Julian Elischer wrote:
> One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-)
Yes, that's been confirmed by lots of people, myself included.
John
---
John Polstra j...@polstra.com
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.Seatt
One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-)
julian
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Thomas Stephens wrote:
> John Polstra wrote:
> >In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>,
> >Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet?
>
Thomas Stephens wrote:
> I tried your fix this morning, and it's worked without a problem
> so far. I've just upgraded the world (had only built a kernel
> earlier), and haven't done any rigorous testing, but it looks good.
> I use the AT&T ksh for BSD/OS as my standard shell, which should be
> a
John Polstra wrote:
>In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>,
>Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet?
>
>Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about
>BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix
In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>,
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet?
Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about
BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix, test
it, and submit diffs
David Greenman wrote:
> BSD/OS compatibility for v2.0 static binaries can be had again with a
>few modifications. Someone with access to BSD/OS v2.0 binaries, time, and
>appropriate knowledge, just needs to make them.
> The brokeness actually comes from a design screwup that BSDI made in
>the
:> So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in
:>order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two
:>shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
:
:Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the
:expense of those few people who are
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Brian Handy wrote:
> [Grumbling about BSDI compatibility]
I take all that back. Well, all except the part about grumbling about my
own network here, I'm just feeling grumpy and took it out on random
passerby. :-)
Happy trails,
Brian
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord..
> So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in
>order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two
>shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the
expense of those few people who are runnin
> Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
>BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
>FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died
>horribly on newer servers :)
> So, the good news is, we can now support larg
Kelly Yancey wrote:
>
> Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
> BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
> FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died
> horribly on newer servers :)
> So, the good news
Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because
BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because
FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died
horribly on newer servers :)
So, the good news is, we can now support large me
12 matches
Mail list logo