On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:06:59 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
Actually, as with many such cases, the floppy disk driver turned out to
be flakey. We resolved this via private mail.
Driver, or drive? The BIOS is the driver at this point in time.
Argh! Thanks. I meant the floppy drive.
Ciao,
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:53:03 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
FreeBSD write "zf_read: error".
Your mfsroot floppy has a bad sector. Try a different floppy.
Actually, as with many such cases, the floppy disk driver turned out to
be flakey. We resolved this via private mail.
Something to keep
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:53:03 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
FreeBSD write zf_read: error.
Your mfsroot floppy has a bad sector. Try a different floppy.
Actually, as with many such cases, the floppy disk driver turned out to
be flakey. We resolved this via private mail.
Something to keep in
On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 20:19:32 -0400, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
I have to use attach and dettach to do so. Does that mean I have to
display the pid of the new process in order to follow it. And I have to
modify the child process so that it can wait until I can attach to it.
That will not be as
On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 20:19:32 -0400, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
I have to use attach and dettach to do so. Does that mean I have to
display the pid of the new process in order to follow it. And I have to
modify the child process so that it can wait until I can attach to it.
That will not be as
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:56:05 CST, Nate Williams wrote:
Yes, we shouldn't version bump every time someone has a whim, ending
up with 10 version bumps/week, but neither should we avoid them
altogether and cause the Linux syndrome of programs refusing to work
because they have the *wrong*
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:00:18 +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
While you are at it, could you please change rc.serial to be
consistent with the other rc* files? rc.serial should only implement
the functions and import all variable data from rc.conf...
Careful. As pointed out to me by
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:12:23 +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Possibly installing it as /etc/defaults/rc.sysctl?
No. Sysctl.conf might belong in defaults, rc.sysctl doesn't.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:00:18 +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
While you are at it, could you please change rc.serial to be
consistent with the other rc* files? rc.serial should only implement
the functions and import all variable data from rc.conf...
Careful. As pointed out to me by
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:12:23 +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Possibly installing it as /etc/defaults/rc.sysctl?
No. Sysctl.conf might belong in defaults, rc.sysctl doesn't.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:34:22 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
It was the adding a new user/group just for the sake of adding a new
user/group that bothered many of us. ;)
I've learned to accept that argument on principle is inevitable.
:-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:34:22 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
It was the adding a new user/group just for the sake of adding a new
user/group that bothered many of us. ;)
I've learned to accept that argument on principle is inevitable.
:-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:41:28 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
Sendmail likes mailnull and sendmail. :-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:12:13 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
smtp:x:0:0:Mail Daemon User:/:
(Presumably the smtp user is privileged in order to bind to port 25.)
I prefer user group mail since it is non-cryptic and common.
Well, this isn't what we'd want
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:41:28 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Don't use 'mailman' please. We've already got it assigned across
site for the MailMan mailing list software. :)
Sendmail likes mailnull and sendmail. :-)
Later,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:12:13 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
mail:x:6:6:Unprivileged mail user:/:
smtp:x:0:0:Mail Daemon User:/:
(Presumably the smtp user is privileged in order to bind to port 25.)
I prefer user group mail since it is non-cryptic and common.
Well, this isn't what we'd want if
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
Will ports adapt easily to this?
Yes. Those that already try to work around the absence of a reserved
user will have to do less work. Those that run priveledged will be
easier to transition to a non-priveledged state.
Having ports
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:35:59 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
This argument would get sysinstall removed from the release -- you can
do without it when you're installing FreeBSD.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:32:59 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
This isn't about voting. It's about discussion. Emotional arguments and
matters of personal preference aren't helpful.
I think there are already too many of them. If you get out of
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:39:28 +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
BTW I'd still see Postfix standard in FreeBSD :-)
Please don't hijack my thread. I don't want my request to get lost in
another flame war about this. If you must bring that up, please do so
under a different subject line.
:-)
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:48:01 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I'd like to see Postfix standard as well :)
Thanks for the subject line change. I appreciate it. Now please make
sure you've checked the archives on this issue so that anything you say
this time around will be new. :-)
I could save
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs on their peers, then it's
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:08:45 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
3) We try to keep the ports system roughly independent of the base
system, and vice-a-versa. Do you plan to make sendmail use this new
mta id (is that even possible?)?
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:06:41 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
And then once that new user has had considerable time to settle, rip
all the user/group stuff from the mta ports and change them to use an
arbitrary user/group that defaults to whatever you added for sendmail.
My intention was never
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:43:32 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Hmph. Fired up systat on a recently supped 3.2-stable box (aug 30).
Typed :vm, and the screen cleared, it drew the labels, then sat there for
a few seconds, then said:
"The alternate system clock has died, reverting to pigs
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:48:59 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
Will ports adapt easily to this?
Yes. Those that already try to work around the absence of a reserved
user will have to do less work. Those that run priveledged will be
easier to transition to a non-priveledged state.
Having ports
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:35:59 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
this strikes me as unecessary. anybody installing a new mta can create the
necessary users and name them appropriately.
This argument would get sysinstall removed from the release -- you can
do without it when you're installing FreeBSD.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:32:59 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
May I vote for NO more predefined uids/gids at all?
This isn't about voting. It's about discussion. Emotional arguments and
matters of personal preference aren't helpful.
I think there are already too many of them. If you get out of a
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:39:28 +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
BTW I'd still see Postfix standard in FreeBSD :-)
Please don't hijack my thread. I don't want my request to get lost in
another flame war about this. If you must bring that up, please do so
under a different subject line.
:-)
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:48:01 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I'd like to see Postfix standard as well :)
Thanks for the subject line change. I appreciate it. Now please make
sure you've checked the archives on this issue so that anything you say
this time around will be new. :-)
I could save
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:42:56 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I _do_ know that, if machines across the network need to know about
magical IDs on their peers, then it's
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 16:01:40 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The numeric id IS important.
How do you think NFS maintains privileges across machines?
I have no idea how NFS works. :-)
I've educated myself and now see your point. :-)
The point, though, is now simply that we should strive
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:08:45 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
3) We try to keep the ports system roughly independent of the base
system, and vice-a-versa. Do you plan to make sendmail use this new
mta id (is that even possible?)?
It's certainly something I'd like to take a shot at, yes.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:06:41 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
And then once that new user has had considerable time to settle, rip
all the user/group stuff from the mta ports and change them to use an
arbitrary user/group that defaults to whatever you added for sendmail.
My intention was never
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:10:34 MST, Doug wrote:
Please understand, this is not a personal attack.
Nope, you're quite good with wording your mail. :-)
I'm sure that your proposal was motivated by good intentions, but
those of us who see the harm in it and understand the issues involved
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:43:32 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Hmph. Fired up systat on a recently supped 3.2-stable box (aug 30).
Typed :vm, and the screen cleared, it drew the labels, then sat there for
a few seconds, then said:
The alternate system clock has died, reverting to pigs
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:29:58 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Got tired of the dinky cachesize for pwd_mkdb, especially since vipw
doesn't take advantage of the -u or -s options.
Vipw doesn't take advantage of the -u option? I must have read through
the code too fast.
Dramatically helps on those
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 01:05:40 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Why is it OK for top to do it, but not pwd_mkdb? I probably end up
updating my OS faster than I add users to my password file...
I think that's the wrong question. I think the right question is
Is it okay to adhere to the
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:08:59 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
But I'm not saying change the default, leave it at 2, I just think
it should be easy to tweak, such that it is persistent across source
updates.
I think what both Mike and I are suggesting is that a magic value for
which the ideal
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
The last time I brought this up, my request was blown away in a flurry
of arguments
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:29:58 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Got tired of the dinky cachesize for pwd_mkdb, especially since vipw
doesn't take advantage of the -u or -s options.
Vipw doesn't take advantage of the -u option? I must have read through
the code too fast.
Dramatically helps on those
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 01:05:40 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Why is it OK for top to do it, but not pwd_mkdb? I probably end up
updating my OS faster than I add users to my password file...
I think that's the wrong question. I think the right question is
Is it okay to adhere to the
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:08:59 MST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
But I'm not saying change the default, leave it at 2, I just think
it should be easy to tweak, such that it is persistent across source
updates.
I think what both Mike and I are suggesting is that a magic value for
which the ideal
Hi folks,
I plan to add a user ``smtp'' with UID 25 and a member of group
``mail'', for use in running non-priveledged MTA's in FreeBSD. This is
primarily for the convenience of maintainers of mail ports.
The last time I brought this up, my request was blown away in a flurry
of arguments
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:26:06 CST, Warner Losh wrote:
: On LITTLE_ENDIAN machines?
Endian shouldn't matter.
Yup, it was the kind of stupid comment someone who doesn't actually know
what's going on would make. ;-)
I hadn't cottoned on to the notion of using an array.
Thanks,
Sheldon.
To
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:26:06 CST, Warner Losh wrote:
: On LITTLE_ENDIAN machines?
Endian shouldn't matter.
Yup, it was the kind of stupid comment someone who doesn't actually know
what's going on would make. ;-)
I hadn't cottoned on to the notion of using an array.
Thanks,
Sheldon.
To
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:55:56 +0200, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
The Linux trick I like to add is to have sigset_t always be the last
field in structures so that the impact of enlarging sigset_t is
minimal.
On LITTLE_ENDIAN machines?
Cia,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:55:56 +0200, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
The Linux trick I like to add is to have sigset_t always be the last
field in structures so that the impact of enlarging sigset_t is
minimal.
On LITTLE_ENDIAN machines?
Cia,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:40:20 +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
if isyes ${thisvariable}
case $1 of
[Yy][Ee][Ss])
exit 0
;;
*)
exit 1
;;
esac
I hope you mean in instead of of and return instead of exit. :-)
I like this. One of the reasons I like it so much is because it will
make
Hi folks,
While testing out a change I'm proposing for src/Makefile.inc1 (see my
PR 13398, which proposes the addition of a WHICH_GAMES knob), I've hit
my head against something I can't figure out.
Basically, I have the following in Makefile.inc1:
| .if !defined(NOGAMES)
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:06:29 -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Each line that 'make' executes is executed in it's own environment,
Forgive me father, I am but a worm. *lick*
Thanks,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and
Hi folks,
While testing out a change I'm proposing for src/Makefile.inc1 (see my
PR 13398, which proposes the addition of a WHICH_GAMES knob), I've hit
my head against something I can't figure out.
Basically, I have the following in Makefile.inc1:
| .if !defined(NOGAMES)
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:06:29 -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Each line that 'make' executes is executed in it's own environment,
Forgive me father, I am but a worm. *lick*
Thanks,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and
Hi folks,
I'm about to add a flag to mkfifo that allows you to specify creation
mode. NetBSD does this already.
However, there's a difference in the way our mkfifo and NetBSd's mkfifo
create files. We create with permissions 0777 modified by umask. NetBSD
creates with permissions 0666 modified
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:28:29 GMT, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
Recent discussions with bde and eivind indicate that at least some of
the code you're about to touch has one
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:21:43 +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
(The man page seems to be in error, though, when it says that "sysctl
vfs" tells what kinds of filesystems are available.)
lsvfs should give a good indication.
My dog! You learn something new every day. :-)
Thanks,
Sheldon.
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:45:47 -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
This would be post #3 of the same code and changes that no-one has
reponded to.
I hear you, and I was aware of that when I made my comments. Basically,
it's a waste of time saying such a thing, so either be prepared to wait
longer, or
Hi folks,
I'm about to add a flag to mkfifo that allows you to specify creation
mode. NetBSD does this already.
However, there's a difference in the way our mkfifo and NetBSd's mkfifo
create files. We create with permissions 0777 modified by umask. NetBSD
creates with permissions 0666 modified
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:28:29 GMT, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Am I to take it that silence is accpetance? I'll be committing this
to -current tonight or tomorrow unless I get feedback.
Recent discussions with bde and eivind indicate that at least some of
the code you're about to touch has one
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:21:43 +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
(The man page seems to be in error, though, when it says that sysctl
vfs tells what kinds of filesystems are available.)
lsvfs should give a good indication.
My dog! You learn something new every day. :-)
Thanks,
Sheldon.
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:45:47 -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
This would be post #3 of the same code and changes that no-one has
reponded to.
I hear you, and I was aware of that when I made my comments. Basically,
it's a waste of time saying such a thing, so either be prepared to wait
longer, or
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:59:49 -0400, Dan Seguin wrote:
Can somebody tell me where to find the defintion for struct user that's
contained in struct proc?
This is trick question, yes?
sys/proc.h struct proc
sys/user.h struct user
:-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:59:29 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
Ideas / Comments / Suggestions ?
Diffs ?
:-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sheldonh
Hi folks,
Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a
change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l
(long format).
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:59:29 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
Ideas / Comments / Suggestions ?
Diffs ?
:-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise use
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:18:40 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
I haven't actually done any work on this (yet)
but I might see what I can hack together..
The reason I suggest that you provide diffs first is that it's difficult
to comment on your proposal without
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sheldonh
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:09:59 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
+ log(LOG_INFO, "%s%d: promiscuous mode disabled\n",
+ ifp-if_name, ifp-if_unit);
You're the second person other than me to request this. :-)
So are there any _objections_ to having the kernel match
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:55:45 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
Maybe..there was a lot of talk on another mailing list (-current I think?)
about boot messages, level of verbosity etc. etc. so perhaps
we should wait until this has been decided.. ?
This has nothing to do with the boot messages,
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:09:59 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
+ log(LOG_INFO, %s%d: promiscuous mode disabled\n,
+ ifp-if_name, ifp-if_unit);
You're the second person other than me to request this. :-)
So are there any _objections_ to having the kernel match
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:55:45 +0100, Cillian Sharkey wrote:
Maybe..there was a lot of talk on another mailing list (-current I think?)
about boot messages, level of verbosity etc. etc. so perhaps
we should wait until this has been decided.. ?
This has nothing to do with the boot messages,
[Hi-jacked out of cvs-committers cvs-all]
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:18:53 MST, Brian Feldman wrote:
green 1999/08/17 17:18:53 PDT
Modified files:
bin/test test.c
Log:
The new test(1) did not use access() correctly. I don't know why, since
supposedly it's
[Hi-jacked out of cvs-committers cvs-all]
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:18:53 MST, Brian Feldman wrote:
green 1999/08/17 17:18:53 PDT
Modified files:
bin/test test.c
Log:
The new test(1) did not use access() correctly. I don't know why, since
supposedly it's
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:30:02 CST, Warner Losh wrote:
Acutally, the Nintendo 64 uses the Vr4300 series of chips from NEC.
!!!
I've been dethreading this subject line for a few days now, so I'm quite
relieved to see this, the one e-mail message which I happened to check in
on to make sure
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:45:28 -0400, Stephen J. Roznowski wrote:
On a stock system (3.2 and 4.0), how much RAM will a system be able to
use? Will a stock system use all 4GB?
I expect that someone else will answer your question. I just want to clear
up a possible misunderstanding that could
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:51:27 -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
Who were the parties that were heading up the Kerberos 5 integration?
I have questions.
Seek Ye first the kingdom of Mark.
(markm)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:30:02 CST, Warner Losh wrote:
Acutally, the Nintendo 64 uses the Vr4300 series of chips from NEC.
!!!
I've been dethreading this subject line for a few days now, so I'm quite
relieved to see this, the one e-mail message which I happened to check in
on to make sure that
Hi folks,
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment? The originator claims that his
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:45:28 -0400, "Stephen J. Roznowski" wrote:
On a stock system (3.2 and 4.0), how much RAM will a system be able to
use? Will a stock system use all 4GB?
I expect that someone else will answer your question. I just want to clear
up a possible misunderstanding that could
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:51:27 -0400, "Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
Who were the parties that were heading up the Kerberos 5 integration?
I have questions.
Seek Ye first the kingdom of Mark.
(markm)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
Hi folks,
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment? The originator claims that his
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:48:22 MST, dannyman wrote:
The point of it is, it's easy enough to download the floppies, but
it's really hard to boot a system off an .flp image. :p
Presumably you saw the posted trick about dd'ing the floppy image to
your swap partition and booting off _that_? :-)
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:51:10 MST, dannyman wrote:
Uhmmm, what if we don't have a floppy drive?
Then you probably have a CDROM drive or a network interface, both of
which can be used to get sysinstall onto your machine. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:51:10 MST, dannyman wrote:
Uhmmm, what if we don't have a floppy drive?
Then you probably have a CDROM drive or a network interface, both of
which can be used to get sysinstall onto your machine. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:42:48 MST, Dave Walton wrote:
If you really want to work on an encrypted telnet, check out The
Stanford SRP Authentication Project (http://srp.stanford.edu/srp/).
I'd love to see SRP integrated into the FreeBSD telnet/telnetd.
Cool, another non-exportable system
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:41:31 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
merge in their changes.
Hmm... this is in pdksh too...
Don't go there. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
Hi Peter,
I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
portability as a case againsdt NetBSD's test(1).
Just how many other platforms need to support an
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:16:09 -0400, Jamie Howard wrote:
I saw someone say that anything NetBSD did in the name of portability must
be right (in the test thread). :)
Close, but what I said was more along the lines that following NetBSD's
footsteps on issues relating to portability is
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
(which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
portability.
Ah, but I'm not proposing that we add new functionality to the
101 - 200 of 423 matches
Mail list logo
