On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:28:30 -0800
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 01/23/2011 15:00, David Demelier wrote:
In any case, when panic occurs, switching display to the tty can be
great. Why not a sysctl like kern.tty_on_panic? Because when you're
running X and a panic occurs not
On 12/01/2011 00:03, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Demelier
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2011 00:03, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern
David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com writes:
In any case, when panic occurs, switching display to the tty can be
great. Why not a sysctl like kern.tty_on_panic? Because when you're
running X and a panic occurs not everybody understand what happens.
IIRC, it requires KMS support.
On 01/23/2011 15:00, David Demelier wrote:
In any case, when panic occurs, switching display to the tty can be
great. Why not a sysctl like kern.tty_on_panic? Because when you're
running X and a panic occurs not everybody understand what happens.
Putting the following in /etc/sysctl.conf can
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
C. P. Ghost wrote:
As far as I know, Windows NT is a microkernel arch, and
faulty drivers, often provided by external vendors would not
bring that system (as much as we hate or despise its
Windows OS personality that runs on
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 08:10:00AM +0100, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:11:13 +0100
schrieb David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com:
[snip]
Could we please stop bashing Windows 2000? We're also not talking about
FreeBSD 3.x but FreeBSD-CURRENT, as this mailing list is used.
Am Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:41:42 +0100
schrieb Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net:
Could we please stop bashing Windows 2000?
This is not bashing. I tried to explain why usually MS-Windows appears
to run fine. When you understand it as bashing, I explained it wrong,
sorry.
We're also not talking
C. P. Ghost wrote:
As far as I know, Windows NT is a microkernel arch, and
faulty drivers, often provided by external vendors would not
bring that system (as much as we hate or despise its
Windows OS personality that runs on top of it) to a complete halt.
I don't know ... when Windows crashes
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 13:43 +0100, Nils Holland wrote:
C. P. Ghost wrote:
As far as I know, Windows NT is a microkernel arch, and
faulty drivers, often provided by external vendors would not
bring that system (as much as we hate or despise its
Windows OS personality that runs on top of
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:43:10 +0100
Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
Having a job in which I have to support people working on Windows, I
can say for sure that there's no such thing in Windows that prevents
third-party system level stuff to bring down the system. ;-)
In Windows there's a
On 12/01/2011 16:23, Erik wrote:
On one of my first linux desktops, I had a screensaver which displayed
rotated dumpscreens of all kinds of different Operation systems. Apple,
Basic, linux and BSOD.. (come to think about it BSD was not included)
I once had someone commiserate with me on
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Matthew Seaman
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
On 12/01/2011 16:23, Erik wrote:
On one of my first linux desktops, I had a screensaver which displayed
rotated dumpscreens of all kinds of different Operation systems. Apple,
Basic, linux and BSOD..
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/11/11 12:11, David DEMELIER wrote:
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is panic really needed? Imagine someone working on
[...]
Panic is used to stop the kernel in an aggressive way when data
On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER wrote:
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
You've got it backwards. A system panic()s
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Xin LI delp...@delphij.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/11/11 12:11, David DEMELIER wrote:
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is panic really needed? Imagine someone working on
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Boris Kochergin sp...@acm.poly.edu wrote:
Exactly. One area where the kernel should be made more robust
is UFS with disappearing disks (e.g. USB mounted file systems,
or, as recently happened here with a loose external SATA cable).
Panicing here is REALLY
On 01/11/11 15:37, C. P. Ghost wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Xin LIdelp...@delphij.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/11/11 12:11, David DEMELIER wrote:
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is panic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:11 PM, David DEMELIER
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
Yes,
On 01/11/11 15:11, David DEMELIER wrote:
Hello,
Hi.
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
All modern operating systems? Maybe some
2011/1/11 Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER wrote:
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:11 PM, David DEMELIER wrote:
2011/1/11 Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com:
[ ... ]
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is panic really needed?
Sometimes, yes. If it was possible for the kernel to handle an error
condition
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 15:11, David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
Yes, why
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:11 PM, David DEMELIER wrote:
2011/1/11 Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com:
[ ... ]
Yes, why this function exists? There is no way to solve a problem
without panic'ing? Is panic really needed?
Seriously, I
[Replies redirected.]
Boris Kochergin sp...@acm.poly.edu writes:
All modern operating systems? Maybe some niche ones, like the ones
that run on Mars rovers, have made progress towards formal
verification and are believed not to crash given correctly-functioning
hardware.
The Mars rovers run
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, David DEMELIER
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm just guessing why current BSD panic() when a problem occurs, all
modern operating systems solve the problem instead of crashing
suddently and corrupting all your data without saving your work.
Yes,
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:11:13 +0100
schrieb David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com:
Hi David,
I want to say something to the two statements below.
In fact I like FreeBSD, and I don't expect running anything else. But
I must say that I didnt see windows 2000 crashing on my every boxes I
have
28 matches
Mail list logo
