and I figured I could do it in
> three days.
>
>
Wow! you are faster than God himself! I have the idea that some people whom
i will not mention will turn green reading that ...
--
Michel Talon
ved the problem. Maybe this is
something to explore.
--
Michel Talon
_v170_uk_EN/sources/cndrvcups-common-1.70/libs
and i have hard time thinking how this can be mixed in a compiled *BSD
program. Presumably a better option is to use a completely binary Linux
driver under Linux emulation, the remaining problem being to shove the
different parts in the appropriate
you can edit 4 primary partitions, period. No logical, no
bsd partitions. In other words, it is of very limited utility, in my
opinion. A good partitioning tool is still lacking for FreeBSD,
able to do at least what Linux cfdisk does so simply. I suppose the geometry
problems which plague FreeBSD sysin
at least without
circumventing the patents. To take another exemple it took many years
Solaris to be considered better than the good old slowlaris system.
--
Michel Talon
I think it is not irrelevant to mention here the announcement:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=715406
"Moshe Bar, openMosix founder and project leader, has announced plans to end
the openMosix Project effective March 1, 2008.
The increasing power and availability of low cost mu
(think of gawk vs. one true awk).
Here gawk has at least one feature that awk doesn't have, and which is
important, the possibility of putting time stamps, very useful when
filtering log messages through awk.
>
> Stuff visible to the user: Not much, I think.
>
> Sascha
>
--
Michel Talon
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> By the way, OpenBSD's solution uses perl.
Yes
> Pkgsrc doesn't depend on perl as
> perl is not installed on some pkgsrc developers/users systems.
But i am told that this perl solution runs faster than the old pkg_tools of
J. Hubbard which says a lot about what is r
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> One has to be totally unaware of realities to suggest tools from
>> obscure Linux distributions, wether they are good or bad, when such
>> distribution may collapse at any moment. Already the move to NetBSD
>> pkgsrc has cost DFLY division by 3 of the number of availa
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> I personally believe that postfix is superior. I personally do not
> mind running GPL'd code. But I also would prefer to have as little
> GPL'd code in our managed code base as possible.
>
> What does this mean? I would dearly like to integrate porti
Rupert Pigott wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
> True, but Matt has explained that ZFS doesn't provide the functionality
> that DragonFlyBSD needs for cluster computing.
>
> ZFS solves the problem of building a bigger fileserver, but it
> doesn't help you di
ly can do it with innovative solutions.
> PS. Can I have the bikeshed in sky blue pink with yellow dots.
>
--
Michel Talon
ven
if the make installworld doesn't succeed completely, there is good chance
that a reboot to multiuser will work and allow to do it a second time.
--
Michel Talon
Kris Kennaway wrote:
When using the same binary, the CPU scores are statistically
indistinguishable between the different FreeBSD versions. This makes
sense since there's little kernel involvment in running userland
integer/FP computations. When running the gcc 2.95 binary all
versions of Fre
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Once it has been appropriately cleaned up, it should be no problem at
all to bring in UFS2, minus features like snapshots which can be better
chieved with some form of VFS journalling that Matt is working on at the
moment.
Once more i think you are perfectly right. UFS
Raphaël Marmier wrote:
This would answer the needs expressed many time in an acceptable
compromise:
- upgrading an app without breaking another in the process
- able to install multiple versions of a package
- allow piecemeal upgrades
- allow updating a single package
- you can have several ad
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I have had very good luck with portupgrade, on multiple freebsd
systems on multiple platforms. I do avoid the biggies like KDE
or Gnome, which obviously helps.
Since half the ports i have on my machine, if not 3/4 require one or the
other of Gnome libraries, using
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
been a completely broken system. Every time.
This is nice to know, i was under the impression i was so dumb as
being unable to use portupgrade (yes, my experience is not far from
yours) when so
Hiten Pandya wrote:
In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
one would not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, tota
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Debian has
literally thousands of contributors, partly because the system is a
maintainance hell. I completely agree with Andreas on that.
I don't agree. Debian has > 1000 contributors because Linux is
infinitely more popular than *BSD, in particular for "political"
Andreas Hauser wrote:
When labor is not that cheap, you need better technology
to accomplish similar. That is what ports/pkgsrc is. It makes
producing those packages much easier, so that less people
can produce more packages.
It is not so difficult to produce Debian packages. I have played
a l
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Can we not just go with an established packaging suite like the one
found in Debian and modify it for our use?
It's certainly more established than pkgsrc, and has more packages.
Hiten Pandya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hiten, i concur with you. In my opinio
22 matches
Mail list logo
