hi Andrew! :)
> Who is appalled to discover that pc532 support has been removed!
get your GCC and binutils and GDB pals to put the support back
in the toolchain and we'll have something to talk about :-)
note that we've revived the playstation2 port now that its has
had its toolchain components
Hi,
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 07:37:04PM +, David Holland wrote:
> > I would argue that this has happened already - FreeBSD and NetBSD are
> > the results... at least from the outside, this is how it looks like,
> > with FreeBSD focusing on few platforms but modernizing itself quite
> > a b
There's a complex tradeoff here
On 29 May 2015 at 12:09, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> In "Evolving Frameworks," [2] Don Roberts and Ralph Johnson suggest
> in the "Tree Examples" pattern that you should never write a software
> framework unless you have at least three applications that use it. Part
>
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:45:59PM +0100, Dave Tyson wrote:
> I am with Gerald on this. Having used NetBSD from 0.8 I really appreciate
> the single source tree for all architectures and the ability to cross build
> painlessly from different platforms. I also like the community and the fact
> t
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:45:46PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 07:37:04PM +, David Holland wrote:
> > > I would argue that this has happened already - FreeBSD and NetBSD are
> > > the results... at least from the outside, this is how it looks like,
> > > with Fr
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:05:30PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > > I would argue that this has happened already - FreeBSD and NetBSD are
> > > the results... at least from the outside, this is how it looks like,
> > > with FreeBSD focusing on few platforms but modernizing itself quite
> >
On 05/29/15 20:15, Gerard Lally wrote:
At date and time Fri, 29 May 2015 11:09:08 -0500, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
On 5/29/15 5:22 AM, David Holland wrote:
Because of these trends, I've been thinking for a while now that maybe
it's getting to be time to fork.
Hello, David!
I started using NetBSD
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:15:25PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I received feedback from some device driver authors. They point out
> establish, disestablish and release APIs should be unified for INTx,
> MSI and MSI-X. So, I would change the APIs as below:
Some more feedback...
PCIe d
On 2015-05-30 21:37, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:49:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:22:35AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > Because of these trends, I've been thinking for a while now that maybe
> > it's getting to be time to fork. That would
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:49:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:22:35AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > Because of these trends, I've been thinking for a while now that maybe
> > it's getting to be time to fork. That would allow having one project
> > that intends to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:38:06PM -0300, Dimitri Berveglieri wrote:
> The best way to be good is work in a real project and i really believe in
> NetBSD.
>
> Can you give me a chance?
Of course :) Do you have something that interests you?
Joerg
On 2015-05-30 00:13, Matt Thomas wrote:
On May 29, 2015, at 1:31 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
No, transfering a whole file is a single stream of stuff; reading individual
records is a more complex handshake. And apart from that, things get
significantly simpler if you only support Sequen
Hello,
My name is Dimitri and i'm from Brazil.
I work with infrastructure for six years already, mainly virtualization. I
have good skills with shell script and perl but i'm not a skillful
developer. I'm junior level.
I really would like to be part of a NetBSD Project, i can work hard. Just
need
> On May 29, 2015, at 1:31 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>
> No, transfering a whole file is a single stream of stuff; reading individual
> records is a more complex handshake. And apart from that, things get
> significantly simpler if you only support Sequential files. Simpler still if
>
Johnny Billquist
> On 2015-05-28 21:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> > paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
> >
> >> And DECnet nodes exist around the Internet; the “Hobbyist DECnet”
> >> group (“hecnet”) is the main focus of that activity as far as I know.
> >
> > ...and while I'm sure Johnny Billquist can
> On May 29, 2015, at 2:20 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-29 16:35, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> DAP would be really nice, but it's complex. But I like the capabilities.
>>
>> I wouldn’t have thought of DAP as all that complex; after all it fits in
>> PDP11 systems.
At date and time Fri, 29 May 2015 11:09:08 -0500, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> On 5/29/15 5:22 AM, David Holland wrote:
> > Because of these trends, I've been thinking for a while now that maybe
> > it's getting to be time to fork.
>
> Hello, David!
>
> I started using NetBSD because of its small base
On 2015-05-29 16:35, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On May 29, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-05-29 08:18, Matt Thomas wrote:
...
I have a Phase IV+ (so I didn’t have to much with the physical address)
implementation but never got around to writing the apps. socket interfa
> On May 29, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-29 08:18, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I have a Phase IV+ (so I didn’t have to much with the physical address)
>> implementation but never got around to writing the apps. socket interface
>> is identical to DECnet-ULTRI
19 matches
Mail list logo
