and perhaps then my suspicious mind may be relieved somewhat. I'm sure you chaps know what you are doing, but some of us believe that Eris is great friends with Murphy. Regards, Johnathan Meehan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Any interest in 3c905c driver for 2.2.8?
I doubt anyone would be interested in this, but we still have lots of clients using 2.2.8 and have backported the xl driver from 3.3 to support the 3c905c card. If anyone is interested in this code let me know. -- Dr Graham WheelerE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director, Research and Development WWW:http://www.cequrux.com CEQURUX Technologies Phone: +27(21)423-6065 Firewalls/VPN SpecialistsFax:+27(21)424-3656 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Any interest in 3c905c driver for 2.2.8?
* Graham Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000310 05:22] wrote: I doubt anyone would be interested in this, but we still have lots of clients using 2.2.8 and have backported the xl driver from 3.3 to support the 3c905c card. If anyone is interested in this code let me know. Please do make it avalable, I'll commit it to the 2.2.x branch if no one else does. thanks, -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
At 02:27 PM 3/10/00 +0200, you wrote: On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:20 +0100, Johnathan Meehan wrote: That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot blame him. I guess what I wrote makes for a very harsh comment in isolation from the grin I had on my face while I was typing. :-) I find it difficult to believe that a group of people who have worked so hard for so long to produce a superior product will walk away from it, or see it corrupted. What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep up? They dont have to keep up. They just have to add some bells and whistles and package it (ala RedHat), which is probably what BSDI plans to do. They just want to get in on the Open Source Maniathey see RedHat drawing all that money with no real product... As long as they keep their grubbly little hands off of it, and dont let the ciscos and uunets of the world (who both own a piece of bsdi) dictate policy, and as long as several key developers dont go work for BSDI (they would have already if they were going to I think)it shouldnt be much different. If BSD Inc. were to "buy out" FreeBSD with the sole purpose of reducing competition, they'd be a bunch of idiots. The volunteers that make FreeBSD great now would move on to something else and _that_ would soon become the new threat. They can't stop a branch from forming...the question is who will run the branch? However, if BSD Inc. were to use FreeBSD as the base platform and sell extra toys and service along with it, they'd benefit directly from the volunteer energy of the project. I think that there is only cause for concern if the folks at BSD Inc. are a bunch of idiots. Thus, I'm not concerned. ;-) BSDI is a very poorly run company and the principals are the same. They have good engineers and terrible management. They've completely missed the boat all along, they have been trying to compete with Microsoft instead of Linux, which is a terrible mistake. ..I dont see any change that will make things any different. Their new CEO is an old world guy who's been there a long time...he's not an internet guy and not likely to do anything spectacular. Hes been their director of marketing through their market share freefall, so why will he do better as CEO? They've been buying full page ads for years and BSD is far from a household word. Unfortunately, as much as I like freebsd, FreeBSD isnt the answer. People want linux. Its a toy, and people like toys. Dennis Emerging Technologies, Inc. - http://www.etinc.com ISA and PCI T1/T3/V35/HSSI Cards for FreeBSD and LINUX Multiport T1 and HSSI/T3 UNIX-based Routers Bandwidth Management Standalone Systems Bandwidth Management software for LINUX and FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
As long as they keep their grubbly little hands off of it, and dont let the ciscos and uunets of the world (who both own a piece of bsdi) dictate policy, and as long as several key developers dont go work for BSDI (they would have already if they were going to I think)it shouldnt be much different. As far as I know, UUNET had to divest their equity interest in BSDI at the time that we (UUNET) went public years ago (or maybe it was when we took some VC funding.. too long ago now.) The ATT lawsuit was still simmering at the time, and that degree of uncertainty was deemed hostile to raising money. In retrospect, UUNET probably should have kept a piece. Over the past few years, UUNET has funded BSDI to add specific features (like doing the SPARC port) but that was a conceptually simple contracting arrangement that resulted in the code being available to all BSDI users. What's interesting in all this is to consider all the various Internet embedded application "wins" that FreeBSD and BSDI have. Just the ones that I can think about off the top of my head: Juniper Networks, Mirapoint, Whistle (FreeBSD) and Ascend in the GRF platform (BSDI). There are certainly others that escape me at the moment. BSDI has a nice embedded packaging of their product, and FreeBSD has gone in that direction too with things like PicoBSD. I think there's a big potential here to vigerously pursue that high-reliablity Internet infrastructure market with the combinations of the technology. In particular, BSDI can bring the support for those "vertical" applications for OEM's that want to buy it. These are obviously just my opinions, influenced by low blood sugar, and not necessarily those of UUNET's. louie (aka [EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep up? They dont have to keep up. They just have to add some bells and whistles and package it (ala RedHat), which is probably what BSDI plans to do. They just want to get in on the Open Source Maniathey see RedHat drawing all that money with no real product... Red Hat contributes more than "bells and whistles" to Linux. They also pay many developers to work on Linux fulltime. They are certainly not Linux in it's entirety, but I see no reason to demean what they do. If BSD Inc. were to "buy out" FreeBSD with the sole purpose of reducing competition, they'd be a bunch of idiots. The volunteers that make FreeBSD great now would move on to something else and _that_ would soon become the new threat. They can't stop a branch from forming...the question is who will run the branch? Or worse, if someone just forked FreeBSD right now in protest of the merge. I think that there is only cause for concern if the folks at BSD Inc. are a bunch of idiots. Thus, I'm not concerned. ;-) BSDI is a very poorly run company and the principals are the same. They have good engineers and terrible management. They've completely missed the boat all along, they have been trying to compete with Microsoft instead of Linux, which is a terrible mistake. ..I dont see any change that will make things any different. Their new CEO is an old world guy who's been there a long time...he's not an internet guy and not likely to do anything spectacular. Hes been their director of marketing through their market share freefall, so why will he do better as CEO? I think that FreeBSD has hurt them far more than Linux has. People who are in the BSD arena have probably already dismissed Linux for whatever reasons, and when their choices are FreeBSD or BSD/OS.. A BSDI represenative tried for days to convince me over the phone why I should pay for BSD/OS even though FreeBSD was free, or at least a CD order away, and FreeBSD even has source code. I asked about why we should buy a product that we don't have the source code to, and he simply said "because the (cr)hackers don't have our code." Yes. Although their marketing is terrible, competing against FreeBSD when your product is like FreeBSD, but costs more money, and does not come with source... you can't expect them to keep that up. They've been buying full page ads for years and BSD is far from a household word. Unfortunately, as much as I like freebsd, FreeBSD isnt the answer. People want linux. Its a toy, and people like toys. Cram it. -MB To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
Didier Derny wrote: Hi, I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or the single user evaluation of BSDI... Apparently you didn't read all of the press release. The BSDI technology will be folded into FreeBSD, which will remain free and open. What this really means is that there will be several more people paid to work on FreeBSD full time, and to bring exciting new technologies to FreeBSD 5.0. There will also be a professional support organization that can offer support contracts for FreeBSD if you wish to purchase one. I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system. BSDidier has a nice ring to it. Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking with it for quite some time to come. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
- Original Message - From: "Didier Derny" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:02 AM Subject: Is FreeBSD dead ? Hi, I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or the single user evaluation of BSDI... Not sure what announcement you read (no URL provided), but if you look at http://www.bsdi.com/press/2310.mhtml you'll see the following: "BSDI will continue to develop, enhance and distribute BSD/OS and FreeBSD according to the terms of the business-friendly, unencumbered Berkeley software license, which encourages development for open source software projects, embedded systems, specialized applications, information appliances and other operating system-enabled products. BSDI will expand and accelerate Walnut Creek CDROM's FreeBSD open source initiatives by sharing BSD/OS technical innovations with the FreeBSD Project and by providing this open source project with operational and technical support, marketing and funding. BSDI will continue to distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD and also plans to develop value-added products based on FreeBSD as well as to provide technical support, consulting services, educational services and training for FreeBSD customers. These steps are expected to promote and invigorate the BSD open source computing movement. The FreeBSD Project develops the popular FreeBSD operating system and aggregates and integrates contributed software from more than 5,000 developers worldwide." which clearly states that FreeBSD will benefit greatly from this action. FWIW I'm the person that was responsible for 4.2BSD (and lots of the code you still find in FreeBSD) and based on my information you've got things very wrong. Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
At 12:34 PM 3/10/00 -0500, you wrote: What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep up? Open Source is a lot of bunk. People want stuff that works. Linux is growing in popularity because since 2.2 came out it actually works well. Linux had the marketing in place and they are soaring. We sell 10 to 1 linux now. I was getting bloodied pushing FreeBSD. Its like selling tax custs to poor people. Its bad politics, no matter how right it is. the people buying linux servers from VAR research and the like dont care about source, they care about functinality. Thats why BSDI doesnt get it. its not about the source, its about the price. People perceive that BSD/OS and FreeBSD are substantially similar in functionalty, and freebsd is free. The source is only important to a tiny, tiny portion of the market. The hackers list is not the market...corporate america is the market. We all have source to the eepro driver but if DG doesnt fix it it doesnt get fixed. I'll take a driver that works anyday over the option to fix it myself. and so will most commercial entities. They dont have to keep up. They just have to add some bells and whistles and package it (ala RedHat), which is probably what BSDI plans to do. They just want to get in on the Open Source Maniathey see RedHat drawing all that money with no real product... Red Hat contributes more than "bells and whistles" to Linux. They also pay many developers to work on Linux fulltime. They are certainly not Linux in it's entirety, but I see no reason to demean what they do. Im not demeaning it. But they have no product. Anyone can take what they've done and steal it, so as a company they have no security. Their support is meaningless (I've never gotten a response to any question,and I did purchase the full boxed product)its all hoopla. Good marketing. Great marketing. But they dont have any assets. They made it easier to load, which launched linux, but there are now scads of competitors and there will be more. BSDI is a very poorly run company and the principals are the same. They have good engineers and terrible management. They've completely missed the boat all along, they have been trying to compete with Microsoft instead of Linux, which is a terrible mistake. ..I dont see any change that will make things any different. Their new CEO is an old world guy who's been there a long time...he's not an internet guy and not likely to do anything spectacular. Hes been their director of marketing through their market share freefall, so why will he do better as CEO? I think that FreeBSD has hurt them far more than Linux has. People who are in the BSD arena have probably already dismissed Linux for whatever reasons, and when their choices are FreeBSD or BSD/OS.. The "strategy" is not to sell to existing BSD-heads. Its to create incremental business. BSDI doesnt do all that advertsiing just to appeal to existing die hards. They are trying to get people to use their product instead of NT. Instead of Linux. The existing BSD market is too small. They have failed to convince the world that BSD is the answer. Outside of the US. linux is totally dominant. Although in the BSD arena you are right. I told the DOM of BSDI at a show that their decision to support our competitors card in their OS and shun everyone else cost them hundreds of sales a year, because all the BSD/OS people just switched to FreeBSD. They still dont get it. Whats really funny is that while I was in the booth, 3 people came up and asked if they had FreeBSD. They were noticably annoyed. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system. BSDidier has a nice ring to it. Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking with it for quite some time to come. Ever read Animal Farm? Remember that BSD/OS started out as "cheap with source" and grew into "just another OS company". Good ideas can turn bad very quickly. Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote: I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system. BSDidier has a nice ring to it. Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking with it for quite some time to come. Ever read Animal Farm? Remember that BSD/OS started out as "cheap with source" and grew into "just another OS company". Good ideas can turn bad very quickly. Instead of assuming that they are going to "go wrong", why not give them a chance to do it right? Everything is in place for exactly the right things to happen, I couldn't have planned it better myself, but some folks aren't happy unless they see conspiracy. When you see something wrong, you can speak up, but stop complaining about stuff that hasn't even happened yet. You could generate enough ill feelings and bad publicity to *cause yourself* the exact thing you're worried about. Chuck Robey| Interests include C Java programming, FreeBSD, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system. BSDidier has a nice ring to it. Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking with it for quite some time to come. Ever read Animal Farm? Remember that BSD/OS started out as "cheap with source" and grew into "just another OS company". Good ideas can turn bad very quickly. The is all just FUD. From the FreeBSD side of things, BSDI is going to opensource a bunch of their software that we can then integrate into FreeBSD. We're still very much in control of the FreeBSD development effort and what fundamentally comprises FreeBSD. In fact nothing really changes as far as the FreeBSD Project is concerned - it's the same core team, the same developers, and the same BSD-license source code. It's just as "free" as ever, and nothing is going to change that. BSDI may decide not to make all of their BSD/OS open-sourced, but that's their decision and that will in no way deminish what we have in FreeBSD today. As others have said, this is a win for everyone and will result in FreeBSD being a much better open-source OS in the future. I really hope that people will go and read the various press releases and look at this in an objective and rational frame of mind. If you do, then there is only one conclusion that you can get from the facts: This is a great thing for FreeBSD and our future couldn't be brighter. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Onboard Intel fxp network chip, unknown PHY 17 type 2
Hmm. That reminds me: I've also got a box with an onboard 8255X that isn't recognized. The relevant parts of "boot -v" output are: found- vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209, revid=0x09 class=02-00-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 subordinatebus=0secondarybus=0 intpin=a, irq=11 map[10]: type 1, range 32, base ffaff000, size 12 map[14]: type 1, range 32, base ef00, size 6 map[18]: type 1, range 32, base ffac, size 17 [...] pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209) at 14.0 irq 11 This is on 4.0-2214-CURRENT. I'm happy to provide further information, test patches, etc., if it's helpful. Jim Shankland NLynx Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
instead of NT. Instead of Linux. The existing BSD market is too small. They have failed to convince the world that BSD is the answer. Outside of the US. linux is totally dominant. I'm not sure where you get your market demographics, but at least in Japan, FreeBSD is on par with Linux in popularity. If we had even half of the success in the US that we've enjoyed in Japan, then we'd be a lot further along in mindshare. But all of this speaks to the past and doesn't consider what may be ahead. It's true that BSD in general has sucked at marketing. One of the primary goals with the new company is to change that. In time we'll know if this was just wishful thinking. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Onboard Intel fxp network chip, unknown PHY 17 type 2
Hmm. That reminds me: I've also got a box with an onboard 8255X that isn't recognized. The relevant parts of "boot -v" output are: found- vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209, revid=0x09 class=02-00-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 subordinatebus=0secondarybus=0 intpin=a, irq=11 map[10]: type 1, range 32, base ffaff000, size 12 map[14]: type 1, range 32, base ef00, size 6 map[18]: type 1, range 32, base ffac, size 17 [...] pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209) at 14.0 irq 11 ^ Don't know what that is, but's not a part that is supported by the fxp driver. It would help if you could find out the part number (8255X isn't sufficient since it isn't really just one series - some of the parts are similar, and others are completely different). -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
Could somebody clear this up for me? If FreeBSD is still going to go along doing what it does, then what happens if I write a device driver for WhizzoNewProduct(TM), that the commercial side is developing as an "added value feature"? Say, for example, I beat them to the punch. As pointed to Simple answer: BSD, Inc. loses. What BSD, Inc. tries to do in the value-add arena is entirely their problem and if FreeBSD developers develop something that conflicts with BSD, Inc.'s value-add, then tough - BSD, Inc. will have to go and find another value-add. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Onboard Intel fxp network chip, unknown PHY 17 type 2
I wrote: Hmm. That reminds me: I've also got a box with an onboard 8255X that isn't recognized. The relevant parts of "boot -v" output are: found- vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209, revid=0x09 class=02-00-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 subordinatebus=0secondarybus=0 intpin=a, irq=11 map[10]: type 1, range 32, base ffaff000, size 12 map[14]: type 1, range 32, base ef00, size 6 map[18]: type 1, range 32, base ffac, size 17 [...] pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1209) at 14.0 irq 11 ^ And David Greenman responds: Don't know what that is, but's not a part that is supported by the fxp driver. It would help if you could find out the part number (8255X isn't sufficient since it isn't really just one series - some of the parts are similar, and others are completely different). Yes, sorry, "8255X" was a little vague, wasn't it? It appears to be an 82559ER -- see also http://developer.intel.com/design/network/82559er.htm Jim Shankland NLynx Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Didier Derny writes: : I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) I think you are wrong. Dead wrong. This will allow the WC to pump more money into the FreeBSD organization to fix some of the glaring problems that we have now. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
FreeBSD won't be dead until they pry the source code from our cold dead fingers :-) Seriously, as one of the people who saw the potential for FreeBSD in the commercial world back in '94 just prior to the release of 2.0-BETA I do have to say that this is "the next level" that FreeBSD must go to. Regardless of how you feel about the BSD deal, you do at least recognize what the commercialization of Linux under various stock symbols means in the long run to us? Obviously newbieSD is heading in that direction - to IPO and gain funds. This is the next level and we will all judge the results based on what they do with the funds, any commercial partnership agreements etc. If its just a money grab, shame on them. If we don't go to the next level, shame on us. There are a lot of hardware companies that had invested substantially in BSD 4.3 knockoffs and Mach kernel knockoffs. The natural upgrade path for those development efforts is a commercialized version of FreeBSD (imho). There are a lot of sites that are still using BSD variants that have refused to upgrade to the more favored SYSV knockoffs, the natural upgrade path for those is a commercialized version of FreeBSD (imho). There are hardware vendors with very high end multi-processor configurations with boo-quoo memory etc. A natural upgrade path for those vendors (when they finally give up on their own "way-behind-the-curve" unix variant) is to move towards a commercialized version for FreeBSD (imho). They may try Linux, but is Linux "high-end-performance-ready"? As is most things, this is good news only if the management and vision of the newBSD strikes the right balance of fun, risky kernel schemes, stability, and PR spin. If they botch it we've still got our CD's from days gone by. The jinnee cannot be put back in the bottle. One has to say Hurrah! for that. I'm quite interested in this new direction and will be watching what they do - looking for that great idea that I overlooked. I very much hope that this is not a money grab dressed in the illusion of going to the next level. If they start rocking how many of us wouldn't want to be on board? Later Mark Hittinger Earthlink!Mindspring!Netcom!Dallas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. And I can't imagine how *anyone* could take this perspective given any of the stuff they've read so far. FreeBSD will remain, as I have gone to great pains to state in every interview I've granted, COMPLETELY UNCHANGED as far as being free and open is concerned. How could BSDI *not* let FreeBSD be free, perhaps I should ask you that? You know of some special way of herding cats that's been hitherto undiscovered, perhaps? I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) If you think it's possible to bend the FreeBSD project to anyone's corporate will then you've never even come close to understanding who we are or what we stand for. That's a shame since one would think 6 years to be more than enough time to gain such an understanding. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: [SNIP] If you think it's possible to bend the FreeBSD project to anyone's corporate will then you've never even come close to understanding who we are or what we stand for. That's a shame since one would think 6 years to be more than enough time to gain such an understanding. - Jordan Then, what are the benefits for both parties ? For the FreeBSD project : - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?) - better Intel SMP ? - new developpers ? - increased credibility via the support network of BSDi ? For BSD/OS : - better exposure thanks to OpenSource ? - Yahoo dollars ? - access to a greater community of **volunteer** testers ? TfH (This is absolutely not a flame bait : I'm very happy to imagine I could eventually get for-pay support for FreeBSD machines at work) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Thierry Herbelot /"\ ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN \ / AGAINST HTML MAIL NEWS mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X PAS DE HTML http://perso.cybercable.fr/herbelot / \DANS LES COURRIELS To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
For the FreeBSD project : - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?) - better Intel SMP ? - new developpers ? - increased credibility via the support network of BSDi ? Hopefully all of those things, though just days after the merger is no time to be making promises either. All I can say is that each and every one of the things you mention have been discussed in positive terms. For BSD/OS : - better exposure thanks to OpenSource ? - Yahoo dollars ? - access to a greater community of **volunteer** testers ? All these things and: - the ability to provide support, training and consulting services to a much larger market - More direct sharing of open source technologies and being able to leverage some of the rapid pace of innovation there; it's not just our testers which are valuable. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote: Hi, I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. (March 10 2000). I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free. the strategy as far as this was concerned was outlined...I suggest you read the interview with Bob and Jordan Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or the single user evaluation of BSDI... Il FreeBSD dedicated to become the 'RedHat' of BSD (when you know the junk sold by redhat. actually I think generally that this will improve the quality of some stuff like SMP support, etc. We can hope. The verdict isn;t out yet, however, I'm cautiously optimistic. I think it is time to think to something else NetBSD ? OpenBSD ? Linux (which one?) I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1) I've been using FreeBSD since 2.1.5, and I've met and talked to jkh enough times to know that he cares what happens to the project. He also would not be talking about this in such a positive light if it were not good. If theres anyone I trust as far as this is concerned, its Jordan. And this should even bring some of the people who were jkh's biggest critics to some kind of happy medium, we've got some corporate backing besides Walnut Creek and finally making news. This is a good thing in itself. Like I said, lets be cautiously optimistic about this. lets see what happens. remember if it gets really bad you *know* there will be a spinoff. -Pat __ Pat Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator Rush Networking To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
At 14:15 10.03.00 -0600, you wrote: FreeBSD won't be dead until they pry the source code from our cold dead fingers :-) There are a lot of hardware companies that had invested substantially in BSD 4.3 knockoffs and Mach kernel knockoffs. The natural upgrade path for those development efforts is a commercialized version of FreeBSD (imho). There are a lot of sites that are still using BSD variants that have refused to upgrade to the more favored SYSV knockoffs, the natural upgrade path for those is a commercialized version of FreeBSD (imho). There are hardware vendors with very high end multi-processor configurations with boo-quoo memory etc. A natural upgrade path for those vendors (when they finally give up on their own "way-behind-the-curve" unix variant) is to move towards a commercialized version for FreeBSD (imho). They may try Linux, but is Linux "high-end-performance-ready"? Hi! Well, there is Turbolinux, which claims to do that. Also there are some projects in clustering. SuSe is selling some clusters already (got to see a small version of that at Cebit) Also, those very big installations use some kind of special Unix spinoff, something like IRIX, sold for specialized hardware, and paying big $$ for. Yes, it is a big chance to get rid of the reputation as being without support, which is very important to the industry. Well, when you can do things yourself, then its ok (Meaning that they have qualified personnel already). But when you can't, and especially smaller businesses cannot, then you have to pay somebody else to do that. ANd thats the point, then they ask what is when some problem occurs. A company like M$ or Sun can be sued at least, at least you can point in one direction and say: Hey, I paid money for that, and you have to fix those bugs and help me install the OS, if somethings goes wrong. Thats the things FreeBSD lacked a bit in the past. And if they see only some small companies offering support on their own as consultants, they decide otherwise. There is a saying: Nobody ever gets blamed for choosing IBM. Thus meaning: If you do what everybody else does, its alright. If you buy Windows, you know about the problems with it, but as everybody uses it, its common practice. But if you stray from mainstream, you get hit very quick if something hickups or even seems as it might like to hickup in the next few hours... Regards Olaf Hoyer P.S:lets take this to -chat Olaf Hoyer www.nightfire.demailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD- Turning PC's into workstations ICQ:22838075 Liebe und Hass sind nicht blind, aber geblendet vom Feuer, dass sie selber mit sich tragen. (Nietzsche) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
Dennis wrote: Open Source is a lot of bunk. People want stuff that works. Linux is growing in popularity because since 2.2 came out it actually works well. Linux had the marketing in place and they are soaring. We sell 10 to 1 linux now. I was getting bloodied pushing FreeBSD. Its like selling tax custs to poor people. Its bad politics, no matter how right it is. Linux is growing in popularity because everyone is talking about it. Most of the people who buy Linux, or any other technology for that matter, have NO ability to evaluate functionality and just follow what they read in their selective set of magazines. A better advertising budget will do wonders for FreeBSD; everyone seriously involved with FreeBSD understands this even if you don't. We all have source to the eepro driver but if DG doesnt fix it it doesnt get fixed. I'll take a driver that works anyday over the option to fix it myself. and so will most commercial entities. Bzzt! Dennis, shut up and stop FUDding about. The eepro driver got fixed for 3.1 because I fixed it with DG's help. This is exactly the same as it has always been in FreeBSD, and in Linux; you can fix it yourself or you can pay someone else to fix it. The only thing that has changed is a more widespread, professional offering of people you can turn to when you need to get something fixed and have nothing to offer except money. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 05:20:31PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: I'm pretty sure this can be done a hell of a lot easier by using shared libraries and using the enviornment variables LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD, see the rtld manpage for more help. Yes, I've done this when trying to track down buffer overflows in libc..stick them in their own directory and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which tells the dynamic linker where to search. $ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH/ /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/ $ echo $LD_PRELOAD /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/libc.so.4 $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -o nss-test -I../../libc/include nss-test.c /tmp/ccy93427.o: In function `main': /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc/nss-test.c(.text+0xb0): undefined reference to `nsdispatch' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc. $ at this point I switch makefiles to use static building and... $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc $ but when I run the binary... $ ./nss-test files called files called retval = 1 NS_SUCCESS Bus error (core dumped) $ am I doing something wrong? BTW... I've ported the Name Service Switch from NetBSD to FreeBSD and it's working on my laptop right now. However, I need some help moving all the get*by* functions in the C library to use the new nsdispatch function, especially for the NIS code... who should I talk to... anyone interested on seeing some patches? regards, -oscar -- pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
* Oscar Bonilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000310 15:19] wrote: On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 05:20:31PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: I'm pretty sure this can be done a hell of a lot easier by using shared libraries and using the enviornment variables LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD, see the rtld manpage for more help. Yes, I've done this when trying to track down buffer overflows in libc..stick them in their own directory and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which tells the dynamic linker where to search. $ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH/ /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/ I think you'll want LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be: /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib $ echo $LD_PRELOAD /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/libc.so.4 $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -o nss-test -I../../libc/include nss-test.c /tmp/ccy93427.o: In function `main': /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc/nss-test.c(.text+0xb0): undefined reference to `nsdispatch' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc. $ at this point I switch makefiles to use static building and... please use the dynamic, it's a hell of a lot easier. $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc $ but when I run the binary... $ ./nss-test files called files called retval = 1 NS_SUCCESS Bus error (core dumped) $ am I doing something wrong? probably, but without a traceback it's going to be hard to find out exactly what. BTW... I've ported the Name Service Switch from NetBSD to FreeBSD and it's working on my laptop right now. However, I need some help moving all the get*by* functions in the C library to use the new nsdispatch function, especially for the NIS code... who should I talk to... anyone interested on seeing some patches? Of course we are, please file a PR when you think it's pretty much completed or email -hackers if you need/want advice. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 03:27:37PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: I think you'll want LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be: /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib I don't see why since the only library I use is libc. Anyway, I tried just for kicks and still got the same error. $ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib $ echo $LD_PRELOAD /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/libc.so.4 $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -o nss-test -I../../libc/include nss-test.c /tmp/ccE93722.o: In function `main': /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc/nss-test.c(.text+0xb0): undefined reference to `nsdispatch' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc. please use the dynamic, it's a hell of a lot easier. sure, as soon as it works I'll use it ;) probably, but without a traceback it's going to be hard to find out exactly what. $ cp Makefile.static Makefile $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc $ ./nss-test files called files called retval = 1 NS_SUCCESS Bus error (core dumped) $ gdb nss-test nss-test.core GNU gdb 4.18 Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "i386-unknown-freebsd"... Core was generated by `nss-test'. Program terminated with signal 10, Bus error. #0 0x80528e4 in ?? () (gdb) where #0 0x80528e4 in ?? () #1 0x80481ff in _start () at crt1.c:95 (gdb) as I said in the first mail, this has to do with crt1.c calling atexit() with a valid address (0x80528e4) and somehow the argument to atexit() getting to be NULL once inside atexit()... I'd really like to use the dynamic stuff but I can't seem to make it compile. Of course we are, please file a PR when you think it's pretty much completed or email -hackers if you need/want advice. :) Ok, I'll start firing questions about NIS at -hackers regards, -oscar -- pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Oscar Bonilla wrote: $ cp Makefile.static Makefile $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc $ ./nss-test files called files called retval = 1 NS_SUCCESS Bus error (core dumped) I wasn't reading this too closely, but if you're trying to hand feed in the object files, the C startup object file *MUST* come first in the list of object files, because it's gotta link at the lowest address ... Is that it? Chuck Robey| Interests include C Java programming, FreeBSD, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
to try things out i create a static binary and coerce it to use my C library instead of the system's one. this is how i compile my program: cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o \ ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc I'm no expert, but I tried something like this a few weeks back(to totally link without libc), and I was wondering, aren't you missing crtbegin and crtend ? Marco van de Voort ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/xtdlib.htm To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
* Oscar Bonilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000310 16:00] wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 03:27:37PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: I think you'll want LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be: /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib I don't see why since the only library I use is libc. Anyway, I tried just for kicks and still got the same error. $ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib $ echo $LD_PRELOAD /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/libc/libc.so.4 $ make cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -o nss-test -I../../libc/include nss-test.c /tmp/ccE93722.o: In function `main': /home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc/nss-test.c(.text+0xb0): undefined reference to `nsdispatch' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/obonilla/freebsd/nss/tests/libc. please use the dynamic, it's a hell of a lot easier. sure, as soon as it works I'll use it ;) It seems to be working just fine, I suspect that there's something wrong with your code and you're referencing a function that somehow is not being compiled into libc: ~ % nm /usr/lib/libc.a | grep nsdispatch ~ % is this a function you've added? Are you _sure_ it's being compiled into the libc you're making? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 06:51:20PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
I wasn't reading this too closely, but if you're trying to hand feed in
the object files, the C startup object file *MUST* come first in the list
of object files, because it's gotta link at the lowest address ...
Is that it?
Ok, I'm even more puzzled than before...
If I link them in this order: nss-test.o crt1.o crti.o
I get the following:
files called
files called
retval = 1
NS_SUCCESS
Bus error (core dumped)
Notice the duplicate line that says "files called"? This had me puzzled
before, but now I see that somehow _init point to the first function
in the first object file
(gdb) p _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x8048074 files
Now if I like it in this order: crt1.o crti.o nss-test.o
I get an infinite recursion
(gdb) p _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x8048074 _start
since _start calls _init() *before* calling main() it just loops
(and starts swapping like hell)
Let me try this order: crti.o crt1.o nss-test.o
(gdb) p _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x8048074 _start
nope, same as before. infinite recursion and swapping like hell.
maybe this order: crt1.o nss-test.o crti.o
(gdb) print _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x8048074 _start
same thing.
I created a small C file:
#include stdio.h
foo() {
printf("foo\n");
}
and tried this order: foo.o nss-test.o crt1.o crti.o
(gdb) print _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x8048074 foo
and if I just run it...
foo
files called
retval = 1
NS_SUCCESS
Bus error (core dumped)
If I try gdb with a normal program (i.e. one linked with the standard
C library in /usr/lib and not my own C library)
(gdb) print _init
$1 = {text variable, no debug info} 0x804838c _init
What could be the problem?
regards,
-oscar
--
pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
At 2:27 PM +0200 3/10/00, Sheldon Hearn wrote: On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:20 +0100, Johnathan Meehan wrote: That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot blame him. I guess what I wrote makes for a very harsh comment in isolation from the grin I had on my face while I was typing. :-) Also [, Jonathan,] note that there is a big difference between "having some concerns", and publicly wringing your hands in despair that "the project is dead, where should I go now?". I'm sure you chaps know what you are doing, but some of us believe that Eris is great friends with Murphy. I only contribute to FreeBSD because it's an Open Source project and because FreeBSD has the most impotus in the BSD family. If FreeBSD stops being free, I'd reconsider my willingness to contribute. I think BSD Inc. have acknowledged the impotus the FreeBSD Porject has and are looking to jump on the bandwagon. Looks like a really good thing for both BSD Inc. and the FreeBSD project. :-) I can understand how some people might have some concerns about a few aspects of this. Even though everything I've read makes this look like a great deal for all of us, I do understand that there are possible pitfalls to any major undertaking like this. So, yes, people should express their concerns about the details of the deal. Still... "dead"? Heh heh heh. I'm afraid my gut reaction to Didier's comments was also one of humor. BSDI is going to take some of it's features, port them into FreeBSD, make them available with the FreeBSD-ish license, and that means FreeBSD is "dead"? A bunch of developers currently working at BSDI are coming over to offer help FreeBSD development -- oh woe is us? Many BSDI customers are going to become defacto FreeBSD customers -- oh no, the LAST thing we'd want is MORE PEOPLE USING FREEBSD! We will have people working on freebsd for more HW platforms -- let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin? Hello? I don't mean to make fun of some of the possible pitfalls here, but from everything I've read I think this is a great win-win situation for both FreeBSD and BSDI customers. Well, it's a win-win situation for both groups of developers, too, so maybe that makes it a win-win-win-win situation. I can't fathom how anyone would read these announcements and conclude that FreeBSD just died. I mean, if you do actually READ the announcements, it is mighty hard to come to that conclusion. I would like to say "hat's off!" to everyone involved in making this happen. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 04:35:18PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: It seems to be working just fine, I suspect that there's something wrong with your code and you're referencing a function that somehow is not being compiled into libc: ~ % nm /usr/lib/libc.a | grep nsdispatch ~ % is this a function you've added? Are you _sure_ it's being compiled into the libc you're making? yes, it *is* being compiled into my C library. If I compile a static binary it works (aside from the bus error at the end and the double calling of the first funtion of the first object file listed). regards, -oscar -- pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
* Oscar Bonilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000310 17:08] wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 04:35:18PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: It seems to be working just fine, I suspect that there's something wrong with your code and you're referencing a function that somehow is not being compiled into libc: ~ % nm /usr/lib/libc.a | grep nsdispatch ~ % is this a function you've added? Are you _sure_ it's being compiled into the libc you're making? yes, it *is* being compiled into my C library. If I compile a static binary it works (aside from the bus error at the end and the double calling of the first funtion of the first object file listed). since I'm assuming you're planning on open-sourcing this work anyhow, can you please put a tarball up on some www/ftp site, I'll take a look at it later tonight. thanks, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 12:58:13AM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote: to try things out i create a static binary and coerce it to use my C library instead of the system's one. this is how i compile my program: cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o \ ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc I'm no expert, but I tried something like this a few weeks back(to totally link without libc), and I was wondering, aren't you missing crtbegin and crtend ? YES! that took care of the double calling of the first function of the first file... I still get the bus error at the end of my program in the atexit() call. this is because _fini is invalid. do you know the exact order in which I should link the objects? regards, -oscar -- pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: inner workings of the C compiler
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 07:49:32PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: Notice here the order it links, and what files it links in. First, if you're using nostdlib, then you have to call out your own libs, all of them, and you forgot to do libgcc. I've been able to move the lib calls I don't really need libgcc since I'm only calling funtions in libc, but... before and after the object files, so I don't think that order matters, as long as you get both, but the objects (in order) are: crt1.o crti.o crtbegin.o ccn35733.o (your obj, that is) , then crtend.o crtn.o It calls out the ld-elf.so.1, but I don't think that's really linked in. I've been doing all my stuff statically linked, so I could be wrong on that part of it. I don't think you need to care about the -L calls, because when you use the full path, -L doesn't really matter. Always remember that -v, when your messing with tools. That ordering completly solved it!! thanks... now I can get back to getting the NSS code into libc. kind regards and many thanks, -oscar -- pgp public key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp fingerprint: 6D 18 8C 90 4C DF F0 4B DF 35 1F 69 A1 33 C7 BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?
Will there be some kind of "business-like" presentation of all the goodies which will comme from this merge of codebases ? (BSD-mergemania for Dummies (TM) ?) I really couldn't say at this stage. Hopefully? :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Michael Bacarella wrote: A BSDI represenative tried for days to convince me over the phone why I should pay for BSD/OS even though FreeBSD was free, or at least a CD order away, and FreeBSD even has source code. I asked about why we should buy a product that we don't have the source code to, and he simply said "because the (cr)hackers don't have our code." As long as BSDI Inc. sells/sold source licenses to more than just a _very_ low amount of people, "they" always will have/had the BSD/OS sources as well. You might as well argue that "they" don't use any Windows Betas, as Microsoft doesn't directly hand them out to "them". Oh, yes, and of course "they" would never be able to get their hands on DeCSS-sourcecode, as those are kept in private. Add whatever product you wish to this list. bye, Harold -- Someone should do a study to find out how many human life spans have been lost waiting for NT to reboot. Ken Deboy on Dec 24 1999 in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
I'm sorry Dennis but I find it a bit difficult to swallow your assessment of other people's business acumen and their ability to relate to markets. The race isn't over yet, hell everybody's just warming up :-) -- Jerry Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
