Re: Reading Postscript on the Terminal
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:45:45PM +0200, Sascha Wildner wrote: > > Have you tried groff -Tascii or -Tlatin1 which should be more suited for > the console. > > Sascha > > -- > http://yoyodyne.ath.cx > Thank You, You are right I was attacking the problem from the wrong end. This is useable though I can't make sense out of the Makefile with the indexes and preface. I will just make one file for each chapter. All the best, John Duncan
Re: What is DF aimed at?
--- Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gergo Szakal wrote: > > On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:25:37 -0400 > > Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Scott Ullrich wrote: > >> > >>>Gergo Szakal wrote: > >>> > >>> > FYI, the leader of m0n0wall, talking about > the feature of his OS > mentioned that DragonFlyBSD is not even > taken into consideration by > him to base his system on, 'cause it's > 'desktop oriented.' > >>> > >>> > >>>Actually that is partially untrue. Fred > Wright said this... > >>> > >> > >>Sorry, meant to show the URL: > >>http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/75 > >> > >> > >>>Manuel still hasn't really weighed in on > DragonFly from what I have > >>>gathered. And you can say that I somewhat > pay close attention to > >>>m0n0wall due to starting the pfSense project > ;) At any rate, this is > >>>now getting way off topic, sorry for the > noise. > >>> > >>>Scott > > > > > > 'The primary foci are as follows: > > > > FreeBSD:Servers > > NetBSD: Portability > > OpenBSD:Security and Reliability > > Dragonfly Desktops' > > > > Maybe I misinterpret, but I really don't want > to argue about this. The devs know what their > purposes are, and me, the user know what mine > are. I don't care about others. So far DF seems > a superb system for me, and I like if the > purposes of a project are sharply outlined > (improper English). So far I had only 1 problem > that I could not resolve, but that is > pkgsrc-wip related. The HDD containing my > install is in the 2nd machine and works > flawlessly. > > > Dragonfly is all about bringing clustering to > the masses. It is pretty > well outlined in our goals section. Uh, how do you get that? Clustering implies networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated that he doesn't really care about network performance. And clustering implies servers, which Matt has recently and repeatedly stated aren't his focal point. I don't see how you can have one as a goal and not the other. Clustering required hightly efficient networking first and foremost. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Argh, Stray interrupts 2006
--- Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Ullrich wrote: > > Gergo Szakal wrote: > > > >> FYI, the leader of m0n0wall, talking about > the feature of his OS > >> mentioned that DragonFlyBSD is not even > taken into consideration by > >> him to base his system on, 'cause it's > 'desktop oriented.' > > > > > > Actually that is partially untrue. Fred > Wright said this... > > > > Sorry, meant to show the URL: > http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/75 this guy needs to come up for air and join the 21st century. Most of his "ideas" are 10 years out of date. Without tearing him to shreds bit by bit, the commercial pull of using *nix for routing is that the economies of scale of using off-the-shelf PC hardware allow you to use so much horsepower for such a small amount of money (relative to dedicated hardware solutions), that the inefficiencies of the design become a positive. Rather than running microkernels on stripped down hardware, you can run full-featured systems and they perform as well or even better than dedicated hardware solutions, for 1/3 the cost. Once you go to specialized hardware, you've lost the key advantage of using the free OS in the first place, which is the rich feature set of the entire O/S. Everything he says is exactly backwards. And the whole fanless, diskless moving parts BS is just so stupid I can't stand it. Its like a bunch of college kids sitting around thinking of things to complain about. The guy is using crap hardware, stripped down os and has to put all the design effort into shrinking everything down, and for what? To avoid one failure every 2-3 years? Its just plain stupid, both fiscally and from an engineering standpoint. The guy is still living in the MFM, $2 fan days. I have 1000s of systems in the field with like zero failures. Build the system right and modern hardware doesn't fail that easily. He's also not looking for performance, so you can't expect him to get excited about MP. And why is he whining about driver support? On an appliance type platform you only need a few drivers to work well. Who cares if the mobo-wonder ethernet card is supported or not? DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: BootBlocks.
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:21:38 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Marcin Jessa wrote: > > > On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:00:01 +0100 > > Max von Seibold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > > Hi Max. > > > >> Regarding the issues of production servers. I would like to point > >> out that as a relative *nix newbie I chose Dragonfly because it > >> was new. OpenBSD and NetBSD seemed daunting and FreeBSD seemed > >> wrapped up in all manner of debate. > > > > Could you please explain why NetBSD seems daunting? > > I am curious about what needs to be done differently to encourage a > > newcommer such as yourself to give it a try? > > It uses the same packaging system as DragonFlyBSD and the > > installation procedure is pretty straight forward (as opposite to > > OpenBSD). > > Just an example, if you are a foreigner with for example a french > keyboard, you discover after install that your keyboard is not > configured. >You need to discover how to cope with that in the rc.* > system, to edit the file with your unconfigured keyboard etc. etc. > This seems trivial but it is a good reason to fly away for a > newcomer. This is set up during installation process. You can chose what kind of keyboard you have. You must have tried an old release of NetBSD. > I mention this problem since i have encountered it, i am > sure there are a lot of similar ones. FreeBSD is not especially > glorious to install but at least such trivial things are solved by > the installer since ages. Anyways the present standard for installers > is much nicer, take a look at the recent Ubuntu which has just been > released. Newcomers have no reason to use a more arcane system, with > a crappy installer, See, Ubuntu is developed for x86 desktops. NetBSD is developed as a multi platform Operating System and uses the same installer on those platforms. NetBSD does things in a very flexible manner so you don't have to hack a whole lot of code to achieve the same goal they way it's done on Linux. Both just aim different markeds. You'd rather use a tank in combat than a fancy car to get through all kinds of obstickles and not just drive on a high way :) >a kernel which underperforms considerably in a > lot of domains when such marvelous Linux distros can be downloaded at > a click of the mouse. I dont understand this sentence. Underperforms in what way? What does kernel has to do with downloading of iso's ? Marcin.
Re: What is DF aimed at?
:Uh, how do you get that? Clustering implies :networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated that :he doesn't really care about network performance. : :And clustering implies servers, which Matt has :recently and repeatedly stated aren't his focal :point. I don't see how you can have one as a goal :and not the other. Clustering required hightly :efficient networking first and foremost. : :DT Er, I said no such thing. You apparently did not read my posting(s) very carefully. -Matt
Re: Argh, Stray interrupts 2006
--- W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > >> > >>Same as always: > >> > >>1) ALT-F2 (3, 4, etc.) before logging in. > >> > >>2) Edit /etc/syslog.conf to send soem/all > >>console messages elsewhere > >>- after which (1) is no longer necessary. > >> > >>Bill > >> > > > > Thats not really a solution > > - you asked for a 'workaround'. This is such. Covering your ears is not a workaround. > > > > > I know I've been told that its a bios > > configuration problem, > > Actually a MB wiring (PCB trace) or *bridge > design flaw that a > BIOS has to work around. Used to occur much > more frequently, > and with OS/2 and Slackware as well as 3.X and > early 4.X *BSD. > > > however I don't get stray > > interrupts if I pop a FreeBSD disk on the > exact > > same hardware. > > > *BSD added a workaround somewhere around 4.6 > IIRC. > > - Prior to that, one had to either swap MB, > (*BSD) or set > printing to polled, not interrupt-driven > (OS/2). > > At one time, some MB even had the problem on > the TTY ports, i.e. > - shortly after rebooting from install, the > console simply > streamed IRQ error messages from getty. > > So why is it a misconfiguration in > > DFLY but not in FreeBSD? > > > > Probably becasue current drivers no longer use > a (supposedly) > obsolete workaround. > > One would have to inspect the par Port drivers > with T86 (or some > other trace tool) to ID it - then a binary > patch should be all > that it takes to fix it (the drivers involved > are dirt-simple, > about 240 Bytes in FORTH, perhaps 2K in ASM > source ~ 1K in > machine-code) - but I last wrote such for the > George Morrow > Design 'Empire' S-100 I/O board - which used > the same chips for > Serial and parallel later adopted for the IBM > PC-1, just > different base addresses. Same FORTH code ran > on the PC1 thru > AT, (112 Kbps serial when IBM was limited to > 9.6 or 19.2 Kbps). > > > - TRY THIS: > > - enter the BIOS and *disable* the parallel > port. > > - if no joy, also disable any on-board sound. There is no parallel port on the machine. A lot of new motherboards are eliminating it. There is also no sound card or on-board audio. Its a server for pete's sake! > > Too often, some idjut has made the support I/O > inter-dependent, > or has such anomalies in the BIOS. > > Nobody seems to work in machine-code anymore, > and that is the > best way to do this low-level stuff w/o > surprises. > > What MB are you using, and whose name is on the > bIOS? Its a Supermicro H8SSL-i. Im not sure of the bios, the machine is quite far away from me at the moment. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Argh, Stray interrupts 2006
:And the whole fanless, diskless moving parts BS :is just so stupid I can't stand it. Its like a :bunch of college kids sitting around thinking of :things to complain about. The guy is using crap :hardware, stripped down os and has to put all the :design effort into shrinking everything down, and :for what? To avoid one failure every 2-3 years? :Its just plain stupid, both fiscally and from an :engineering standpoint. The guy is still living :in the MFM, $2 fan days. I have 1000s of systems :in the field with like zero failures. Build the :system right and modern hardware doesn't fail :that easily. Thousands, eh? So, million's of dollars and thousands of unspecified installed piece of equipment. And, what is it EXACTLY that you do, Danial? Because you don't seem to know the most basic facts about field installations and hardware longevity. But I certainly do. I have equipment that has been operating at a major utility district at Lake Tahoe for 20 years. Not 1 year, not 2 years, not 5 years... *20* years, and I can tell you with some assurance that Fanless and Diskless makes a *HUGE* difference in hardware longevity and maintainance requirements. Using a dedicated micro operating system also makes a huge difference when you need to measure uptime in years rather then months. It is absolutely and most definitively *NOT* BS. In anycase, this is yet another ridiculous twisting of the facts. You seem to twist facts quite often to fit your view of reality. Maybe you should actually try *UNDERSTANDING* other people's viewpoints before you insult them. -Matt
Thread will be terminated on monday 'Argh, Stray interrupts 2006'
This thread will be terminated at midnight (PDT) tonight. As usual I'll give all parties involved the last word. Then postings related to it will start bouncing. I am also going to issue a public warning to Danial Thom... this is the third time in as many years that you have seriously disrupted our mailing lists and it tries even my patience. If it happens a fourth time you will be permanently banned from our mailing lists. -Matt
Re: Thread will be terminated on monday 'Argh, Stray interrupts 2006'
Will you also stand on your desk and beat your chest as you delete it? --- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This thread will be terminated at midnight > (PDT) tonight. As usual I'll > give all parties involved the last word. > Then postings related to it > will start bouncing. > > I am also going to issue a public warning > to Danial Thom... this is > the third time in as many years that you > have seriously disrupted > our mailing lists and it tries even my > patience. If it happens a > fourth time you will be permanently banned > from our mailing lists. > > -Matt > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Argh, Stray interrupts 2006
--- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > :And the whole fanless, diskless moving parts > BS > :is just so stupid I can't stand it. Its like a > :bunch of college kids sitting around thinking > of > :things to complain about. The guy is using > crap > :hardware, stripped down os and has to put all > the > :design effort into shrinking everything down, > and > :for what? To avoid one failure every 2-3 > years? > :Its just plain stupid, both fiscally and from > an > :engineering standpoint. The guy is still > living > :in the MFM, $2 fan days. I have 1000s of > systems > :in the field with like zero failures. Build > the > :system right and modern hardware doesn't fail > :that easily. > > Thousands, eh? So, million's of dollars > and thousands of unspecified > installed piece of equipment. And, what is > it EXACTLY that you do, > Danial? Because you don't seem to know the > most basic facts about field > installations and hardware longevity. > > But I certainly do. I have equipment that > has been operating at a > major utility district at Lake Tahoe for 20 > years. Not 1 year, not > 2 years, not 5 years... *20* years, and I > can tell you with some > assurance that Fanless and Diskless makes a > *HUGE* difference in > hardware longevity and maintainance > requirements. Using a dedicated > micro operating system also makes a huge > difference when you need to > measure uptime in years rather then months. > It is absolutely and most > definitively *NOT* BS. > > In anycase, this is yet another ridiculous > twisting of the facts. You > seem to twist facts quite often to fit your > view of reality. Maybe > you should actually try *UNDERSTANDING* > other people's viewpoints before > you insult them. "know the basics"? How many network appliances have you sold on modern hardware? You still think the PCI-X bus is "new" for pete's sake. I have about 2000 boxes in the field with Celerons, P4s and Opterons with blowers and IDE hard drives and guess how many of them have come back in the last 2 years? Zippo. Its clowns like you that convince other clowns that things that might have mattered 10 years ago still matter. Who out there are running fanless servers? Nobody. How many of the guys that reported dragonfly uptimes of a year are running on fanless, diskless systems? None of them. The entire concept is a joke conceived by guys who live in a Lab like yourself. Yes, millions of dollars. And the reason is that you can't push 500K pps with a box without a fan or a disk. You have to make too many trade offs, and for no reason whatsoever. The features and functionality you get by using a large disk drive by far outweighs the negatives. The corporate world is not a science project where you get points for doing cool shit. Its about making decisions that make sense. I can't remember the last time I lost a sale because some buffoon required no moving parts. Thats like so 1998. People aren't that stupid. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What is DF aimed at?
--- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > :Uh, how do you get that? Clustering implies > :networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated > that > :he doesn't really care about network > performance. > : > :And clustering implies servers, which Matt has > :recently and repeatedly stated aren't his > focal > :point. I don't see how you can have one as a > goal > :and not the other. Clustering required hightly > :efficient networking first and foremost. > : > :DT > > Er, I said no such thing. You apparently > did not read my > posting(s) very carefully. You said you only wanted "very good networking" and that if you wanted to push traffic at the bleeding edge you should get dedicated hardware solutions from cisco. You know optimizing networking isn't such a bad thing. You can have your cake and eat it too. Having stellar networking performance will not hurt your project, nor is it a "waste of time". It would make your OS much more attractive to a much wider user base. Even Intel gave in and decided to build a CPU to win the benchmarks. People want the best. No-one is going to notice if you're 3rd best, but everyone will notice if you're #1. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What is DF aimed at?
On 6/5/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > :Uh, how do you get that? Clustering implies > :networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated > that > :he doesn't really care about network > performance. > : > :And clustering implies servers, which Matt has > :recently and repeatedly stated aren't his > focal > :point. I don't see how you can have one as a > goal > :and not the other. Clustering required hightly > :efficient networking first and foremost. > : > :DT > > Er, I said no such thing. You apparently > did not read my > posting(s) very carefully. You said you only wanted "very good networking" and that if you wanted to push traffic at the bleeding edge you should get dedicated hardware solutions from cisco. You know optimizing networking isn't such a bad thing. You can have your cake and eat it too. Having stellar networking performance will not hurt your project, nor is it a "waste of time". It would make your OS much more attractive to a much wider user base. Even Intel gave in and decided to build a CPU to win the benchmarks. People want the best. No-one is going to notice if you're 3rd best, but everyone will notice if you're #1. People use Linux and it's far from the best in security, stability and for many cases even performance. They use it because it does a lot and is marketable. Done. Quality doesn't matter otherwise it would never have left the garage. Even so, optimizing every last possible drop from the network stack is *not* compatible with the goals of this project. For example, if you understand the LWKT system and Matt's presentation/emails regarding the way socket threads are distributed on multi-processor systems, you'll note that they're split by port and bound to that CPU for their lifetime. This means that load balancing is not as optimal as possible, since actual load is not factored in. However, work aggregation is a lot more successful, because migrations are costly. Also, the system itself is near lockless and, as far as localised network stacks go, impressively optimal already. Since getting proper load balancing of the threads in would be counter to DragonFly's very architecture, and since that optimization itself has significant downsides and can actually make a pitifully small positive difference, there's no point optimizing to that extreme. This is an example, I'm sure Matt could conjure many more cases where the extra optimization just isn't worth it, but he has better things to do. I don't know about "stellar" here. Let's wait until more of the kernel is MPSAFE, including the network stack, and do a bench set against a few instances of FreeBSD and Linux. I'd be more than happy to try it out, I've got some em (Intel gigabit) cards and an X2 4400+ and that's a nice start. You can try it on your millions of dollars worth of 10GE machines. Contribute to the project! You have money and obviously a lot of spare time, so help the project out instead of insulting its developers. That'll be a good deed and you may realise just how great this community is when you're not perceived as an ass bandit. -- Dmitri Nikulin
Re: What is DF aimed at?
--- Dmitri Nikulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/5/06, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- Matthew Dillon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > :Uh, how do you get that? Clustering > implies > > > :networking, and Matt has repeatedly stated > > > that > > > :he doesn't really care about network > > > performance. > > > : > > > :And clustering implies servers, which Matt > has > > > :recently and repeatedly stated aren't his > > > focal > > > :point. I don't see how you can have one as > a > > > goal > > > :and not the other. Clustering required > hightly > > > :efficient networking first and foremost. > > > : > > > :DT > > > > > > Er, I said no such thing. You > apparently > > > did not read my > > > posting(s) very carefully. > > > > You said you only wanted "very good > networking" > > and that if you wanted to push traffic at the > > bleeding edge you should get dedicated > hardware > > solutions from cisco. > > > > You know optimizing networking isn't such a > bad > > thing. You can have your cake and eat it too. > > Having stellar networking performance will > not > > hurt your project, nor is it a "waste of > time". > > It would make your OS much more attractive to > a > > much wider user base. Even Intel gave in and > > decided to build a CPU to win the benchmarks. > > People want the best. No-one is going to > notice > > if you're 3rd best, but everyone will notice > if > > you're #1. > > People use Linux and it's far from the best in > security, stability and > for many cases even performance. They use it > because it does a lot and > is marketable. Done. Quality doesn't matter > otherwise it would never > have left the garage. > > Even so, optimizing every last possible drop > from the network stack is > *not* compatible with the goals of this > project. For example, if you > understand the LWKT system and Matt's > presentation/emails regarding > the way socket threads are distributed on > multi-processor systems, > you'll note that they're split by port and > bound to that CPU for their > lifetime. This means that load balancing is not > as optimal as > possible, since actual load is not factored in. > However, work > aggregation is a lot more successful, because > migrations are costly. > Also, the system itself is near lockless and, > as far as localised > network stacks go, impressively optimal > already. > > Since getting proper load balancing of the > threads in would be counter > to DragonFly's very architecture, and since > that optimization itself > has significant downsides and can actually make > a pitifully small > positive difference, there's no point > optimizing to that extreme. This > is an example, I'm sure Matt could conjure many > more cases where the > extra optimization just isn't worth it, but he > has better things to > do. > > I don't know about "stellar" here. Let's wait > until more of the kernel > is MPSAFE, including the network stack, and do > a bench set against a > few instances of FreeBSD and Linux. I'd be more > than happy to try it > out, I've got some em (Intel gigabit) cards and > an X2 4400+ and that's > a nice start. You can try it on your millions > of dollars worth of 10GE > machines. Contribute to the project! You have > money and obviously a > lot of spare time, so help the project out > instead of insulting its > developers. That'll be a good deed and you may > realise just how great > this community is when you're not perceived as > an ass bandit. > > -- Dmitri Nikulin > It seems to me, that if your "methods" are sound, that you should be able to beat FreeBsd and linux. Why is that not a worthy goal? FreeBSD 4.x with 1 processor beats linux with 2 by a wide margine. How difficult can it be to simply be better with 2 processors than Freebsd 4.x is with one? Thats really the only criteria for getting past the wall. we all know that freebsd 5.x+ sucks. being better than that shouldnt be something to reject. Dt __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: RealTek 3189 network card not detected (dragonfly v1.4.4)
On 6/3/06, rmkml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, on my fresh install (sata work), I have two network card, but first is not detected, look pciconf -lv : [EMAIL PROTECTED]:3:0: class=0x02 card=0x093c1462 chip=0x813910ec rev=0x10 Do you have `device rl' in your kernel config file? hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Realtek Semiconductor' device = 'RT8139 (A/B/C/8130) Fast Ethernet Adapter' class= network subclass = ethernet Best Regards, sephe -- Live Free or Die
Re: Thread will be terminated on monday 'Argh, Stray interrupts 2006'
All I can really say is, Daniel, you're a f*cking idiot. > Will you also stand on your desk and beat your > chest as you delete it?
