On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Doug Lee wrote:
>
> I don't either, but I will provide a different data point: Blind
> listers, myself included, must generally read through posts
> sequentially, as it is usually trickier to skip reliably through
> quotes to the new material when using s
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:04PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
> > >
> > > Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
> > > been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-traine
On Thursday 19 February 2009 05:06:15 GESBBB wrote:
> 4) The insertion of legally unenforceable disclaimers, etc. is another big
> waste of space.
And not always under the control of sender, through the creative use of
outgoing mailfilters.
--
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they s
5) The use of HTML mail in a mail forum is absurd; however, it is commonly done
(GMail).
this is a problem - as GMail and similar things itself.
6) One of my 'Pet Peeves": Morons who change a thread's subject rather than
start a new one.
was me sometimes by accident, but i do care now not do
> From: Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au
[snip]
> Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
> been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
> including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc,
> after years of your (almost
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
> >
> > Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
> > been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
> > including tail-quoting all sorts irrelev
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc,
after years of your (almost too- :) c
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Kailash Kailash
wrote:
> I am using FreeBSD 7.0 in 64 BIT mode. Same code compiled on BSD 7.0 runs
> 50% speed (as expected by CPU and code architecture) compared to BSD 6.2.
> Here is one real code with binary output. On 3.0 GHz Woodcrest processor, I
> am able to
ing any compatibility
> > problem?
> > Thanks,
> > Kailash
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wojciech Puchar [mailto:woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:46 PM
> > To: Kailash Kailash
> > Cc: freebs
...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:46 PM
To: Kailash Kailash
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow
looks like they "improved" gcc. you can install older from ports.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 03:44 pm, Kailash Kailash wrote:
> I am using FreeBSD 7.0 in 64 BIT mode. Same code compiled on BSD
> 7.0 runs 50% speed (as expected by CPU and code architecture)
> compared to BSD 6.2. Here is one real code with binary output. On
> 3.0 GHz Woodcrest processor, I am a
: FreeBSD 7.O compiled code is very slow
looks like they "improved" gcc. you can install older from ports.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
> I am using FreeBSD 7.0 in 64 BIT mode. Same code compiled on BSD 7.0 runs
> 50% speed (as expected by CPU and code architecture)
looks like they "improved" gcc. you can install older from ports.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
I am using FreeBSD 7.0 in 64 BIT mode. Same code compiled on BSD 7.0 runs
50% speed (as expected by CPU and code architecture) compared to BSD 6.2.
Here is one real code with binary out
13 matches
Mail list logo
