John Polstra wrote:
In article 199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com,
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com wrote:
Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet?
Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about
BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the
Thomas Stephens wrote:
I tried your fix this morning, and it's worked without a problem
so far. I've just upgraded the world (had only built a kernel
earlier), and haven't done any rigorous testing, but it looks good.
I use the ATT ksh for BSD/OS as my standard shell, which should be
a
One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-)
julian
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Thomas Stephens wrote:
John Polstra wrote:
In article 199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com,
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com wrote:
Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx
Julian Elischer wrote:
One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-)
Yes, that's been confirmed by lots of people, myself included.
John
---
John Polstra j...@polstra.com
John D. Polstra Co., Inc.
Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that power to serve when it died
horribly on newer servers :)
So, the good news is, we can now support large
Kelly Yancey wrote:
Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that power to serve when it died
horribly on newer servers :)
So, the good news is, we
Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that power to serve when it died
horribly on newer servers :)
So, the good news is, we can now support large
So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in
order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two
shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the
expense of those few people who are running
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Brian Handy wrote:
[Grumbling about BSDI compatibility]
I take all that back. Well, all except the part about grumbling about my
own network here, I'm just feeling grumpy and took it out on random
passerby. :-)
Happy trails,
Brian
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
: So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in
:order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two
:shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
:
:Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the
:expense of those few people who are
David Greenman wrote:
BSD/OS compatibility for v2.0 static binaries can be had again with a
few modifications. Someone with access to BSD/OS v2.0 binaries, time, and
appropriate knowledge, just needs to make them.
The brokeness actually comes from a design screwup that BSDI made in
the v2.0
In article 199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com,
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com wrote:
Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet?
Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about
BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix,
12 matches
Mail list logo
