On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Sorry, my last header wrongly to Mark Felder, could give
the wrong impression. I would like Wojciech Puchar (not Mark F.)
to stop banging on about 'GNU communist licence' etc.
because you don't like facts.
No you don't. You like what YOU (and
No you don't. You like what YOU (and ONLY you) think of as facts (see below).
still not explained what is wrong in comparing end results of benchmark
and seeing that they are quite same. This is the only meaningful point for
me.
I live ideology for others.
Only facts? Well and good. Do you
Hi,
After a recent upgrade to p5-Net-Server-2.005 on various boxes, I'm
finding that munin-node is going down regularly.
(Multiple machines, looks to be affected on FreeBSD8.2 and FreeBSD8.3
REL, but not 9.0 machines)
It looks related to trying to start on an ipv6 interface ( which is not
On 2012-06-19T08:17:09+0100, Paul Macdonald p...@ifdnrg.com wrote:
After a recent upgrade to p5-Net-Server-2.005 on various boxes, I'm
finding that munin-node is going down regularly.
(Multiple machines, looks to be affected on FreeBSD8.2 and FreeBSD8.3
REL, but not 9.0 machines)
This is
On 06/18/2012 09:07 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear Folks,
...
Is there a place where the panics/oops are saved to retrieve them and
cut + paste them here?
/var/log/, /tmp/ ?
If you have set dumpdev in rc.conf to the location of a swap device (or
AUTO to have it pick one), the core dump (and
from David Naylor:
I am the one who sends these persistent messages. Some users of my packages
reported that wine didn't run due to a clang compiled world. I never verified
them (although I got multiple reports). With the updates to clang it may have
also been corrected.
I attributed the
Thomas Mueller writes:
Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
My understanding is:
8.*
base - gcc
ports - gcc
9.0 (and possibly 9.*)
base - gcc
ports - clang
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
If you cannot see this - i cannot help you any more. sorry.
Your noise is no help. Use appropriate lists.
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not
Only facts? Well and good. Do you have any proof GNU is in any way
connected to any communist movement?
Yes, see the Gnu Manifesto. Hint: it's named that way for a reason.
Do you have any facts (NOT living in your head) GPLvX is in any way
inspired/based on/even remotely connected to/ ANY
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
Thomas Mueller writes:
Now how will I know whether GCC or Clang is the default compiler
for building the world and kernel, and for ports?
My understanding is:
8.*
base - gcc
ports - gcc
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour.
# ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/
ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory
# rm -Rf
/var/tmp/stunnel/
# echo $?
0
On 06/19/2012 03:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour.
# ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/
ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory
# rm -Rf
/var/tmp/stunnel/
You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory
cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote:
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour.
# ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/
ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No
I always assumed -f would only force removal, not modify the exit code.
No bug then, working as intended, all good.
Cheers
On 6/19/12 3:43 PM, Fred Morcos wrote:
You used -f which means rm will not complain if a file or directory
cannot be deleted (or does not exist in the first place).
The man page [1] explicitly states that if the file doesn't exist, -f
will not show an error message nor alter the exit code.
-f Attempt to remove the files without prompting for confirmation,
regardless of the file's permissions. If the file does not exist, do
not display a diagnostic message
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I give here an example which i like, a monte carlo
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Michel Talon ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:25 -0500, Fred Morcos fred.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
Yes, 4.2.1 is the latest we can use.
Also, I have no idea what version of Clang
You should really configure your email client to attribute quoted
commentary properly (or, as a first step, at all).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:00AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
be more exact.
I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous
email, I notice)
On 19.06.2012 16:43, Michel Talon wrote:
David Brodbeck said:
Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is
unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Unfortunately this affirmation is blatantly false, recent gcc produce code
much faster than clang. I
lilas% clang -v
Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c
lilas% time ./a.out
...
real 0m2.359s
user 0m2.341s
sys 0m0.003s
lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
?
gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC)
lilas%
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
true.
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
programs like mencoder which require
the highest efficiency.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:
As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
are some ports I frequently have to
* [COPY from i...@rdmitry.name]*
{ # (Russian lang, ORIGINAL)
Имеется::
1) Загружаемая некриптованная партиция /boot со скриптами ядра
9.0-release и самим ядром;
2) Криптованная только файл-ключом (ключ лежит сейчас в (1)/boot )
рутовая партиция со всем своим содержимым.
Проблема:
При
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:54:45 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As
{ # (Russian lang, ORIGINAL)
Имеется::
1) Загружаемая некриптованная партиция /boot со скриптами ядра
9.0-release и самим ядром;
2) Криптованная только файл-ключом (ключ лежит сейчас в (1)/boot )
рутовая партиция со всем своим содержимым.
Проблема:
При загрузке криптованая партиция сама
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released
The problem need to solve:
Need have end system, when keyfile when boot will be created automatically,
and erased securelly just after root crypto` partition mounts (by dd with
of=keyfile, for example)
That need to do because freebsd have remote hosting.
Needs:
To make key not (at least
i wouldn't be surprised that FreeBSD team would decide to go back to gcc
soon.
I would as one of the driving forces of the change was to replace GPL
licensed code in FreeBSD core with more permissive licensed code. This helps
to remove a massive legal encumberment for a lot of developers who
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the
On 19 June 2012 12:58, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs
I don't see much fruit coming out of that conversation anymore.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to
Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote:
I've stumbled upon this *so weird* behaviour.
# ls -la /var/tmp/stunnel/
ls: /var/tmp/stunnel/: No such file or directory
# rm -Rf /var/tmp/stunnel/
# echo $?
0
Anyone knows if that's intended ?
yes.
___
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch.
By insulting
20.06.2012 00:06, Anonymous Remailer (austria) пишет:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:09:11 +0400, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
20.06.2012 00:50, Polytropon пишет:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:49 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria)
wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:57:50PM -0400, Allen wrote:
Hello all!
So, I'm sitting here watching True Blood, and also checking my Email,
and updating my Ports, and a thought hits me; Wouldn't it be a cool way
to do FreeBSD Advocacy, by making a BSD based band???
And the name would be so
I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is 1680x1050
-- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is
irritatingly
small for my old eyes.
So I want to attach an external monitor via a vga cable, which I have been
doing with my RedHat thinkpad A31P for
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 07:52:58 David Tilbrook wrote:
I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is
1680x1050
-- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is
irritatingly
small for my old eyes.
yeah, the age.
So I want to attach an external
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
GPL protects the freedom of the programmer who licensed his
code under those licenses: He wants it to be free for use,
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Antonio Olivares wrote:
But I get error in line 16:
$ ./mpost-eps webfig
./mpost-eps: 16: Syntax error: word unexpected
for file in file.* do
Either put the do on the next line, or put a ;
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:52:58PM -0400, David Tilbrook wrote:
I have a thinkpad t61p running freebsd9.0. The window size is 1680x1050
-- a reasonable size -- but the screen itself is 38cm. (15) which is
irritatingly
small for my old eyes.
So I want to attach an external monitor via a vga
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc.
clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization
(that
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:26:13 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
Erich
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
forcible, viral open source. I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place,
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
the problem is that these compilers are not 100% compatible and soon if
clang will be default it will be not just
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9
Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in dispute or
something? Or is this just repetition in case we
didn't hear you the first time?
just yesterday i've heard lots of otherwise claim.
Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward.
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 11:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds?
what is the problem as long as gcc is in the ports tree?
what is a problem as clang is in the ports tree?
for the port? It does not make a difference.
the
50 matches
Mail list logo
