In message 199905302213.raa05...@home.dragondata.com Kevin Day writes:
: 1) The kernel config options are only documented in LINT, which really isn't
: meant for that sorta thing, and I'll admit, they're not documented well.
: (contrast linux's config where you can hit ? and get a few paragraphs
In message
14162.35022.502546.522...@r84aap011262.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com
Robert Huff writes:
: How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
: machines.)
On my stable machines never, or very rarely. I have machines in my
basement that tend to have 200-500 day uptimes
I've seen references to people writing Towers of Hanoi in troff, but
I don't have a pointer to the actual code.
Can't help you there, but here's something for you:
/hanoi{/x{{exit}}def /e{exch}def /d{dup}def /l{loop}def /n exch def /m 2 n 1
sub exp cvi def[m{d 0 eq x if d[e d 0{1 add e 2 div
Chuck Robey wrote:
You see, some folks in Japan went off on their own and developed a
newconfig, which has a lot fo things in common with the work that
Peter's gone and done, but also has some basic differences. They worked
pretty much totally in silence. so when core told Peter to go ahead,
Still no sight of land. How long is it?
'Ave we started again, then?
*yawn*
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Motoyuki Konno wrote:
But what about new-bus?
newbus was well announced. any FreeBSD committer was extended newbus
commit privledges as well. The cvs tree was public as well.
- bill fumerola - bi...@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 -
Bill Fumerola bi...@chc-chimes.com wrote:
But what about new-bus?
newbus was well announced. any FreeBSD committer was extended newbus
commit privledges as well. The cvs tree was public as well.
I think the new-bus CVS repository was made public on Apr 11, 1999.
Wes Peters writes:
And, as far as *word processors* go, troff, nroff, and ed pretty
much suck. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree they are useful
tools, as borne out by the number of books that have been typeset
over the years using troff. But a word processor they DO NOT make.
Clearly
Wes == Wes Peters w...@softweyr.com writes:
Wes If you mean lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
Wes more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,
Wes I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
Wes was never meant to be a word
Leo Papandreou l...@talcom.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:31:57PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
And, as far as *word processors* go, troff, nroff, and ed pretty
much suck.
...
Thats absolutely correct. They have no built-in diversion to cope
with writer's block. With MS-Word you can futz with
Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au wrote:
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
Wes Peters w...@softweyr.com wrote:
If you mean lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,
I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
was never meant to be a word processor loader, and
Darryl Okahata wrote:
Wes Peters w...@softweyr.com wrote:
If you mean lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,
I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
was never meant to be a
Wes Peters w...@softweyr.com writes:
David Scheidt wrote:
I should point out that UNIX's suitably as a document processing
enviornment is one of the reasons that UNIX received support from
BTL management. The fact that it was stable, ran on cheap hardware,
and a cool programing
m...@smith.net.au said:
:- there are certain classes of users that it's in our interests _not_
:- to attract.
So, Mike, when will you be issuing the official FreeBSD Qualification Test
(FQT), and issuing a License to Use FreeBSD (LUF)?
Sheesh! :-(
I found the question/answer kernel configuration maddening
on Linux.
Linux has a tk based script (xconfig) which is pretty good...
Marty Leisner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Bill Huey wrote:
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
You must be joking me. Just about every other systems person I've talked
to in past 5 years, (including me) would highly
Darryl Okahata wrote:
David Scheidt dsche...@enteract.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
Unix variant folks.
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux
I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
This is one of those reocurring threads.. Everyone to contribute
to it so far has either had no better ideas for front ending
the kernel configuration process or lots of ideas but no time
to implement them, resulting in the same
You don't want FreeBSD to have more users? Do you think it already has
enough users? How many users is enough? What is the goal of the FreeBSD
project? To be the test platform for new kernel ideas exclusively? Why
do you tolerate the presence of the X on the FreeBSD CD-ROMs then?
I think this
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
+[ Spike ]-
|
| a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going to
| lose to Linux if only from the sheer momentum of twenty million rabid
| Linux fanatics. And
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
You guys should be aware that work is going on to change, in a rather
major way, not just the config file, not just the configuration method,
but the entire way that devices are detected and drivers added.
Is this documented
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Nik Clayton wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
You guys should be aware that work is going on to change, in a rather
major way, not just the config file, not just the configuration method,
but the entire way that devices are detected and
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
If you mean lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,
I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
was never meant to be a word processor loader, and
David Scheidt wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
If you mean lack of competition would make UNIX more homogenous and
more viable to every Tom, Dick, and Jane that comes down the pike,
I will agree with that. I just disagree that this is success. UNIX
was never meant to be
On Sun, 30 May 1999 18:14:31 EST, Constantine Shkolnyy wrote:
You don't want FreeBSD to have more users?
[...]
Making the script is like making more documentation. Is the current
FreeBSD documentation so plentiful that making more documentation would
harm somebody?
This issue is much
+[ Spike ]-
|
| a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going to
| lose to Linux if only from the sheer momentum of twenty million rabid
| Linux fanatics. And realistically, we aren't doing a damn thing about it.
Technical
Chris D. Faulhaber writes:
I somewhat agree. A custom kernel is useful for setting up and
tuning parameters (e.g. softupdates); however, unlike Linux, we
don't have a new kernel every week to reconfigure.
How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
machines.)
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Robert Huff wrote:
: How often _do_ people rebuild their kernels? (On non-testing
:machines.)
: I rebuild/reinstall every two weeks, plus or minus a day or
:two.
I only run -RELEASE. Usually the latest. I build a kernel customized for
my machine with every new
On Sun, 30 May 1999 21:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Huey bi...@mag.ucsd.edu wrote:
Possibly, but the thing that bothers me is that I've heard more
derogatory comments directed against Linux user on this list
than I have seen come from Microsoft.
...because Microsoft isn't Unix, so being
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
You must be joking me. Just about every other systems person I've talked
to in past 5 years, (including me) would highly disagree with that citing
that
David Scheidt dsche...@enteract.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
Unix variant folks.
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux tends to pick up most of the
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to write one...
Matt
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
Don't you find editing config file MUCH
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Yaroslav Halchinsky wrote:
Don't you find editing config file MUCH more easy thing than answering
series of dumb questins again and again?
*I* do, yes. In fact, I hate any other way. But I've heard it as a
about 10 times now from people currently using Linux. And oddly
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Yaroslav Halchinsky wrote:
Don't you find editing config file MUCH more easy thing than answering
series of dumb questins again and again?
*I* do, yes. In fact, I hate any other way. But I've heard it as a
about 10 times now from people currently using Linux. And
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to write one...
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to write
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to write
Perhaps this is the wrong list to post this question, but has there been
any work done on a script (similar to what Slackware Linux uses) that
asks the user questions (Do you want to run SCO binaries, etc) and
configures a kernel conf file for them?
If not, I'll volunteer to
On Sunday, May 30, 1999 5:39 PM, Mike Smith [SMTP:m...@smith.net.au] wrote:
I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
I'm not sure we want those sort of people.
You don't want FreeBSD to have more users? Do you think it already has
enough users? How many users is
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
What sort of people is FreeBSD after then? There are all sorts of people
who need a mailserver, or a webserver, or whatever, who would otherwise get
someone to sell them an NT based
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
Oh man! So, what kind of people do 'we' want then?
Who are we? Are you speaking of FreeBSD community? I hope NOT!
David Scheidt wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
What sort of people is FreeBSD after then? There are all sorts of people
who need a mailserver, or a webserver, or whatever, who would otherwise get
someone to
Ideally, no interaction at all will be required.
Just give me knobs to turn everything off.
How does no interaction required translate to everything will be on?
Give us a little more credit than that. 8)
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man.
On Sunday, May 30, 1999 5:39 PM, Mike Smith [SMTP:m...@smith.net.au] wrote:
I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
I'm not sure we want those sort of people.
You don't want FreeBSD to have more users?
We want more users, sure. But we're not desperate for
On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Birrell wrote:
Why build a kernel at all? The generic kernel should do that application
just fine. Only build a custom kernel if you have a good reason to do
so.
I somewhat agree. A custom kernel is useful for setting up and tuning
parameters (e.g. softupdates);
On Sun, 30 May 1999, [ISO-9550] ?? wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
I think its useful if it gets linux people less afraid of FreeBSD.
I'm not sure we want those sort of people. But there's already a
Oh man! So, what kind of people do 'we' want then?
Who
Making such a script is specifically targetted at a small group of
users; those accustomed to the Linux way of doing things and too
inflexible or untalented to learn a new way.
The Linux way of doing things isn't terribly different than any other
Unix based OS out there. I don't really
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 07:49:24PM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
The Linux way of doing things isn't terribly different than any other
Unix based OS out there. I don't really understand this wierd anti-Linix
stuff from the FreeBSD folks.
Context. When people complain about Linux users expecting
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Chris D. Faulhaber wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Birrell wrote:
Why build a kernel at all? The generic kernel should do that application
just fine. Only build a custom kernel if you have a good reason to do
so.
I somewhat agree. A custom kernel is useful
Spike wrote:
I think that in ten years, Linux will be going strong and FreeBSD
will have whithered. I don't think this is because FreeBSD is
technically flawed, or that the core team and developers aren't doing
a good enough job. I think this because in the end FreeBSD is going to
Context. When people complain about Linux users expecting everything
to work like Linux, then it's usually safe to assume that the behavior
in question *does* vary between Linux and other Unix systems, or at
lease Linux and FreeBSD.
Possibly, but the thing that bothers me is that I've heard
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Bill Huey wrote:
That's fundamentally disturbing especially coming from other fellow
Unix variant folks.
Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so
long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know
anything but how to
David Scheidt wrote:
Linux is for people that hate Microsoft. FreeBSD is for people who
love Unix.
I like Linux is Luke Skywalker; FreeBSD is Yoda.
- mark
Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:36:08PM +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
David Scheidt wrote:
Linux is for people that hate Microsoft. FreeBSD is for people who
love Unix.
I like Linux is Luke Skywalker; FreeBSD is Yoda.
linux -- the operating system for kiddies, written by kiddies. --
56 matches
Mail list logo
