Re: Is ZFS production ready?
21.06.2012 15:52, Wojciech Puchar пишет: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I see the trend here. That guy is determined to shove his opinion down the throat of everybody. Stop it, tis most annoying. Back to the topic. ZFS support has matured greatly since the last time you tried it, currently freebsd supports zfs pool v. 28 in the last updates. Try it, it won't disappoint you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is ZFS production ready?
21.06.2012 21:32, Wojciech Puchar пишет: Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point, Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and personal attacks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Only after you, my man, only after you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
21.06.2012 01:14, Chad Perrin пишет: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:56PM +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote: 20.06.2012 18:47, Mark Felder пишет: On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:14 -0500, Wojciech Puchar email address elided for purposes of courtesy wrote: [attribution lost by Wojciech Puchar and I'm too lazy to check] Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG project? because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL licence. GCC performs well, but it is a very messy undocumented codebase which makes maintaining it a nightmare. Just ask Google -- you'll find many others saying the same thing. It would take MORE work to get FreeBSD devs up to speed on the GCC codebase to add the features we want than it is to cooperate with the CLANG community and help them make their compiler better than GCC in every test case. It is the classic developer/user argument. It is also stupid. The user side simply doesn't have the same needs, it can't understand how freaking hard it is sometimes to debug a large and complex program in a badly documented environment or worse with undocumented features. If it works faster ergo it is better - that is the only criteria to really have a meaning to a user. It's bikeshed painting. Someone who doesn't understand the many factors that apply, and doesn't even *want* to know, picks one thing he thinks he understands and argues about it in an attempt to make the entire project change course. Well, dammit, I *like* blue, and he can take his bucket of red paint home with him to paint his *own* bikeshed. Haven't heard it described like this, but appropriate. Also the Danth's law applies always) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
21.06.2012 02:26, Wojciech Puchar пишет: the answer. I'll try to help out, here. Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining: 1. other concerns that might apply 2. that things appear highly likely to change 3. that a negligible performance difference is . . . negligible I'm pretty sure he's not running compute clusters on FreeBSD, after all. i would recommend you to take more care about yourself, and not me. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Watch out, we got a badass over here ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет: GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use, but not to be turned into closed source products. What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. BSDL in opposite is often criticized a rape me license. No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his religious adherents. It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org M, all that rage, all that conspiracy crap and especially the hypocrisy! I love it, this is here, my friends, a daily dose of quality entertainment. P.S. Topic is pretty much dead ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Why Clang
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote: GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use, but not to be turned into closed source products. What a lying sonofabitch. By insulting you think your arguments get any better? Sorry, it's not the case. That is not called freedom. That is called forcible, viral open source. That's what I initially called viral license (or which, to be precise, is a phrase someone else invented, and which I just repeated). A developer is always the key person to decide what he will do with his source code. Giving it for free WITH NO SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS is a very generous act. (Note that this act does not mean he gives up copyright, the attribution that _he_ was the creator of the code!) If a developer wants to donate his work to the public, but does not want others to make money with his work, he will probably choose the GPL to release the source code. Others are allowed to modify it, to create derivate works and even use it in their products, as long as the requirement (which you may validly see as a restriction!) of contribution back is met. A much more strict requirement seems to be in the GPLv3 which limits those who take the open source. The aspect of being viral includes that the source will not be turned into closed source. The most negative effect is that GPLv3 licensed components may have side effects of non-GLPv3 licensed code. This is something worth seeing critically. I think we can all see the difference. Open your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball... All those insults fly back to you and therefore apply to you. It makes all your argumentation (which may be valid) futile. In fact, that kind of acting is a typical means of communist dictatures - using insulting language to actually avoid any discussion and instead strengthen the means of oppression! You should learn some history. And maybe calm down, as the hatred you're spreading is really unpleasant. A programmer who does not want to raise this barrier will typically use the BSD license which is more free. No, it's just plain free. Among the many licenses, the BSD license seems to be the most free license (or, the only free license, which is a valid point of view), as it explicitely allows things that the GPL does not. Of course, there are different interpretations if this is a good or a bad thing. For a system like FreeBSD that wants to offer a free system (in the widest sense), GPLv3 system components (such as compilers) could be a no-go. BSDL in opposite is often criticized a rape me license. No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his religious adherents. By no, except you have actually agreed that the statement is true, even if you tried to deny it. Again, please try to have some culture in discussion. Maybe you should also read Marx. :-) It explicitely (!) allows creating derivates in a closed source manner. This means that parts of BSD licensed code can be a key component in a proprietary closed source product that is for sale (e. g. a firewall appliance), and nobody will find out about that fact. Now you got it! GPL is about forcing people to do what /you/ want and BSD is about letting them do what /they/ want. Licensing is about choosing - a main criteria of a free society. A developer is free to even keep his sources closed, to release them as GPL v2 or v3, or as BSDL (or choose from other licenses, or even write his own). In the next step, licenses have impact on how sources can be used. As I did explain, GPLv3 code may be problematic in this regards in certain environments. It may perfectly fit in others. As long as there's an agreement of the users of such source to accept the license, it's okay. What's _not_ okay is when the license forces you to do something you don't want to do, or simply can't do. Let's see if you can guess which one of those licenses is about freedom. Hint: freedom is not defined as forcing people to do what you want. If people don't do what I want, they're limiting my freedom. :-) Seriously, you should pay more attention to what I wrote. Even though English is not my native language, I try to be as precise as possible, and if I can't do that (because a lack of knowledge, because of assumptions or deduction), I make clear that it is not the case. Hint: Read carefully: I think, as far as I know or similar formulas are an indicator. Finally: Insulting me is not a way to go. It shows that you don't value the freedom of speech. Of course you are free to say whatever you want. But as soon as you insult people and limit their freedom, maybe even their right (moral right, not law) to have a polite and normal discussion on this list, you're not any better than the communists you hate that much. People
Re: Firefox clean installation but does not execute
21.09.2011 01:00, Chris Whitehouse пишет: On 20/09/2011 15:04, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:44:31PM +0200, Alain G. Fabry wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:40:42PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:26:29PM +0200, Alain G. Fabry wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:40:56PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:16:35PM +0200, Alain G. Fabry wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:53:06AM -0600, Warren Block wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Alain G. Fabry wrote: I've installed both firefox and firefox36. Neither of them can be found on the system while the installation build and installed without errors afabry@desmo 13:40 % pkg_info | grep firefox firefox-3.6.22,1Web browser based on the browser portion of Mozilla firefox-6.0.2,1 Web browser based on the browser portion of Mozilla afabry@desmo 13:41 % which firefox firefox: Command not found. afabry@desmo 13:41 % which firefox3 firefox3: Command not found. See 'man csh | less -p rehash'. But also these should run with a full path: % /usr/local/bin/firefox3 % /usr/local/bin/firefox ___ Files are just not found on the system... :-( afabry@desmo 14:10 % pkg_info | grep firefox firefox-3.6.22,1Web browser based on the browser portion of Mozilla firefox-6.0.2,1 Web browser based on the browser portion of Mozilla afabry@desmo 14:10 % rehash afabry@desmo 14:14 % /usr/local/bin/firefox /usr/local/bin/firefox: Command not found. afabry@desmo 14:12 % ls -l /usr/local/bin/ | grep fire -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel10108 Sep 7 07:29 aafire afabry@desmo 14:12 % what about pkg_info -Lx firefox-3 pkg_info -Lx firefox-6 On my system: TZAV pkg_info -Lx firefox-3 | grep bin /usr/local/bin/firefox3 /usr/local/include/firefox3/gtk2xtbin.h /usr/local/lib/firefox3/bin /usr/local/lib/firefox3/firefox-bin TZAV Seems to be ok here ?? afabry@desmo 15:22 % pkg_info -Lx firefox-3 | grep bin /usr/local/bin/firefox3 /usr/local/include/firefox3/gtk2xtbin.h /usr/local/lib/firefox3/bin /usr/local/lib/firefox3/firefox-bin afabry@desmo 15:23 % pkg_info -Lx firefox-6 | grep bin /usr/local/bin/firefox /usr/local/include/firefox/gtk2xtbin.h /usr/local/lib/firefox/bin /usr/local/lib/firefox/firefox-bin /usr/local/lib/firefox/searchplugins/bing.xml So, what do you get if you now type: /usr/local/bin/firefox3 or /usr/local/bin/firefox -- What I mentioned before ;-) 'command not found' afabry@desmo 15:40 % /usr/local/bin/firefox3 /usr/local/bin/firefox3: Command not found. afabry@desmo 15:40 % /usr/local/bin/firefox /usr/local/bin/firefox: Command not found. afabry@desmo 15:41 % files don't exist, and must have deinstalled/installed already 3 times... so, pkg_info thinks it installed the executable, yet, you can't find it. I don't know what to check next. # /usr/libexec/locate.updatedb # locate firefox ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I'd suggest checking the rights on the executable, IMHO this is getting ludicrous ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Odd error when doing pkg_version
21.09.2011 01:40, Alexander Best пишет: On Tue Sep 20 11, Ron (Lists) wrote: Starting a couple of days ago, when I run pkg_version I get the following error: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object libgdbm.so.3 not found, required by httpd Everything seems to run OK except for this message appearing in the middle of the run. I've tried to narrow it down with no real luck. I've tried searching for ports with libgdbm or ld-elf in them and am not finding any (installed or not). Does anyone know where this is coming from and how to fix it? maybe portupgrade -f httpd\* ? Yeah, I tried looking at that, but I don't have the httpd port installed or any of the other variations of httpd. Or if I do, it doesn't show up anywhere that I can see. hmmmno idea then. sorry. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Perhaps a port built with the httpd support? Have you installed or upgraded anything a couple of days before? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
A FreeBSD HTPC
Thinking about doing an HTPC project, however I remember having problems with an avermedia tuner way back (damn I am old). Browsed through the hardware notes to the 8.2 and the situations seems to be pretty desperate, I've checked GNU/Linux and it is years ahead in this department. I also wonder if FreeBSD supports processor features like Intel's QuickSync (it is does depend on the app, however I imagine it does require some kernel support). So is the use of FreeBSD as an HTPC OS is illogical and I should use another one? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
