Re: Release
Greg A. Woods wrote in : |At Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:23:20 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: |Subject: Re: Release |> |> What's messy is the idea that when replying to the list one should send |> to *only* the list. That has some merit, but the standards are murkier |> (Mail-Followup-To:) and implementation of them somewhat sparse. | |Well, no, there's nothing murky about it _in_the_standards_, even going |all of the way back to RFC-822. It's called "Reply-To": | | 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO | |This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any |mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. ... |(To be even more pedantic, "Mail-Followup-To", and the even more bogus |"mail-reply-to" are stupid inventions by people who didn't understand |RFC 822 clearly enough, and were, in some part, clueless attempts to We now even have a standardized Author: field (RFC 9057). I like M-F-T: very much, unfortunately it never became a standard. M-F-T: is not the same as R-T:, unfortunately i used them as being equivalent and that is wrong. Still in the wild. RFC 9057 * Mediators might create a Reply-To: field with the original From: field email address. This facilitates getting replies back to the original author, but it does nothing to aid other processing or presentation done by the recipient's Mail User Agent (MUA) based on what it believes is the author's address or original display name. This Reply-To action represents another knock-on effect (e.g., collateral damage) by distorting the meaning of that header field, as well as creating an issue if the field already exists. |abuse Usenet headers that were somewhat over-specified again by people |who apparently didn't understand RFC 822 clearly enough. Of course some |of the problem was exacerbated by software that had been designed and |implemented by people who didn't understand (or maybe appreciate) RFC |822 clearly enough, which sadly included BSD mail and some mailing list |software.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: Release
At Sun, 19 Dec 2021 20:23:20 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: Subject: Re: Release > > What's messy is the idea that when replying to the list one should send > to *only* the list. That has some merit, but the standards are murkier > (Mail-Followup-To:) and implementation of them somewhat sparse. Well, no, there's nothing murky about it _in_the_standards_, even going all of the way back to RFC-822. It's called "Reply-To": 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. [[ ... ]] A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. (To be even more pedantic, "Mail-Followup-To", and the even more bogus "mail-reply-to" are stupid inventions by people who didn't understand RFC 822 clearly enough, and were, in some part, clueless attempts to abuse Usenet headers that were somewhat over-specified again by people who apparently didn't understand RFC 822 clearly enough. Of course some of the problem was exacerbated by software that had been designed and implemented by people who didn't understand (or maybe appreciate) RFC 822 clearly enough, which sadly included BSD mail and some mailing list software.) -- Greg A. Woods Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack Planix, Inc. Avoncote Farms pgp0C_BlNgW_z.pgp Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
Re: Release
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, Greg Troxel wrote: I didn't mean to demand human acknowledgement, merely "not rejected by the MTA, and actually delivred to the original poster". I am not as close a reader as I pride myself on being, since I lept to the impression you have just now dispersed. Good thing someone's keeping an eye on things around here. Mistakes certainly are going to happen -- mail config is hard, and I have at times messed mine up. I am always grateful when someone tells me my config is broken, so I can fix it before more trouble happens. You presume to ply us with common-sense? Kinda radical, wouldn't you say? :) -- "The existence of God is not an experimental issue in the way it was." John Wisdom - "Gods" (1944)
Re: Release
Bob Bernstein writes: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> There's nothing wrong with a direct reply to a list message, and >> it's discourteous to refuse them. > > Would it be correct to claim equivalence -- more or less -- > between your category "direct reply," and what I have been accustomed > to call an "off-list reply?" I mean by that expression a private reply > to a list subscriber without CC'ing that reply to the list itself. More or less, yes. Sometimes I send a message just to the poster, often when I want to say something I don't want to say on the list or when it doesn't merit being sent to all. That's what the "reply" action of a MUA is supposed to do. Then there's "reply-all" which should send to the From: and all To/CC. What's messy is the idea that when replying to the list one should send to *only* the list. That has some merit, but the standards are murkier (Mail-Followup-To:) and implementation of them somewhat sparse. I was not intending to wade into the "don't send me private replies" debate. The desire not to get them is an area where reasonable people differ. Personally, I filter duplicates so when two copies that are the same arrive, I only see the first one. I am of course not missing anything from this practice. > I agree that such messages ought to be acknowledged by their > recipient. Some seem to have a burr under their saddle as to this > point. Never understood that, but then the 'burr' question is > tangential to the events you described. I didn't mean to demand human acknowledgement, merely "not rejected by the MTA, and actually delivred to the original poster". Mistakes certainly are going to happen -- mail config is hard, and I have at times messed mine up. I am always grateful when someone tells me my config is broken, so I can fix it before more trouble happens. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Release
On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, Greg Troxel wrote: There's nothing wrong with a direct reply to a list message, and it's discourteous to refuse them. Would it be correct to claim equivalence -- more or less -- between your category "direct reply," and what I have been accustomed to call an "off-list reply?" I mean by that expression a private reply to a list subscriber without CC'ing that reply to the list itself. I agree that such messages ought to be acknowledged by their recipient. Some seem to have a burr under their saddle as to this point. Never understood that, but then the 'burr' question is tangential to the events you described. One overlooked "moral" to the story is this: if you are typing out an email address rather than copy-'n-pasting it you are asking for errors. Thank you. -- "The existence of God is not an experimental issue in the way it was." John Wisdom - "Gods" (1944)
Re: Release
"Thomas Mueller" writes: > I see the mistake, mueller6726 should have been mueller6725 . > > Moral of the story is that email to the list should not be CC'ed to the list > subscriber. Wrong moral. There's nothing wrong with a direct reply to a list message, and it's discourteous to refuse them. I've instructed my client not to show me mail from you, so this shouldn't recur signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Release
> I don't know if we have a formal norm that people asking for help should > accept mail form those trying to help them, but it's my norm... > Mail to you in reply to list mail bounced, and a note to you that told > you about the problem bounced too. I have a dim memory of something > like this happening before. Please fix your mailserver so that you > accept mail from other people on the list. Or, if there's something > terrible about my mail, please let me know. > The error I got was: > : host pkvw-mx.msg.pkvw.co.charter.net[47.43.26.7] > said: > 550 5.1.1 recipient rejected (in reply to RCPT TO > command) > Thanks, > Greg I see the mistake, mueller6726 should have been mueller6725 . Moral of the story is that email to the list should not be CC'ed to the list subscriber. Sending CC to the list subscriber is not normal list practice; it is an idiosyncrasy of FreeBSD and NetBSD lists (not sure about OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD). I don't send CC to any list member who is clearly a regular on the list; that would just be redundant. Tom
Re: Release
I don't know if we have a formal norm that people asking for help should accept mail form those trying to help them, but it's my norm... Mail to you in reply to list mail bounced, and a note to you that told you about the problem bounced too. I have a dim memory of something like this happening before. Please fix your mailserver so that you accept mail from other people on the list. Or, if there's something terrible about my mail, please let me know. The error I got was: : host pkvw-mx.msg.pkvw.co.charter.net[47.43.26.7] said: 550 5.1.1 recipient rejected (in reply to RCPT TO command) Thanks, Greg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Release
Martin Husemann writes: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 08:18:19AM -0500, Todd Gruhn wrote: >> I was thinking specifically about NetBSD-9.x >> The next release is 10.0? > > It is not yet clear when 9.3 will happen, we didn't change too many things > since 9.2. While point releases are nice, in my view it is not particularly important that they be frequent. The netbsd-9 branch is very stable, and it is reasonable to build a release from it and update more or less at anytime. I do this at irregular intervals, almost never longer than a few months. So for me 9.3 arriving will be 'duly noted' but it won't really change much. This also means I've lost track of how long it's been since 9.2 and what's in netbsd-9 beyond 9.2. I just know that I am pretty up to date with respectto netbsd-9. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Release
from Martin Husemann: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > One is the entropy issue, which makes it very difficult to use > > pkgsrc; some key packages can't build. > This is the "waiting for randot" issue mentioned on the page and it is still > open. It is totally trivial to work around and a one time setup issue though. Not so trivial; seemed to work on one computer but not the other. > > Other is the hard drive crash "Error reading fsbn ..", and then all I > > can do is Reset or Ctrl-Alt-Esc to get into debugger and then "reboot", > > which is not a clean reboot. > I have no clue what this would be (besides a failing hard disk or totally > broken interrupts on your concrete machine). Is there a PR for it? > Martin Here is an excerpt from what I get: wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623176 of 2391623176-2391623199 (wd1 bn 2391623176; cn 2372642 tn 0 sn 40), xfer e0, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623200 of 2391623200-2391623231 (wd1 bn 2391623200; cn 2372642 tn 1 sn 1), xfer 180, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout wrid: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623532 of 2391623532-23916235; cn 2372642 tn 1 sn 33), xfer 220, retry 3 wd[ 908190.3274919] wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623560 of 2391623560-2391623563 (wd1 bn 2391623560; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 46), xfer e0, retry 2 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623564 of 2391623564-2391623595 (wd1 bn 2391623564; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 50), xfer 180, retry 2 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623596 of 2391623596-2391623627 (wd1 bn 2391623596; cn 2372642 tn 7 sn 19), xfer 220, retry 2 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623532 of 2391623532-2391623559 (wd1 bn 2391623532; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 18), xfer 40, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623560 of 2391623560-2391623563 (wd1 bn 2391623560; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 46), xfer e0, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623564 of 2391623564-2391623595 (wd1 bn 2391623564; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 50), xfer 180, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623596 of 2391623596-2391623627 (wd1 bn 2391623596; cn 2372642 tn 7 sn 19), xfer 220, retry 3 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623532 of 2391623532-2391623559 (wd1 bn 2391623532; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 18), xfer 40, retry 4 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623560 of 2391623560-2391623563 (wd1 bn 2391623560; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 46), xfer e0, retry 4 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623564 of 2391623564-2391623595 (wd1 bn 2391623564; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 50), xfer 180, retry 4 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623596 of 2391623596-2391623627 (wd1 bn 2391623596; cn 2372642 tn 7 sn 19), xfer 220, retry 4 wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623532 of 2391623532-2391623559 (wd1 bn 2391623532; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 18) wd1d: error writing fsbn 2391623532 of 2391623532-2391623559 (wd1 bn 2391623532; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 18) wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623560 of 2391623560-2391623563 (wd1 bn 2391623560; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 46) wd1d: error writing fsbn 2391623560 of 2391623560-2391623563 (wd1 bn 2391623560; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 46) wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623564 of 2391623564-2391623595 (wd1 bn 2391623564; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 50) wd1d: error writing fsbn 2391623564 of 2391623564-2391623595 (wd1 bn 2391623564; cn 2372642 tn 6 sn 50) wd1d: device timeout writing fsbn 2391623596 of 2391623596-2391623627 (wd1 bn 2391623596; cn 2372642 tn 7 sn 19) This continues forever, until I Reset or Ctrl-Alt-Esc to the debugger followed by "reboot". Tom
Re: Release
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 08:18:19AM -0500, Todd Gruhn wrote: > I was thinking specifically about NetBSD-9.x > The next release is 10.0? It is not yet clear when 9.3 will happen, we didn't change too many things since 9.2. Martin
Re: Release
I was thinking specifically about NetBSD-9.x The next release is 10.0? On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:22 AM Martin Husemann wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > One is the entropy issue, which makes it very difficult to use > > pkgsrc; some key packages can't build. > > This is the "waiting for randot" issue mentioned on the page and it is still > open. It is totally trivial to work around and a one time setup issue though. > > > Other is the hard drive crash "Error reading fsbn ..", and then all I > > can do is Reset or Ctrl-Alt-Esc to get into debugger and then "reboot", > > which is not a clean reboot. > > I have no clue what this would be (besides a failing hard disk or totally > broken interrupts on your concrete machine). Is there a PR for it? > > Martin
Re: Release
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > One is the entropy issue, which makes it very difficult to use > pkgsrc; some key packages can't build. This is the "waiting for randot" issue mentioned on the page and it is still open. It is totally trivial to work around and a one time setup issue though. > Other is the hard drive crash "Error reading fsbn ..", and then all I > can do is Reset or Ctrl-Alt-Esc to get into debugger and then "reboot", > which is not a clean reboot. I have no clue what this would be (besides a failing hard disk or totally broken interrupts on your concrete machine). Is there a PR for it? Martin
Re: Release
from Martin Husemann: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:48:18PM +, Todd Gruhn wrote: > > When is the next official NetBSD release? > The branch for 10 will need to happen "soon", but there is no fixed date > yet. Details at: > https://wiki.NetBSD.org/releng/netbsd-10/ > (which is only outdated by ~2 weeks now - will update the page later this > week) > Martin I have two concerns on updating my NetBSD installations for amd64 and i386. One is the entropy issue, which makes it very difficult to use pkgsrc; some key packages can't build. Other is the hard drive crash "Error reading fsbn ..", and then all I can do is Reset or Ctrl-Alt-Esc to get into debugger and then "reboot", which is not a clean reboot. I thought this latter bug was supposed to be fixed in releng-9. Have these two issues been fixed or ameliorated since my last update? uname -a shows NetBSD amelia2 9.99.82 NetBSD 9.99.82 (NetBSD-HEAD amd64.nb999-20210601) #0: Tue Jun 1 21:21:00 GMT 2021 root@amelia2:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/SANDY7 amd64 Tom
Re: Release
Am 17.12.2021 um 14:33 schrieb Martin Husemann: On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 08:27:56PM +0800, Piper H wrote: solutions than OpenBSD. NetBSD also has a very strong commitment to binary compatibility with old releases *and* the slowest release cycle (which also means active support for old release lasts pretty long). This is bad for you if you are waiting for support for something new in an official release, but it is helpfull if you run several machines and don't want to change things when you can avoid it). ...and it makes NetBSD an actual option as a foundation for long term supported appliances, even if the vendor is only a one man company or a small company. That is my experience at least. And of course NetBSD has the most friendly and welcoming community ;-) In today's world, that's worth more than running after every technical "innovation" ;-) Kind regards Matthias
Re: Release
Anyway,someone of you know if at the moment,netbsd supports my graphic
cards ? As default I use this :
vgapci0@pci0:0:2:0: class=0x03 rev=0x02 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086
device=0x3e98 subvendor=0x1458 subdevice=0
xd000
vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
device = 'CoffeeLake-S GT2 [UHD Graphics 630]'
class = display
subclass = VGA
and this as secondary :
ppt0@pci0:2:0:0:class=0x03 rev=0xa1 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x10de
device=0x1e04 subvendor=0x19da subdevice=0
x2503
vendor = 'NVIDIA Corporation'
device = 'TU102 [GeForce RTX 2080 Ti]'
class = display
subclass = VGA
in this very long thread I've been helped to make it works,but without
success :
https://www.unitedbsd.com/d/582-trying-to-install-the-driver-for-my-main-gputhe-intel-uhd-graphics-630i915
Il giorno ven 17 dic 2021 alle ore 16:16 Pedro Pinho
ha scritto:
> Putting things into "boxes" is understandble but, also somewhat
> restrictive.
>
> Here's a full-fledged NetBSD set-up on a laptop that I posted a few weeks
> ago,
> https://www.reddit.com/r/UsabilityPorn/comments/qv8qap/lxqt_modern_netbsd_desktop/
>
> As you can see, not embeded device.
>
> Den fre 17 dec. 2021 14:23Piper H skrev:
>
>> I have googled for the info, the brief difference from my understanding
>> - freebsd for general use like ubuntu for linux, openbsd focus on
>> security, netbsd is built for embedded. Am I right?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:23 PM Lizbeth Mutterhunt, Ph.D <
>> lizbethmutterh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Once, decades ago, BSD was once, but seperated itself into the three
>>> main-distributions: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD; the most common version
>>> nowadays - excuse please - ist FreeBSD. DragonFlyBSD is a derivative of
>>> FreeBSD with an unserspace quite different to FreeBSD, lacking the newest
>>> kernel and beta-versions called -CURRENT!
>>>
>>> And a BSD kernel is the half of Steve Jobbs Apple Macintosh kernel and
>>> their base.
>>>
>>> lizbeth
>>>
>>> Am Fr., 17. Dez. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Piper H :
>>>
I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between
NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
Thanks for pointing that out.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
> on a smartphone?
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
> wrote:
> >
> > The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best
> smartphone for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast
> and responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy
> of mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
> very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
> prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
> >
> > I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever
> made it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When it's ready ;p
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ~~~miko
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
> >>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ~~~miko
>
--
Mario.
Re: Release
Putting things into "boxes" is understandble but, also somewhat restrictive.
Here's a full-fledged NetBSD set-up on a laptop that I posted a few weeks
ago,
https://www.reddit.com/r/UsabilityPorn/comments/qv8qap/lxqt_modern_netbsd_desktop/
As you can see, not embeded device.
Den fre 17 dec. 2021 14:23Piper H skrev:
> I have googled for the info, the brief difference from my understanding -
> freebsd for general use like ubuntu for linux, openbsd focus on security,
> netbsd is built for embedded. Am I right?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:23 PM Lizbeth Mutterhunt, Ph.D <
> lizbethmutterh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once, decades ago, BSD was once, but seperated itself into the three
>> main-distributions: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD; the most common version
>> nowadays - excuse please - ist FreeBSD. DragonFlyBSD is a derivative of
>> FreeBSD with an unserspace quite different to FreeBSD, lacking the newest
>> kernel and beta-versions called -CURRENT!
>>
>> And a BSD kernel is the half of Steve Jobbs Apple Macintosh kernel and
>> their base.
>>
>> lizbeth
>>
>> Am Fr., 17. Dez. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Piper H :
>>
>>> I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between
>>> NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>>
Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
on a smartphone?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
wrote:
>
> The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best
smartphone for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast
and responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy
of mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
>
> I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever
made it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>>
>> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson
wrote:
>>>
>>> When it's ready ;p
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~~~miko
>>>
>>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~~~miko
>>>
Re: Release
Actually I'm intrigued by DragonFlyBSD because it does not use bhyve as a
hypervisor but qemu + nvmm and it should be very nice. I'm not sure if it
allows the passthru of the graphic card,but I want to try.
Il giorno ven 17 dic 2021 alle ore 14:23 Lizbeth Mutterhunt, Ph.D <
lizbethmutterh...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Once, decades ago, BSD was once, but seperated itself into the three
> main-distributions: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD; the most common version
> nowadays - excuse please - ist FreeBSD. DragonFlyBSD is a derivative of
> FreeBSD with an unserspace quite different to FreeBSD, lacking the newest
> kernel and beta-versions called -CURRENT!
>
> And a BSD kernel is the half of Steve Jobbs Apple Macintosh kernel and
> their base.
>
> lizbeth
>
> Am Fr., 17. Dez. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Piper H :
>
>> I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between
>> NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>
>>> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
>>> on a smartphone?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best
>>> smartphone for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast
>>> and responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy
>>> of mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
>>> very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
>>> prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
>>> >
>>> > I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made
>>> it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>>> >
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> When it's ready ;p
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> ~~~miko
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>> >>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> ~~~miko
>>>
>>
--
Mario.
Re: Release
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 08:27:56PM +0800, Piper H wrote: > I have googled for the info, the brief difference from my understanding - > freebsd for general use like ubuntu for linux, openbsd focus on security, > netbsd is built for embedded. Am I right? It is not that simple to tell in general. They are all ... just different. If the hardware you care about is supported by all of them, you have free choice. There is lots of cooperation between the three groups ongoing, and it sometimes is hard to tell what is best for a concrete use. NetBSD has a strong commitment to security - but somehow often comes to different solutions than OpenBSD. NetBSD also has a very strong commitment to binary compatibility with old releases *and* the slowest release cycle (which also means active support for old release lasts pretty long). This is bad for you if you are waiting for support for something new in an official release, but it is helpfull if you run several machines and don't want to change things when you can avoid it). So in the end it often is personal taste. And of course NetBSD has the most friendly and welcoming community ;-) Martin
Re: Release
I have googled for the info, the brief difference from my understanding -
freebsd for general use like ubuntu for linux, openbsd focus on security,
netbsd is built for embedded. Am I right?
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:23 PM Lizbeth Mutterhunt, Ph.D <
lizbethmutterh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once, decades ago, BSD was once, but seperated itself into the three
> main-distributions: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD; the most common version
> nowadays - excuse please - ist FreeBSD. DragonFlyBSD is a derivative of
> FreeBSD with an unserspace quite different to FreeBSD, lacking the newest
> kernel and beta-versions called -CURRENT!
>
> And a BSD kernel is the half of Steve Jobbs Apple Macintosh kernel and
> their base.
>
> lizbeth
>
> Am Fr., 17. Dez. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Piper H :
>
>> I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between
>> NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>
>>> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
>>> on a smartphone?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best
>>> smartphone for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast
>>> and responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy
>>> of mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
>>> very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
>>> prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
>>> >
>>> > I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made
>>> it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>>> >
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> When it's ready ;p
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> ~~~miko
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>> >>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> ~~~miko
>>>
>>
Re: Release
Once, decades ago, BSD was once, but seperated itself into the three
main-distributions: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD; the most common version
nowadays - excuse please - ist FreeBSD. DragonFlyBSD is a derivative of
FreeBSD with an unserspace quite different to FreeBSD, lacking the newest
kernel and beta-versions called -CURRENT!
And a BSD kernel is the half of Steve Jobbs Apple Macintosh kernel and
their base.
lizbeth
Am Fr., 17. Dez. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Piper H :
> I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between NetBSD,
> FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
>
> Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
>
>> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
>> on a smartphone?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best smartphone
>> for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast and
>> responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy of
>> mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
>> very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
>> prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
>> >
>> > I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made
>> it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> When it's ready ;p
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> ~~~miko
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>> >>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> ~~~miko
>>
>
Re: Release
I have another silly question: what's the brief difference between NetBSD,
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD?
Thanks for pointing that out.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Todd Gruhn wrote:
> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
> on a smartphone?
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
> wrote:
> >
> > The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best smartphone
> for its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast and
> responsive, small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy of
> mine who worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also
> very good. But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early
> prototype to me at the time, and I was jealous.
> >
> > I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made
> it back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When it's ready ;p
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ~~~miko
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
> >>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ~~~miko
>
Re: Release / NetBSD as mobile OS
If my BMW GS motorcycle display can run on NetBSD (judging by listings of patents and rights) ,all wireless connectivities included, engine control, and great touch screen GUI, I don't see why not. Just no big maker bothers doing it. On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 10:31 Matthias Petermann wrote: > > Am 16.12.2021 um 07:33 schrieb Piper H: > > Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX? > > That depends on how you define mobile OS. Basically there is everything > you need in NetBSD to make it a usable OS for mobile devices. To get an > idea of this, I recommend this blog post from 2017. Under "Device Driver > Support", it goes into particular detail about many aspects that are > relevant for use on mobile devices: > > https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/netbsd_on_allwinner_socs_update > > And yes - I also wish that one day I can have NetBSD on my cell phone :-) > > Kind regards > Matthias >
Re: Release
Check out on base of a Pine64 the FreeBSD ( and afaik) netBSD, too, images!
Some fail, some do!
Wenn einem gar niets meer einfällt, schreit man auch nix. Mijn mute reminder!
> Op 16 dec. 2021 om 22:57 heeft Todd Gruhn het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
> on a smartphone?
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
> wrote:
>>
>> The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best smartphone for
>> its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast and responsive,
>> small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy of mine who worked
>> at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also very good. But it
>> was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early prototype to me at the
>> time, and I was jealous.
>>
>> I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made it
>> back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>>>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson wrote:
When it's ready ;p
--
~~~miko
> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
> When is the next official NetBSD release?
>
--
~~~miko
Re: Release
Now that I think of it: isnt Android based on LINUX? Why not NetBSD
on a smartphone?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michael Cheponis
wrote:
>
> The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best smartphone for
> its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast and responsive,
> small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy of mine who worked
> at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also very good. But it
> was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early prototype to me at the
> time, and I was jealous.
>
> I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made it
> back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
>>
>> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson wrote:
>>>
>>> When it's ready ;p
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~~~miko
>>>
>>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~~~miko
Re: Release
The last "Danger" smartphone -- some say still the very best smartphone for
its time -- used NetBSD under the hood. It was really fast and responsive,
small, easy to fit onto the processor -- all from a buddy of mine who
worked at Danger in SW. Danger did the App SW, which was also very good.
But it was NetBSD under the hood. My buddy showed an early prototype to
me at the time, and I was jealous.
I do not know if the mods needed to run NetBSD that platform ever made it
back into MAIN. ('cause BSD license and all)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Hiptop
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:04 AM Piper H wrote:
> Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX?
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson wrote:
>
>> When it's ready ;p
>>
>> --
>> ~~miko
>>
>> On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote:
>> > When is the next official NetBSD release?
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~miko
>>
>
Re: Release
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:36:54AM +0100, Matthias Petermann wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up. Just out of curiosity - I've recently seen some > updates in current related to NVidea/Radeon graphics cards. Are these > already the first signs of "it looks like the DRM branch can be merged > before the branch"? Yes! Martin
Re: Release
Hi Martin, Am 16.12.2021 um 10:32 schrieb Martin Husemann: On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:48:18PM +, Todd Gruhn wrote: When is the next official NetBSD release? The branch for 10 will need to happen "soon", but there is no fixed date yet. Details at: https://wiki.NetBSD.org/releng/netbsd-10/ (which is only outdated by ~2 weeks now - will update the page later this week) Martin Thanks for bringing this up. Just out of curiosity - I've recently seen some updates in current related to NVidea/Radeon graphics cards. Are these already the first signs of "it looks like the DRM branch can be merged before the branch"? No matter when it comes, NetBSD 10 will be a great release - not least because it supports ACLs :-) Kind regards Matthias
Re: Release
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:48:18PM +, Todd Gruhn wrote: > When is the next official NetBSD release? The branch for 10 will need to happen "soon", but there is no fixed date yet. Details at: https://wiki.NetBSD.org/releng/netbsd-10/ (which is only outdated by ~2 weeks now - will update the page later this week) Martin
Re: Release / NetBSD as mobile OS
Am 16.12.2021 um 07:33 schrieb Piper H: Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX? That depends on how you define mobile OS. Basically there is everything you need in NetBSD to make it a usable OS for mobile devices. To get an idea of this, I recommend this blog post from 2017. Under "Device Driver Support", it goes into particular detail about many aspects that are relevant for use on mobile devices: https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/netbsd_on_allwinner_socs_update And yes - I also wish that one day I can have NetBSD on my cell phone :-) Kind regards Matthias
Re: Release
Is there a mobile OS based on BSD, besides OSX? On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Miko Larsson wrote: > When it's ready ;p > > -- > ~miko > > On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote: > > When is the next official NetBSD release? > > > > > -- > ~miko >
Re: Release
When it's ready ;p -- ~miko On 12/15/21, Todd Gruhn wrote: > When is the next official NetBSD release? > -- ~miko
