Ok, please stop that now. Those pseudo-witty replies are getting quite
annoying.
Thanks.
Hello!
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:33:19PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Remember we opted for C++ during c2k2 (or was it c2k3), but not until
ddb has proper name demangling code.
*rolls eyes*
Yuck.
Miod
Kind
Quoth Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:20, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it
has good support
for threads.
Remember we opted for C++ during c2k2 (or was it
On 08/02/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoth Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:20, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it
has good support
for
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:01:38 -0800
Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/7/06, Antonios Anastasiadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been wondering what are the openbsd team's long term-plans (if
any at all,of course) regarding future smp support.
I am aware that openbsd currently
On 2/8/06, Diana Eichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cast a vote for re-writing the kernel in Ruby because of it's robust
threads implementation.
No no no, OpenBSD should be rewritten with the new GPL v3 as soon
as it stabilizes. It seems much more robust than the previous releases,
and it is
At 06:40 PM 2/7/06, STeve Andre' wrote:
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:20, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Remember we opted for C++ during c2k2 (or was it c2k3), but not
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
So the language should be VHDL!
+++chefren
On Wednesday, February 8, chefren wrote:
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
So the language should be VHDL!
Ugh! That's akin to using C++ and C# at the same
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
So the language should be VHDL!
+++chefren
Just write the OS in SQL PL and move on! Geeeze ..
It's been a while since I've had the opportunity to code in RPG.
Implementing an SMP kernel in an old IBM report generating language is
an interesting challenge, and would open up the possibility of running
OpenBSD 4.0 on card-sorting machines.
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:35:30 -0700
Tobias Weingartner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, chefren wrote:
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, chefren wrote:
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
So the language should be
On 02/08/06 21:48, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, chefren wrote:
On 02/08/06 14:56, Nickolay A Burkov wrote:
Weee! I think OpenBSD kernel should be implemented in hardware part!
Of course, big gate array and stellar performance.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:51:31PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
digressed a bit (I'm sure that surprises everyone here that I'd do
that),
Shocked!
Anyway, to folks who are wondering about SMP, all you have to do is
notice how little traffic there is on smp@ and how (relatively) few
commits there
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, chefren wrote:
and I know just the card to do it,
http://www.metanetworks.org/products.html
No no no, those cards have not enough memory shameless plug we
manufacture one with up to 2x 256MB SDRAM with fully independent
address and data busses:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 15:21:19 -0700, Diana Eichert proclaimed...
Can you do line rate 10G/OC192 with your card?
Last I heard only Endace could; and they're not supported.
Now I don't feel at all bad about not being able to run bsd.mp on my
clunky old dual-266 Dell PowerEdge 4200. Pah! Programmers nowadays, no
idea of commitment! ;)
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 22:36 -0600, Benjamin Collins wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:51:31PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
digressed
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, eric wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 15:21:19 -0700, Diana Eichert proclaimed...
Can you do line rate 10G/OC192 with your card?
Last I heard only Endace could; and they're not supported.
the metanetworks 10G can
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 16:04:22 -0700, Diana Eichert proclaimed...
the metanetworks 10G can
Hmm, no kidding. Do you know of anything that is rather lossless just for 1G
networks (optical)? We may be throwing some taps out and the usually intel
cards are very lossy.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, eric wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 16:04:22 -0700, Diana Eichert proclaimed...
the metanetworks 10G can
Hmm, no kidding. Do you know of anything that is rather lossless just for 1G
networks (optical)? We may be throwing some taps out and the usually intel
cards are very
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, eric wrote:
SNIP
Hmm, no kidding. Do you know of anything that is rather lossless just for 1G
networks (optical)? We may be throwing some taps out and the usually intel
cards are very lossy.
Oops, I just re-read your original post. They have a new 1G card with
On 02/09/06 00:04, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, eric wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 15:21:19 -0700, Diana Eichert proclaimed...
Can you do line rate 10G/OC192 with your card?
Last I heard only Endace could; and they're not supported.
the metanetworks 10G can
Since also OC192
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, chefren wrote:
SNIP
Lets put in the OpenBSD plug first: Yes OpenBSD is fully supported with the
FT-x
card.
The Metanetworks 10G card is supported by an OpenBSD driver. The only
OpenBSD version directly supported is 3.7, it was the current version when
we purchased it.
hi list.
I have been wondering what are the openbsd team's long term-plans (if
any at all,of course) regarding future smp support.
I am aware that openbsd currently supports smp under the big kernel
lock, which offers some advantages for userland applications but
generally things like interrupt
On 2/7/06, Antonios Anastasiadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been wondering what are the openbsd team's long term-plans (if
any at all,of course) regarding future smp support.
I am aware that openbsd currently supports smp under the big kernel
lock, which offers some advantages for
Hello!
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:01:38PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
[...]
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
;-)
How about erlang (once we've got a working port)? Erlang's threads
(called processes) are much more lightweight, and OpenBSD is, as
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Remember we opted for C++ during c2k2 (or was it c2k3), but not until
ddb has proper name demangling code.
Miod
On 07/02/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/7/06, Antonios Anastasiadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been wondering what are the openbsd team's long term-plans (if
any at all,of course) regarding future smp support.
I am aware that openbsd currently supports smp under the big
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Get real Ted.
You know that python is the way to go.
What's the point of re-writing in either language? emacs already has a kernel.
On 07/02/06, Bryan Irvine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Get real Ted.
You know that python is the way to go.
What's the point of re-writing in either language? emacs already has a
kernel.
I don't
Damn. I shouldn't have asked.
Aside from all (somewhat funny, especially the java one) jokes, what are the
plans
regarding SMP?
Recently I had to install FreeBSD on a dual-Xeon server because it's SMP
support
is kinda better than OpenBSD's, but that did not please me at all, so that
is indeed
a good question.
--
Felipe
Felipe Scarel wrote:
Aside from all (somewhat funny, especially the java one) jokes, what are the
plans regarding SMP?
Same as always.
Wait for someone to show REAL CODE.
Evaluate the merits of that code.
If it is up to OpenBSD standards, commit the code.
Note that the real code comes first.
On Wednesday, February 8, Felipe Scarel wrote:
Just to explain better what happened, I was willing to install OpenBSD on
the machine even if it somewhat lost some power because of the SMP stuff.
However, my boss doesn't share the same views regarding security with me,
so I had no choice.
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:20, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
i think we should rewrite the kernel in java since it has good support
for threads.
Remember we opted for C++ during c2k2 (or was it c2k3), but not until
ddb has proper name demangling
-Original Message-
From: STeve Andre' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 February 2006 01:40 AM
To: Diana Eichert
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: openbsd's future plans?
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:20, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
i
37 matches
Mail list logo
