On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote:
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese.
Fuck China.
China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships
in the last 500 years.
If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you
all be falling over yourselves to get one??
George
On 2010 Mar 05 (Fri) at 12:36:04 -0800 (-0800), J.C. Roberts wrote:
:The thing is, you've kind mixed things up because you didn't understand
:the context. STeve was doing *more* than just running the -current
:snapshot and packages. He was getting into -HEAD branch to help espie@
:out with testing
On 2010 Mar 06 (Sat) at 14:26:25 +0530 (+0530), Siju George wrote:
:On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote:
:
: (I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
: for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
:
:
:loongson
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote:
(I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
loongson seems to be a very low end cpu system. what is the special
attraction towards
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:26:25PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org wrote:
(I'm also running dpb3 on my OpenBSD/loongson system, but that is just
for private use, and to find packages that fail to build ;) ).
loongson seems to
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese.
Fuck China.
China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships
in the last 500 years.
If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you
all be falling over yourselves to get one??
George Santayana is rolling over in his grave.
My appy poly loggies for my political
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese.
Just like most of the electronic devices being manufactured today.
Eric Furman wrote:
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese.
Awww, what a *cute* little troll! I wonder if he realizes ...
*squish*
--
-RSM
http://www.erratic.ca
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 05:07:36AM -0500, Eric Furman wrote:
Yea ,and its made by the Chinese.
As opposed to your Thinkpad/Dell/HP/etc?
Fuck China.
China is one of the worst murderous dictatorships
in the last 500 years.
If it was 1935 and the UberMensch PC would you
all be falling over
Eric Furman is a racist bigot.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
backporting sucks for many reasons.
Forgot to nitpick this one.
*nobody* is *forced* to
Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
Not on purpose, but it happens.
If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
... and so, your system may be fucked for a few days.
That said, we never get enough
On 2010-3-5 7:24 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
Not on purpose, but it happens.
If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
... and so, your system may be fucked for
On 3/5/10, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
Well, sometimes we fuck up -current.
Not on purpose, but it happens.
If you run into a broken snapshot, you may have to wait a few days until
a new snapshot hits the mirrors, usually with everything fixed.
... and so, your system may be
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little
engineering
actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on
hordes
of lemmings^Wusers going over the cliff to actually get things to
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On 3/5/10, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
[snippz0rz]
We're very far from lemmings-linux, aka debian, where very little
engineering
actually gets done, and where the whole development process relies on
hordes
of
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com wrote:
The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
backporting sucks for many reasons.
Unless you're running one of those, it
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:12:17 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, at least one person has this opinion:
Yes, a basic understanding, plus the understanding that you need to
catch a set of commits completely. That requires some understanding
of the code at some level.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Bret S. Lambert wrote:
Ok is that sarcasm, or are you for real?
I have never seen espie@ in the same room as sarcasm, so I can only assume
they are the same person.
If you're doing ports stuff, sarcasm is your best friend.
Ciao,
kili,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:36:04PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Not many people have the bandwidth and stack of systems required to do
distributed builds of the *ENTIRE* ports tree. None the less, great
people doing bulk builds is how your packages get built for all the
mirrors. At present,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:17PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
The other problem, that gets mentioned is some people are forced to
run -current because some packages will only work with -current, and
backporting sucks for many reasons.
Forgot to nitpick this one.
*nobody* is *forced* to run
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
I've decided to use release when available and switch to current as needed.
Out of
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
I've decided to
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I had read the faq many times before asking the question. I admit not just
beforehand. I wasn't specific enough about my thought processes and asked too
many questions at once, but thanks for all the insights.
I've decided to use release when available and
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 14:37
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:52
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: misc
trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Thu, 4/3/10, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: -current or -stable [was: Not another Browser Question]
To: trustlevel-...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote:
-current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release
versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds.
just update to latest snapshots, other than time to update
nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Bennett
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote:
-current is typically safer by default since all those errata in release
versions are already fixed in -current snapshots. No patches, no builds.
just update to latest snapshots, other than
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote:
You are talking about two separate issues.
Stability is not related to security directly.
The two are intricately combined but not the same.
But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability
bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been
my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not have with
release/stabe, and some
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:44 -0500, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote:
You are talking about two separate issues.
Stability is not related to security directly.
The two are intricately combined but not the
Quoting nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Chris Bennett
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote:
You are talking about two separate issues.
Stability is not related to security directly.
The two are intricately combined but not the same.
But both are related to
On 2010-3-4 6:44 PM, nixlists wrote:
Anyway, I am still not clear where ...
'stable' refers to the APIs and ABIs. It also refers to the selection
of packages and libraries and their versions.
/Lars
Quoting nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
But both are related to downtime and data loss. I understand stability
bugs are likely to pop-up more often with current, and this has been
my experience. Weird freezes without panic that I did not
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system
code, and intimate familiarity with *nix internals?
...
not follow -current on machines that are
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
By good understanding do you mean ability to read and write system
code, and intimate familiarity with *nix
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:12 -0500, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems the opinion on running current in production ranges from
being overly optimistic to being very cautious. If running -current in
production is only recommended for people who are intimately familiar
with the
Why don't you try it by yourself what's appropriate for you? I started
with stable because I was scared from other systems that current is
something worse and less stable then stable version (even stable
version of those systems is something to be scared about). Now I'm
using for about two years
On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:25 Bret S. Lambert wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:12:35PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
If you don't have a good understanding of things, I'd say you should
By good understanding do you mean ability to
Where does one find details of things like this?
--
Ron McDowell
San Antonio TX
STeve Andre' wrote:
--had I paid more
attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the
particular problem I had.
One doesn't find details like that because people doing this for fun
don't write lists of details like that.
Where does one find details of things like this?
--had I paid more
attention, I would have seen that new stuff was added, which fixed the
particular problem I had.
On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote:
Where does one find details of things like this?
If you mean about changes in -current,
I monitor these two
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html
http://www.openbsd.org/plus.html
Giannis
Giannis, thank you for your helpful answer.
--
Ron McDowell
San Antonio TX
Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
On 05/03/10 01:33, Ron McDowell wrote:
Where does one find details of things like this?
If you mean about changes in -current,
I monitor these two
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes:
The short answer is painfully simple; if you're running OpenBSD as your
desktop/laptop and you have a clue, then run just -current.
These days, the -stable branch still exists primarily due to historical
precedence for people unwilling to update
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:31AM +0100, Manuel Giraud wrote:
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes:
The short answer is painfully simple; if you're running OpenBSD as your
desktop/laptop and you have a clue, then run just -current.
These days, the -stable branch still exists
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Using -current, I sometimes have had to upgrade to the latest snapshot
just because I wanted to install some new package and bumped into an
error like not good version of libc.
In fact, I thought that having a -release (and -stable) was a strength
of OpenBSD (if not why put
Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca writes:
Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package. You
have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure
running -stable will help?
I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not
installed on my system yet
Manuel Giraud wrote:
I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not
installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one
package.
Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood.
Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying
-stable for a while and I could
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:21:47 +0100 Manuel Giraud
manuel.gir...@univ-nantes.fr wrote:
Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca writes:
Huh? Let me get this straight. You want to use a *new* package.
You have to use -current to get the new package. How do you figure
running -stable will help?
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:02 -0500, Scott McEachern sc...@erratic.ca
wrote:
Manuel Giraud wrote:
I wasn't clear enough: by new package, I meant a package not
installed on my system yet and not the bleeding edge version of one
package.
Ah ok, sorry, I misunderstood.
Maybe I'll stick
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes:
There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan
(possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a conference
who asked what operating system he was running on his laptop. The
OpenBSD user proudly stated, I'm running
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:43:18 +0100 Manuel Giraud
manuel.gir...@univ-nantes.fr wrote:
J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org writes:
There's a story I remember reading about an OpenBSD user from Japan
(possibly Mark Uemura?) who met an interesting fellow at a
conference who asked what
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Scott McEachern wrote:
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Maybe I'll stick to -current too. But I'd like to give try staying
-stable for a while and I could still play with the new toys every 6
month anyway. I wonder why does the FAQ recommend -stable over -current?
From the FAQ:
Put
54 matches
Mail list logo
