Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:35:15 -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:46:45AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
> > >   answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small
> > >   group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and
> > >   software?  maybe 64-bit only to start?  most of us who are still
> > >   alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this.
> > 
> > Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it
> > is _really_ open:
> 
> 
>   yeah, but I NEED x86

In this case, I think there are no really free technical
concepts or projects - too much lawyer blah and patents
of swinging on a swing. :-(

However, paying attention _what_ to buy can save from a
lot of troubles; "read prior to buying" is well invested
time if you want your devices to be compliant to existing
standards and will therefor be compatible to FreeBSD.
This usually applies to printers, wireless networking
gear, and USB shenanigans.

With FreeBSD development on ARM, there might be future
"niche markets" where non-x86 hardware will be more popular
even for today's "normal PC use". Electrical energy is
becoming more expensive, and the "throwaway mentality"
is growing stronger (cf. Jevons paradox), so cheaper
devices, usually created in the "ARM realm" could become
a significant factor.


-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Gary Kline]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:46:45AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
> > answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small
> > group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and
> > software?  maybe 64-bit only to start?  most of us who are still
> > alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this.
> 
> Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it
> is _really_ open:


yeah, but I NEED x86


> http://cubieboard.org/
> 
> You can freely obtain schematics, dimensions, components...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

-- 
 Gary Kline  kl...@thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
  Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:27:52 -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
>   answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small
>   group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and
>   software?  maybe 64-bit only to start?  most of us who are still
>   alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this.

Even though it's not x86, this might be interesting as it
is _really_ open:

http://cubieboard.org/

You can freely obtain schematics, dimensions, components...


-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[andrew clarke]

On Mon 2012-11-19 07:55:16 UTC-0500, Daniel Feenberg (feenb...@nber.org) wrote:

> The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a
> world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure
> that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses.

In a world where Windows drivers are rarely well-documented, let alone
open source? I suspect what you suggest is easier said than done...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Gary Kline]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> >>>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
> Polytropon articulated:
> 
>  Allow me to provide just one example:
> >
> >More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
> >
> > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.html
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive
> >>in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is
> >>to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows
> >>uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X,
> >>but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature
> >>X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't
> >>be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required.
> >>In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as
> >>Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE.
> >>
> >
> >
> >The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor
> >Linux
> >is a marginal operating system .
> >
> >Please see
> >
> >http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/
> >
> >
> >Select from this "Operating System Family"
> >where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the
> >rest is
> >almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others .


I'll take a bow, or part-of, for the BSD computer.  Maybe I 
shouldn't.  1/500 is nothing to put on my tombstone:-)


> >http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/
> >http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf
> >contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards .
> >
> >Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server
> >hardware .
> >
> 
> It isn't what vendors should care about. I agree they should care
> about FreeBSD. But by and large they don't. Arguing that they should
> serves no purpose. They have poor moral character, that is why they
> don't care and also why they are impervious to argument, except from
> large customers. The handful of server vendors that are exceptions
> do not detract from the force of my argument.
> 
> daniel feenberg


answer me this, daniel or anybody else:: isn't there a very small
group who is devoted to creating a 100% open/free hardware and
software?  maybe 64-bit only to start?  most of us who are still
alive and contributing *something* might be interested in this.

forget where I read it, but unless I was dreaming, it was for real
and would fit the "OPen-*" model... .

gary


-- 
 Gary Kline  kl...@thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
  Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Gary Kline]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
> > Polytropon articulated:
> > 
> > > Allow me to provide just one example:
> > > 
> > >   More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
> > >   http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html
> > 
> > That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
> > exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
> > oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.

I heard from "my technician" last night--on his way East for the
week.  he send the URL for an 18MB file {from Dell} all about 
this new paradigm.  --like I've got the time to much around with
that much detail... .

someone, I think down-queue said something about the UEFI having
been designed to make it all the more difficult to drop on FBSD 
[or anything *except* Doze.  my tech echoed the same thing 8 days
ago when he dropped off the box.  

I'm sure by now the BIOS has been hacked beyond reason--especially
with the 64-bit versions.  Still, if I were designing a new "BIOS"
that supported the vast majority of my users [DOZE], I would use
every last trick I could dream of to strongly =discourage= anything
but Windows.  
> 
> That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
> behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers
> intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what
> it can do or what it will support.

Exactly; not to put to fine a point on this, but this is where I
smell "greed" as part of the picture/rationale.  


> It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
> that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
> make it worse.
> 
> The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat
> "normal" behaviour...
> 
ha! I tried the "legacy" route for hours without success.  only when
I selected the UEFI did things start to work.  and then, upon reboot, 
I got the string "Cand Find Boot Sector; press any key to reboot"

nutshell, I'll scan thru the 18meg file that I have the pointer to.
but will probably ask for a "less-featureful" model.



> 
> -- 
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

-- 
 Gary Kline  kl...@thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
  Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Daniel Feenberg]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg  wrote:




On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote:

 On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:



On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
Polytropon articulated:

 Allow me to provide just one example:


More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.html





The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive
in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is
to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows
uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X,
but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature
X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't
be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required.
In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as
Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE.




The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor
Linux
is a marginal operating system .

Please see

http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/


Select from this "Operating System Family"
where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the
rest is
almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others .

http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/
http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf
contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards .

Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server
hardware .



It isn't what vendors should care about. I agree they should care about 
FreeBSD. But by and large they don't. Arguing that they should serves no 
purpose. They have poor moral character, that is why they don't care and 
also why they are impervious to argument, except from large customers. The 
handful of server vendors that are exceptions do not detract from the 
force of my argument.


daniel feenberg
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Daniel Feenberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote:
>
>  On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
>>> Polytropon articulated:
>>>
>>>  Allow me to provide just one example:

 More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
 
 http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/**20187.html

>>>
>>> That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
>>> exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
>>> oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.
>>>
>>
>> That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
>> behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers
>> intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what
>> it can do or what it will support.
>>
>> It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
>> that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
>> make it worse.
>>
>> The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat
>> "normal" behaviour...
>>
>>
> The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive
> in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is
> to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows
> uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X,
> but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature
> X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't
> be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required.
> In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as
> Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE.
>


The above paragraph is completely meaningless , because neither *BSD , nor
Linux
is a marginal operating system .

Please see

http://www.top500.org/statistics/list/


Select from this "Operating System Family"
where in world's 500 super computers , Windows is on ONLY 3 computers , the
rest is
almost Linux 469 , Unix 20 , BSD-based 1 computers and others .

http://www.asus.com/Static_WebPage/OS_Compatibility/
http://www.asus.com/websites/global/aboutasus/OS/Linux.pdf
contains Linux distributions supported in ASUS desktop boards .

Some trade marked servers excluded , Linux and *BSD run on many server
hardware .

By not considering these and then saying that *BSD and Linux should follow
foot steps
of some one is not acceptable .

The problem is there is NO any compatible hardware list for FreeBSD
maintained continuously .

Another problem is vendors are not supplying manuals about their hardware
for whatever the reason is which is making to write drivers for them nearly
impossible .
In such cases , the users should seek compatible hardware without entrapped
into proprietary to one operating system hardware .



>
> You might say this was "enabling" vendors to provide buggy systems,
> but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect
> vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when
> it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more
> widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on
> vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting
> on standards prematurely.
>
> daniel feenberg
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Polytropon
>> Magdeburg, Germany
>> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
>> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
>>
>

Thank you very much .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Daniel Feenberg]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote:


On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
Polytropon articulated:


Allow me to provide just one example:

More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html


That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.


That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers
intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what
it can do or what it will support.

It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
make it worse.

The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat
"normal" behaviour...



The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive
in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is
to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows
uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X,
but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature
X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't
be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required.
In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as
Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE.

You might say this was "enabling" vendors to provide buggy systems,
but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect
vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when
it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more
widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on
vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting
on standards prematurely.

daniel feenberg





--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
> Polytropon articulated:
> 
> > Allow me to provide just one example:
> > 
> > More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
> > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html
> 
> That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
> exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
> oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.

That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI
behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers
intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what
it can do or what it will support.

It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and
that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and
make it worse.

The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat
"normal" behaviour...



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Jerry]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100
Polytropon articulated:

> Allow me to provide just one example:
> 
>   More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
>   http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html

That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing
exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an
oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Polytropon]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:49:46 +0100, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:
> On 2012.11.18 09:58, Gary Kline wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I probably should cc the hardward guys about this.  first, see if it
> > geta  any traction here, tho.  my tech guy got me a Delll 3010
> > that has an "improved" [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some 
> > hardware mess called the UEFI.
> > 
> > Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my
> > installation for well over 27 hours.  ssh still fails to connect going
> > in to my "new tao"; but this time I know what to avoid.  my 
> > question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup?
> > 
> > im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it
> > mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. 
> > 
> > gary
> > 
> 
> Gary,
> 
> UEFI is more than a modified BIOS, it's something to get rid of the BIOS
> altogether. It's the x86 BIOS that arguably deserves much more to be
> called a screwed up POS, as it carries with it 30 years worth of legacy
> weirdness, kludges to go around them in modern systems, and a whole
> catalog of vendor-specific bugs and non-compliant implementations. UEFI
> was designed to solve a bunch of problems for manufacturers and advanced
> users, I'm not so sure that it deserves so much heat.

The positive aspects you've mentioned about UEFI, the potential
to solve problems originating back to half-baked solutions and
"hacks" on BIOS level are well mentioned. Still I fear that UEFI
will not bring them to reality. Instead it will be worse.

Allow me to provide just one example:

More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html

As the title suggests, there are many more. :-)



> What I'm sure of, is that there's no relationship between your new
> machine's UEFI and your ssh issues.

That sounds possible, but still UEFI _can_ be used to interfere
with any level of the machine, as far as I know. As it is somehow
a kind of "micro-OS", it can surely detect network traffic and
motify or deny it if desired. There are many aspects of "security"
that can be realized with UEFI. Avoiding "uncertified" traffic
could be one of them.

Still in _this_ particular case I would not assume UEFI to be
the source of the problem.





> I'm also sure that this has nothing to do with FreeBSD.

FreeBSD's ssh implementation (client and server) usually are
simple to set up, providing a good "out of the box experience".
Checking settings on both sides, using the -vvv option or
maybe even using tcpdump or Wireshark to examine the traffic
could help to spot the problem.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Lucas B. Cohen]

On 2012.11.18 09:58, Gary Kline wrote:
> 
> 
>   I probably should cc the hardward guys about this.  first, see if it
>   geta  any traction here, tho.  my tech guy got me a Delll 3010
>   that has an "improved" [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some 
>   hardware mess called the UEFI.
> 
>   Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my
>   installation for well over 27 hours.  ssh still fails to connect going
>   in to my "new tao"; but this time I know what to avoid.  my 
>   question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup?
> 
>   im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it
>   mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. 
> 
>   gary
> 

Gary,

UEFI is more than a modified BIOS, it's something to get rid of the BIOS
altogether. It's the x86 BIOS that arguably deserves much more to be
called a screwed up POS, as it carries with it 30 years worth of legacy
weirdness, kludges to go around them in modern systems, and a whole
catalog of vendor-specific bugs and non-compliant implementations. UEFI
was designed to solve a bunch of problems for manufacturers and advanced
users, I'm not so sure that it deserves so much heat.

What I'm sure of, is that there's no relationship between your new
machine's UEFI and your ssh issues.

I'm also sure that this has nothing to do with FreeBSD.

Best of luck getting your work done on your new machine.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Anybody use the Dell 3010??

[Gary Kline]

I probably should cc the hardward guys about this.  first, see if it
geta  any traction here, tho.  my tech guy got me a Delll 3010
that has an "improved" [[meaning screwed up]] BIOS with some 
hardware mess called the UEFI.

Trying to get ssh to work *bi-directionally* i royally f'ked up my
installation for well over 27 hours.  ssh still fails to connect going
in to my "new tao"; but this time I know what to avoid.  my 
question is simple: of what use is this new/improved POS setup?

im sure its the same for every flavor of unix. my view is that it
mjust makes using non-windozw that much more painful. 

gary

-- 
 Gary Kline  kl...@thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
  Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"