RE: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. Agree and disagree. While FreeBSD is well suited for the server, it's also well suited for the desktop. That doesn't mean that we should be stressing the desktop to those shopping for servers, instead it means that we shouldn't be telling those shopping for desktops to go use Linux instead. How many business will be running Linux on the desktop but FreeBSD on the server? None! Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. So how about a www.serverfreebsd.com and a www.desktopfreebsd.com? You get the best of both worlds that way. David ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SPAM: Score 2.5: Re: FreeBSD logo design competition
From: stheg olloydson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Now as to the need to change the logo, to quote the announcement, This character sometimes treated with misinterpreted in the religious and cultural context. Over the years, the only complaints I have ever heard have come from America's Taliban. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the complainers are in a position to make any sort of IT decision, one must ask what is their motivation for complaining. They are simply trying to force their religious orthodoxy on others. These are the same people trying to eliminate the barrier between state and church to make the United States into a theocratic country. Therefore, these complaints can be categorized as coming from an irrational minority that should be ignored. Please keep your personal politics and cultural bigotry off of these lists. There is no America's Taliban, and the use of the term is used solely to incite emotions. Thinking that just because people share you views on operating systems they must also share you views on religion and foreign policy is sheer hubris. I realize that geeks and hackers tend to be irreligious, and Open Source a collection of global communities, but not until today have I seen such anti-Christian and anti-America bigotry in the FreeBSD community. Is this to be the new standard of discourse? If so, tell me now so I can avoid the rush in switching to another BSD. As a Christian I am not in the least offended by Beastie. But I am getting quite offended by people stereotyping my religion, nation and culture. David Johnson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unable to use BOOT EASY to boot linux
On Thursday 08 April 2004 04:40 pm, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: So far this is correct. LILO needs to be on the *root* partition. No, it doesn't. It only needs to be on some boot record: the MBR or the BR of one of the 4 primary partitions. It was once common to put it on a small /boot partition in the first 1024 cylinders (no longer necessary), with the Linux root partition above 1024. You are correct. I was assuming the use of the FreeBSD Boot Manager to control the second harddrive as well, in which case you would want it on the MBR instead of LILO. The advantage of the FreeBSD Boot Manager is that you can put it on the MBR and not have to configure it later if you add another OS to the second harddrive. With LILO you would need to boot into Linux to reconfigure it. (And ditto for Grub if you installed it to a Linux filesystem). David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unable to use BOOT EASY to boot linux
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 02:21 pm, Tadimeti Keshav wrote: hi all. I added a 2 GB linux disk as a slave and installed Mandrake Linux with LILO on the root partition of linux. So far this is correct. LILO needs to be on the *root* partition. I am trying configure Boot Easy to boot linux. Since FreeBSD occupies all of the 1st HD, should I install a STANDARD boot loader on first or on both Hard disks. The standard boot loader is NOT a boot loader. All it will do is boot the partition that is marked bootable. You want to choose BootMgr for each harddrive, if you want to use the FreeBSD boot manager. Please see the section in the Handbook 2.5.3 Install a Boot Manager. The boot menu will display the partitions named by partition type (FreeBSD, Linux, DOS, ??). All partitions will be listed, not just the ones that are bootable. It's very easy to use if you know what your partitions are. It's amazing that they were able to fit a general purpose boot manager into only 512 bytes! Chapter 7 of the Handbook The FreeBSD Booting Process describes this in excruciating detail. David Johnson ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unable to use BOOT EASY to boot linux
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 02:56 pm, Jerry McAllister wrote: If I understand what you are asking - FreeBSD on disk0 and Linux on disk1, then you need to install an MBR and a standard book sector on disk 0. But the standard boot sector will not boot to disk 1. Quoting from the Handbook: If you only have one operating system installed on your disks then the standard MBR will suffice. This MBR searches for the first bootable slice on the disk, and then runs the code on that slice to load the remainder of the operating system. If you have installed multiple operating systems on your disks then you can install a different MBR, one that can display a list of different operating systems, and allows you to choose the one to boot from. FreeBSD comes with one such MBR which can be installed, and other operating system vendors also provide alternative MBRs. What's confusing about the process is that there doesn't seem to be a common name for the FreeBSD MBR. In sysinstall it is called BootMgr. In the booting section of the handbook and a few man pages it is called boot0. It's also commonly referred to as Boot Easy. David Johnson ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel compile Q - How to get the speaker to work?
On Wednesday 03 March 2004 10:12 pm, Tadimeti Keshav wrote: Hi thanks for the answer, but when I had Windows installed, the speaker did work, I mean I was able to hear music, in addition to the beeps. I may be confused as to what speaker you are talking about. My assumption was that you were referring to the standard PC speaker (sometimes called the console speaker), and not a speaker attached to an audio card. For most laptops, these two speakers are the same. For most desktop systems, the internal speaker is mounted to the case via a lead from the motherboard. If you are indeed referring to the same internal speaker that I am referring to, then you can indeed play music through it. But the audio quality will be extremely poor. But I don't know how to do it with FreeBSD. I suspect you'll have to write your own driver. On the other hand, if you're talking about getting you audio card with attached speaker to work, that is a different story. I can't help you there, but many people can, provided that you first let them know what sound card you have, or if it's integrated onto the motherboard, what motherboard or computer model you have. David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel compile Q - How to get the speaker to work?
On Tuesday 02 March 2004 04:28 pm, Tadimeti Keshav wrote: I added to my kernel config file: device pca (this was mentioned in the NOTES file) Typically a PC speaker is not an audio device in the normal sense of the term. It's there just to make beeps, and not music. It's not going to do what you probably want it to do. secondly, what is the use of adding: device udbp This is a USB double pipe. But what does it do. I'm sort of partial to the traditional Linux kernel configuration comment of if you don't know what this is then you don't need it. Since there are no devices listed in the Hardware notes using this driver, and it's commented out be default in the GENERIC kernel, I'm fairly confident that you don't need it. David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
devfs and umass devices
I just upgraded to 5.1-RELEASE last night. I have a Jungsoft Nexdisk USB memory stick that is being successfully recognized. Since I want the memory stick to be usable by users of group operator, I need the /dev/da0s1 device to be mode 0664. Then they can mount the device on one of their own directories (via vfs.usermount=1). Under 5.0, I used rc.devfs to add a ruleset to devfs using the following commands. This worked fine: ruleset 99 rule add path da0s1 mode 664 rule -s 99 applyset Under 5.1 I tried doing a similar action with devfs.conf: permda0s1 0664 This does not work, and after looking over rc.d/devfs, I realized that this only works for devices present at boot time, and not for umass devices inserted later. Is there an accepted means of adding a ruleset using the new rc system? Is there another way of doing what I want? I understand that rc.devfs is deprecated, so I don't really want to use it unless I have to. Thanks, David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
