I've installed FreeBSD snapshots a couple of times this week. With Virtualbox
4.1 on both Windows and OS X with a 20GB disk I've found the installer forgets
to create the homedir - /home doesn't exist, so when you get placed at / when
logging in. Unfortunately pub.allbsd.org seems to be queued
Bruce Cran wrote
in :
br> I've installed FreeBSD snapshots a couple of times this week. With
br> Virtualbox 4.1 on both Windows and OS X with a 20GB disk I've found
br> the installer forgets to create the homedir - /home doesn't exist, so
br> when you get placed at / when logging in. Unfortuna
Hi,
Trying to upgrade one of my box from 8-stable to 9-current lead be to
some important problems.
I'm have tried both from sources (svn buildworld etc.) and from memdisk
provided by allbsd.org.
The motherboard is ASUS P5N-E SLI ACPI BIOS Revision 0901
more informations here :
http://peop
hi there,
i noticed that chromium, expecially in combination with nspluginwrapper and
flash, is causing a lot of I/O faults. i ran 'top -mio -I -n 99' and after
only ~ 4 hours of running chromium (most of the time not loading any new
pages), i got the following data:
last pid: 39976; load av
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at 2.0
and never really had a problem with understanding the installation
program. There is always a first time, I guess.
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snap
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at 2.0
and never really had a problem with understanding the installation
program. There is always a first time, I guess.
ftp://ft
Quoting Nathan Whitehorn :
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at
2.0 and never really had a problem with understanding the
installation program. There is always a
Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at 2.0
and never really had a problem with understanding the installation
program. There is always a first
Same here.
I have no way of sending my dump as I'm leaving for OScon and have no access to
my desktop, but I did see this behavior.
I'm also running HEAD on amd64.
Cheers,
Norberto
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> hi there,
>
> i noticed that chromium, expecially in comb
Am 24.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Alexander Best:
> hi there,
>
> i noticed that chromium, expecially in combination with nspluginwrapper and
> flash, is causing a lot of I/O faults. i ran 'top -mio -I -n 99' and after
It's causing page faults, which is a massive difference.
> only ~ 4 hours of r
On 07/24/2011 23:33, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at 2.0
and never really had a problem with understanding the installation
program. There
.. wait, the install-off-USB doesn't default to a read-only boot?
Adrian
On 25 July 2011 08:11, Claude Buisson wrote:
> On 07/24/2011 23:33, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>
>> On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
>>> payed enough
On 07/24/11 19:11, Claude Buisson wrote:
On 07/24/2011 23:33, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at 2.0
and never really had a problem with unde
It does not. I had tried to match the behavior of the 8.x memsticks.
It's an easy change in /usr/src/release/ARCH/make-memstick.sh to change
it, however.
-Nathan
On 07/24/11 19:54, Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. wait, the install-off-USB doesn't default to a read-only boot?
Adrian
On 25 July 2011
Is it perhaps doing disk IO using mmap?
adrian
On 25 July 2011 05:25, Alexander Best wrote:
> hi there,
>
> i noticed that chromium, expecially in combination with nspluginwrapper and
> flash, is causing a lot of I/O faults. i ran 'top -mio -I -n 99' and after
> only ~ 4 hours of running c
Something tells me that's a disaster waiting to happen. Eg, if
something happens, and the installer disk gets corrupted, people may
blame freebsd for being unstable, email questions to freebsd-* mailing
lists asking why X doesn't work (only for it to work when the image is
written out again), etc,
On 25/07/2011 00:03, Ron McDowell wrote:
1) no "back" button/selection/mechanism on each screen. Rebooting
because I fat-fingered something on the previous screen is, well,
unacceptable.
2) no "minimal" install. Most of my installs are single- or few-task
servers where I need a base os and a
On 07/24/11 18:03, Ron McDowell wrote:
Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/24/11 16:29, eculp wrote:
I have been hearing about a new installer but I obviously have not
payed enough attention, I am afraid. I started running freebsd at
2.0 and never really had a problem with understanding the
install
Yes, I agree. I'll ask re@ to change it.
-Nathan
On 07/24/11 20:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Something tells me that's a disaster waiting to happen. Eg, if
something happens, and the installer disk gets corrupted, people may
blame freebsd for being unstable, email questions to freebsd-* mailing
lists
On 07/24/11 20:03, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 25/07/2011 00:03, Ron McDowell wrote:
1) no "back" button/selection/mechanism on each screen. Rebooting
because I fat-fingered something on the previous screen is, well,
unacceptable.
2) no "minimal" install. Most of my installs are single- or few-task
On 25/07/2011 02:08, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/24/11 20:03, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 25/07/2011 00:03, Ron McDowell wrote:
1) no "back" button/selection/mechanism on each screen. Rebooting
because I fat-fingered something on the previous screen is, well,
unacceptable.
2) no "minimal" install
On Sunday, July 24, 2011, Ron McDowell wrote:
>>
>
> I'll have to agree with the original poster. I have no problem with the
look and feel of the new installer, but when functionality that WAS there is
now gone, that's a problem. My two, make that three, biggest gripes are:
>
> 1) no "back" butt
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
Can you please describe what you didn't like about it, and what you would
prefer be changed? "Reminiscent of the 1980s" is not really helpful,
especially given that the new installer in fact looks very much like
sysinstall, which you seemed to like.
Am Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:08:02 -0500
schrieb Nathan Whitehorn :
> It's a change from before, but a normalization with respect to most
> Linux distributions, since we are now using the same dialog as, e.g.,
> Debian and Ubuntu.
> -Nathan
Hi,
yes. And I want to thank you (and everyone) for this ch
On 25/07/2011 06:01, Freddie Cash wrote:
Thank goodness. The worst thing about sysinstall was that it tried to
be a Swiss Army knife doing everything, yet not doing any one thing
well. It made a royal mess of rc.conf if you tried to use it to
configure a system. Usually the first time someone m
25 matches
Mail list logo
