On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 03:29:21AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 07:02:29AM -, James Joseph wrote:
> > 3) Are the modifications to make gnu packages work for Hurd, in
> > the SAME package as the ones used for building a GNU / Linux
> > system, or do i need to downlo
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> > colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> > talking about them in the off
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 07:34:49PM +0200, Jaap Karssenberg wrote:
>
> Anyway I temporarily fixed a random be adjusting the "one" translator from
> the hurd hacking guide (don't say I don't read any manuals) to return
> random. Probably this random function won't be random enough to ensure
> sec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > First you say that we should say "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux",
>
> That's because the "user-space" functionality is that of GNU (ok, that
> can be debated elsewhere, but that's the motivation for the
> "
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 04:39:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:18:12PM +0100, Niklas H?glund wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:26:28PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The Hurd isn't an OS. GNU is the OS, the Hurd is the core of that OS.
> >
> > I'd say Mach is
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:26:28PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> The Hurd isn't an OS. GNU is the OS, the Hurd is the core of that OS.
I'd say Mach is the core, and the Hurd a layer on top of that.
Maybe we should say "Mach, the next generation" :)
--
On 14 Nov 2001 12:57:07 + Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2001-11-04 at 04:28, Neal H Walfield wrote:
>
> > Mailing Lists:
> >
> > Subscribe in the usual fashion.
>
> What is the "usual" fashion?
Sending a mail to xxx-request with subscribe in both the subject and the
body usual
On 30 Oct 2000, Niels Möller wrote:
> Erik Verbruggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> What about security? I don't know L4 much (although a read some paper
> on it a long time ago, the last time Hurd on L4 was discussed). My
> impression was that L4 was a lot different from Mach. As the HURD
> re
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:38:17PM -0400, Igor Khavkine wrote:
> I agree, if Mach is taken out of the picture there is no reason to stick with
> Mach legacy like cthreads and even MIG. MIG is not a very good IDL language
> it's highly Mach specific (duh Mach Interface Generator) and only supports
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
> > We also need to decide on the external kbd interface and make
> > it official (somewhere in or so). Several programs
> > are shipping their own version already.
>
> IMO, /dev/kdb should disappear. Having two devices to read a
> keyboard is nonsens
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> > What is the effect of this -s? I forgot to pass it, but everything seem to
> > work fine anyway.
>
> -s boots to single user mode so that you can run native-install.
But I ran native-install. (I must have, the system works.)
--
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> If this is your first boot, why are you not passing -s? (Not that that
> would solve this problem)
What is the effect of this -s? I forgot to pass it, but everything seem to
work fine anyway.
--
Nikla
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Cowboy wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:23:43PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> Every time some new marvelous "feature" is added to Linux ( meaning IN
> the kernel ) it's necessary to up-grade the whole bloody system to make
> anything work,
13 matches
Mail list logo
