Oh no, the SATA adapter works fine. It’s recognized by Open Firmware and the
boot menu lets me select the Tiger install.
What I don’t know is how to *manually* boot it through the Open Firmware
console so I can load the OpenBSD boot loader.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 8:13 PM,
On 10/25/18 14:51, Katherine Rohl wrote:
> I’m trying to run OpenBSD and Tiger on one hard drive on a Mac G4
> tower. I’ve successfully installed 6.4 onto the drive and I can still
> boot from Tiger, so that’s good. I then copied ofwboot to the Tiger
> partition (since it’s the first HFS+
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-J3455N-D3H-rev-10#ov
OpenBSD 6.4 (GENERIC.MP) #364: Thu Oct 11 13:30:23 MDT 2018
dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
real mem = 4116643840 (3925MB)
avail mem = 3982606336 (3798MB)
mpath0 at root
scsibus0 at mpath0: 256
So I am working on a bit of an experiment. I have a debian sid guest in vmm.
xrdp is installed as is the pulse audio module for xrdp so that it can see the
xrdp output in the mixer. I can connect just fine till I try to get sound out.
Remmina wouldn't work with sound so to have more control I
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:59:09 PM -03 Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:44 PM diego righi wrote:
> > So why openbsd 6.4 i386 and amd64 bootloaders (not biosboot, boot!)
> > express different behavior? Wasn't openbsd about correctness? :/
>
> If I'm wrong and it is
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 07:57:50AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Using one big "a" partition means:
>
> - higher risk of filesystem damage to system partitions after an
> unsafe restart (crash, power failure): if a partition isn't actively
> written to, it's less likely to suffer damage
>
>
Using one big "a" partition means:
- higher risk of filesystem damage to system partitions after an
unsafe restart (crash, power failure): if a partition isn't actively
written to, it's less likely to suffer damage
- missing protective flags (e.g. nodev, nosuid) that are set on
mounts that don't
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:44 PM diego righi wrote:
> So why openbsd 6.4 i386 and amd64 bootloaders (not biosboot, boot!)
> express different behavior? Wasn't openbsd about correctness? :/
>
If I'm wrong and it is documented that I can't do this fine, but so also
> i386 should not work, this
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 07:41:54AM +0200, diego righi wrote:
> So let's say I'm a fool, I use a foolish partition layout, and the intel x86
> and amd64 architectures are tricky/shitty architectures with stupid bioses
> which work bad, ok?
> So why openbsd 6.4 i386 and amd64 bootloaders (not
9 matches
Mail list logo
