-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Freminlins
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:37 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted,
Why don't you do us all a favour and shut up.
Probably because
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:45 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On Nov 19, 2005, at 5:10 AM, Ted
-Original Message-
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:08 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: David Kelly; FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
You keep talking like the laptop market
Ted,
On 11/22/05, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped a massive load of nonsense]
Why don't you do us all a favour and shut up. Your posts are off-topic
and a waste of storage bytes. AFAIK this mailing list is not your
personal soap box.
Frem.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:37:04 +0100
Freminlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted,
On 11/22/05, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped a massive load of nonsense]
Why don't you do us all a favour and shut up. Your posts are off-topic
and a waste of storage bytes. AFAIK this mailing
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dinesh Nair
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:16 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Michael Vince; Peter Clutton; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On 11/19/05 17:28
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released
as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in
production until the 5.3 release.
Is there any such conventional wisdom as regards 6.x?
my home system is actually production system that can't be stopped for a
long time.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dinesh Nair
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:07 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Michael Vince; Peter Clutton; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On 11/17/05 20
-Original Message-
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:33 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: David Kelly; FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted. Apple did play some games
On 11/19/05 17:28 Ted Mittelstaedt said the following:
Absolute total rubbish.
Let's take one of these developing countries - China PRC - shall we?
right, pick a country which has seen billions in investment flowing in over
the last 5 years and use that as an example. shall we consider
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:33 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: David Kelly; FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0
On Nov 19, 2005, at 5:10 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0
Consider that when MacOS moved to UNIX that all the UNIX software
vendors could now easily port their applications to Macintosh.
Excuse me, sir.
Your discussion is pretty impressive and I have been reading it
with care. Honestly, I am far from having a distant enough picture
of the whole say
Additionally, Apple had AU/X running on Macs before even machten.
Natively.
Chad
On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
Consider that when MacOS moved to UNIX that all the UNIX software
vendors could now easily port their applications to Macintosh.
Excuse me, sir.
Your
-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:46 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Subject: RE: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:14 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted
It would be nice if you could
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dinesh Nair
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:58 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Michael Vince; Peter Clutton; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On 11/15/05 12:23
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:38 PM
To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Cc: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:54PM
On 11/17/05 20:35 Ted Mittelstaedt said the following:
In the tropics you are flooded with free energy streaming down
on you all day long and your complaining?!?!? Please, search
Google for the term photovoltaic and be enlightened.
photovoltaic arrays and solar energy panels are not as
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:18 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:14 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
In real world use my 256MB G4-400 MacOS X 10.4.3 Powerbook is faster
than my 512MB 2GHz WinXP Pro box at work.
But - Chad said that the G4 is a no-go? That the G5 was an absolute
requirement
for laptop use? Yet your saying that a G4
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The plan is to come out with new gear every few years so as to extract
money from
the customer base. As I already said in my first post, lots of people
are like you -
perfectly happy NOT buying the latest Apple product. Apple wants
On Nov 17, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The plan is to come out with new gear every few years so as to
extract
money from
the customer base. As I already said in my first post, lots of
people
are like you
Wow, did this thread veer off-topic!
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:50:40PM +, Chris wrote:
That is indeed a waste but consider that in that year the PC at 150
watts
This is probably a high estimate, especially for an older, single-cpu
box.
has consumed 60 times as much power as the router
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
Wow, did this thread veer off-topic!
It did rather ;) but it's an important topic for us energy users.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:50:40PM +, Chris wrote:
That is indeed a waste but consider that in that year the PC at 150
watts
This is probably a high
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Vince
While most people aren't using a pentium 1 to run a water sprinkler
system, there are a countless amount of people using machines
for things
that aren't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:57 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Free BSD Questions list
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ted
Ted
It would be nice if you could at least get your facts straight
(continued below)
On Nov 15, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
A lot of people wondered how Steve Jobs could dare change over to
Intel
chips.
In Steve Jobs
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:54PM -0700, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
Ted
It would be nice if you could at least get your facts straight
Agreed.
There is no software obsolescence issue. Besides making it quite
easy to port software to OS X Intel for most people, since the
On 11/15/05 12:23 Ted Mittelstaedt said the following:
Hmm - let's see now, where does this extra wasted power go? It
is turned into heat. Which heats your house. Which means you do
not have to run the furnace so much, thus saving energy there.
that's a very geocentric view. for most of us
-Original Message-
From: Michael Vince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Admittedly if Microsoft were
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Vince
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 7:48 PM
To: Peter Clutton
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
I prefer the idea of the FreeBSD
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
A lot of people wondered how Steve Jobs could dare change over to
Intel
chips.
In Steve Jobs keynote speech announcing the big move Intel chips was
just about entirely stated as because of the 'performance per watt
ratio' of Intel CPUs.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Vince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
Gayn Winters wrote:
There are some things broken
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Admittedly if Microsoft were trying to make Windows XP run well
on a 486
it wouldn't be nearly as a likable OS it is today.
That's not true either. If Microsoft were trying to make it work on a
486 it
would run a lot better on bigger hardware because they would
I prefer the idea of the FreeBSD team aiming at only the latest
hardware, all I use is brand new server equipment.
I don't like the idea that FreeBSD features and performance development
could be hampered by the core guys trying to make stuff work on old
hardware, in fact if it was a fact that
On 11/11/05, Michael Vince [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its the same for the Internet if Gates had not put a 'get on the
Internet now' icon on all those win95 and 98 during the pc boom days to
trigger peoples interest the Internet it wouldn't be as cheap or as fast
as it is for end consumers.
At 07:47 PM 11/11/2005, Michael Vince wrote:
I prefer the idea of the FreeBSD team aiming at only the latest
hardware, all I use is brand new server equipment.
I don't like the idea that FreeBSD features and performance development
could be hampered by the core guys trying to make stuff work on
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:49:29PM -0500, Bob Johnson wrote:
On 11/9/05, John Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released
as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in
production until the 5.3 release.
Is there any such
in
the atacontrol program.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Fox
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:23 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Status of 6.0 for production systems
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently
There are some things broken in 5.4 that are still broken in 6.0
with regards to support of older hardware. In particular the ida
driver is a mess - EISA support in that was busted years ago,
then 5.X busted support for more 'modern' systems like the
Compaq 1600R HP DL series of systems
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:14:25AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
As I understand it, 6.0 is primarily concentrating on improving some
of the major stuff introduced in 5.x, and shouldn't take nearly as
long to become a stable platform. Even so, conventional wisdom
generally warns against
Danny Howard wrote:
So ... I am genuinely curious ... if 6.0 is basically 5.4 plus
improvements, why isn't it called 5.5?
FreeBSD numbers releases based on compatibility, not based on
features. You can take programs compiled for FreeBSD 5.3 (the
first release from the 5-stable branch) and run
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:10:28AM -0800, Colin Percival wrote:
Danny Howard wrote:
So ... I am genuinely curious ... if 6.0 is basically 5.4 plus
improvements, why isn't it called 5.5?
FreeBSD numbers releases based on compatibility, not based on
features. You can take programs compiled
Danny Howard wrote:
So, the 6.0 denotes some note-worthy realignment of the symbol table or
such. Thank you for an excellent answer, Colin. Some of us were
secretly worried that FreeBSD was catching a case of the Sun Marketing.
:)
If we were suffering from versionitis, we would have
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:00:48AM -0800, Danny Howard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:14:25AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
As I understand it, 6.0 is primarily concentrating on improving some
of the major stuff introduced in 5.x, and shouldn't take nearly as
long to become a stable
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gayn Winters
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:03 AM
To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Status of 6.0 for production systems
There are some things broken in 5.4
Gayn Winters wrote:
There are some things broken in 5.4 that are still broken in 6.0
with regards to support of older hardware. In particular the ida
driver is a mess - EISA support in that was busted years ago,
then 5.X busted support for more 'modern' systems like the
Compaq 1600R HP DL
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 02:35:16PM +1100, Michael Vince wrote:
Gayn Winters wrote:
I prefer the idea of the FreeBSD team aiming at only the latest
hardware, all I use is brand new server equipment.
I don't like the idea that FreeBSD features and performance development
could be hampered
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 02:35:16PM +1100, Michael Vince wrote:
I don't like the idea that FreeBSD features and performance development
could be hampered by the core guys trying to make stuff work on old
hardware, in fact if it was a fact that a lot more performance and
features could be in
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released
as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in
production until the 5.3 release.
Is there any such conventional wisdom as regards 6.x?
Thanks,
John
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Fox, Senior Systems Administrator
InfoStructure
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:23:13PM -0800, John Fox wrote:
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released
as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in
production until the 5.3 release.
Is there any such conventional wisdom as regards 6.x?
FreeBSD 6.0 is the most
On 11/9/05, John Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember back a while when 5.x had been recently released
as STABLE and the conventional wisdom said not to use it in
production until the 5.3 release.
Is there any such conventional wisdom as regards 6.x?
5.0 introduced a lot of new features
54 matches
Mail list logo
