Re: GPL version 4
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom. I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom. regards Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: GPL version 4
Marco Peereboom wrote: All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this; nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass. Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end of story. LOL - sorry Marco, I was replying for the benefit of folks on the Ubuntu list ... I didn't notice the huge collection of *other* lists in the cc (I'm guessing you are *not* on the Ubuntu list). Of course, you are free to dislike the GPL in all its forms... regards Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: X fails after upgrade to xorg-7.2; FreeBSD AMD64 w/ Radeon 9600 Pro
Byron Campbell wrote: Xorg -configure now reports: (++) Using config file: /root/xorg.conf.new (WW) RADEON: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:1:0:1) found (**) RADEON(0): RADEONPreInit Manually doing the config by running xorgcfg -textmode gives a different BusID in the xorg.conf file -- BusID PCI:1:0:0 FWIW on the PCI busids: PCI:1:0:0 is the primary port of your card, PCI:1:0:1 is the secondary - the warning is just because 'Xorg -configure' does not create a setup for dual monitors. For the rest, well done on getting rid of the undefined symbols... shame it still does not work. Good luck for the reinstall! Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X fails after upgrade to xorg-7.2; FreeBSD AMD64 w/ Radeon 9600 Pro
Byron Campbell wrote: On Sunday 17 June 2007 10:23:19 pm Mark Kirkwood wrote: AFAICS the symbol is defined in: /usr/local/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/ati_drv.so e.g: $ nm ati_drv.so|grep ATIMemoryTypeNames_88800CX b5c0 D ATIMemoryTypeNames_88800CX What does it show on your system (I'm wondering if your ati drivers have not been upgraded properly). Ah, good point. The output here is: 00e940 D ATIMemoryTypeNames_88800CX Well - seems to be defined there hmmm. not sure why you are getting 'undefined symbol' in atimisc_drv.so in that case. I am wondering if the problem is tied up with amd64 specifically - hopefully someone else will have some ideas :-). In the meantime you could hack your xorg.conf to use 'vesa' driver and see if you can actually startup X - try adding modeline settings in there for your monitor if you still get 'out of range' (tho I must say I've *never* needed to put them in with Xorg...). Also worth trying might be borrowing a DVI cable (assuming your monitor has a DVI input) and seeing if X works with it connected instead of the VGA one. Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X fails after upgrade to xorg-7.2; FreeBSD AMD64 w/ Radeon 9600 Pro
Byron Campbell wrote: Help, X was working just fine until I did a portupgrade of xorg 6.9.0 to 7.2. Looks like X is starting but my LCD monitor just goes black with the monitor's OSD reporting video input, out of range. I've gone back through Xorg configuration (via xorgcfg -textmode) and verified correct settings for my graphics card and the monitor's Horz. / Vert. scan frequencies etc., everything being in order. #Xorg -configure gives Driver ati, Boardname RV350 AP [Radeon 9600] and BusID PCI:1:0:0 I've also run #xorgcfg -textmode choosing Driver radeon and Card ** ATI Radeon (generic).. and still no luck. Please help. Anyone have their Radeon 9600 card working in Xorg-7.2 with just a basic / non accelerated setup, or any setup? Thanks, Byron System info: FreeBSD 6.2 stable (AMD64) Graphics card: ATI Radeon 9600 Pro (using the VGA monitor connection jack) Mainboard: MSI KT8 Neo2-F I've seen this with VGA connections - e.g I've a 9550 (RV350 AS) and for DVI connection it works fine with the file generated by 'Xorg -configure' with accel and drm, but with VGA fails with 'out of range'. I needed to tell it which display resolution to use by adding a 'Modes' clause to the Display subsection of xorg.conf e.g: Section Screen Identifier Screen0 Device Card0 MonitorMonitor0 SubSection Display Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 Modes 1680x1050 # whatever mode your monitor uses here EndSubSection EndSection Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X fails after upgrade to xorg-7.2; FreeBSD AMD64 w/ Radeon 9600 Pro
Byron Campbell wrote: I went back and ran Xorg -configure again, and noted the following error messages: dlopen: /usr/local/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//atimisc_drv.so: Undefined symbol ATIMemoryTypeNames_88800CX (EE) Failed to load /usr/local/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//atimisc_drv.so (EE) Failed to load module atimisc (loader failed, 7) (++) Using config file: /root/xorg.conf.new (WW) RADEON: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:1:0:1) found (**) RADEON(0) : RADEONPreInit atimisc_drv.so is present in the above mentioned directory. My graphics card is the PowerColor ATI Radeon 9600 Pro (RV350 AP) AFAICS the symbol is defined in: /usr/local/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/ati_drv.so e.g: $ nm ati_drv.so|grep ATIMemoryTypeNaes_88800CX b5c0 D ATIMemoryTypeNames_88800CX What does it show on your system (I'm wondering if your ati drivers have not been upgraded properly). Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg 7.2 start problem
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 01:07:18AM -0700, Andriy Babiy wrote: I guess you missed the several replies (and the note in UPDATING) telling you to install the xorg port to obtain a complete xorg installation. Kris Thank you Kris. Now I see, I didn't have xorg meta-port installed, that was my fault. Do I have any chance to fix a mistake by installing it now, or the whole rebuild is the only way? Just install it, it will install the rest of your missing bits. FWIW I encountered this too - and it persisted after installing the xorg meta-port, and was not sorted until I did deinstall/reinstall on font-misc-misc and font-cursor-misc. Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Don't buy AMD products (was Re: Xorg and ATI card query.)
Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: Since AMD/ATI doesn't make a native driver for FreeBSD, I only buy notebooks with nvidia, and I told my friends about this. We as FreeBSD users could write about this in our blogs and pages, which will widespread the word about the driver issues in better way, as long as more users aware of this, this will force AMD/ATI to look into the issue deeper, and work it out. This would be better than emailing the AMD CEO IMHO. We could contact the ATI exec(s) too - pointing out that older ATI cards have support added by the Xorg developers and how helping them out with the newer ones can only result in increased ATI sales... got nothing to lose there I think! Cheers Mark P.s: currently use ATI 9550. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Increase max data segment size?
Dear Questions: I have a machine with 2G of ram. I would like to be able to malloc about half of it. However I keep running into the max data segment size limitation: $ ulimit -d 524288 Is there any way to increase or amend this ? I am running FreeBSD 4.9 RELEASE i386 with the following non default kernel options : makeoptions COPTFLAGS=-O2 -pipe -funroll-loops options SMP # Symmetric MultiProcessor Kernel options APIC_IO # Symmetric (APIC) I/O regards Mark ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Increase max data segment size?
I should have mentioned that I built the kernel when the machine had either 512M or 1G of ram, and have subsequently added another 1G. Would rebuilding the kernel result in this limit being recalculated? Mark Kirkwood wrote: Dear Questions: I have a machine with 2G of ram. I would like to be able to malloc about half of it. However I keep running into the max data segment size limitation: $ ulimit -d 524288 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Increase max data segment size?
Bit sad replying to myself again:-) Anyway - no it does not... still 512M A bit of grepping through the 4.9 source finds that the beast controlling all this is: $ grep MAXDSIZ /usr/src/sys/i386/include/vmparam.h #ifndef MAXDSIZ #define MAXDSIZ (512UL*1024*1024) /* max data size */ so is there any reason *not* to amend this and recompile? e.g. #define MAXDSIZ (1024UL*1024*1024) /* max data size now 1G */ any opinions out there? regards Mark Mark Kirkwood replied to himself: I should have mentioned that I built the kernel when the machine had either 512M or 1G of ram, and have subsequently added another 1G. Would rebuilding the kernel result in this limit being recalculated? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Increase max data segment size?
Yes there is, some more poking around in /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_param.c brought to light : maxdsiz = MAXDSIZ; TUNABLE_QUAD_FETCH(kern.maxdsiz, maxdsiz); which looked suspicously like a kernel tunable for data segment size. So setting kern.maxdsiz in /etc/loader.conf seems to be the thing to do... Of course by this time I have managed to find some postings concerning MAXDSIZ and kern.maxdsiz. Hopefully the next person confused about this will find my postings *before* dredging the code! regards Mark Mark Kirkwood wrote: so is there any reason *not* to amend this and recompile? e.g. #define MAXDSIZ (1024UL*1024*1024) /* max data size now 1G */ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Increase max data segment size?
I mean in /boot/loader.conf (growl...) Mark Kirkwood wrote: which looked suspicously like a kernel tunable for data segment size. So setting kern.maxdsiz in /etc/loader.conf seems to be the thing to do... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IO To IDE Blocking In 5.1
Poor form to anwser my own question but I removed and inspected the IDE cables... found one with some damage - I suspect this is the cause. Happend to get a Promise TX2000 raid card yesterday , so I reinstalled (+ new cables). Retesting the scenario finds that iostat is not blocked. regards Mark P.s : Still seeing loss of 2 processor scaling where *any* io is involved, but I will study this some more and post to smp if cant understand it (I wonder if its something to do with running 2 copies of the *same* binary). Mark Kirkwood wrote: . iostat blocks until the process is completed. If I start iostat *first*, then it does not block, and I can see the io activity generated by the process when it starts. I am running the SMP kernel, but can reproduce this using GENERIC. Any ideas ? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why people are not satisfied with FreeBSD?
I use Linux for surfing + mail , and Freebsd for coding + research. The choice of which to use for what was just how it happened - rather than any deficiency in either product. I think they are both great. Good to be spoilt for choice. P.s : notice I did not mention that other operationg system :-) Mark Denis Troshin wrote: Hi! Looking at the field MAILER of e-mails' headers, I see that there a lot of people here who are using mail programs like Outlook, Eudora, Mozillafor win32. This means that they run windows systems. So I'm asking why still a lot of people here who hadn't move to FreeBSD? Are there any common reasons of why people are not satisfied with FreeBSD? Why do they still prefer windows? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IO To IDE Blocking In 5.1
I am running Freebsd 5.1 on a Dell 410 with 2xPII and 2xIDE drives (each on its own channel). Drive #1 as 1 filesystem mounted on /, drive #2 has 1 filesystem, mounted on /data1 (both have softupdates enabled) i) start a process doing some io on drive #1 ii) start iostat 5 iostat blocks until the process is completed. If I start iostat *first*, then it does not block, and I can see the io activity generated by the process when it starts. If I try this test on drive #2, then neither case blocks. I am running the SMP kernel, but can reproduce this using GENERIC. Any ideas ? P.s : This came to my attention whilst experimenting with the smp kernel, I was able to get nice 2 processer scaling with 2 running processes *except* if they both needed to do IO (even if they were doing it on different drives). Note : Have previously run 5.1 on a HP VE6, and dont recall encountering this issue. regards Mark ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
