To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing and let Walnut Creek
merge.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Didier Derny writes:
: I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1)
I think you are wrong. Dead wrong. This will allow the WC to pump
more money into the FreeBSD organization to fix some of the glaring
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
When you see something wrong, you can speak up, but stop complaining about
stuff that hasn't even happened yet. You could generate enough ill
feelings and bad publicity to *cause yourself* the exact thing you're
worried about.
One day we will
* Kevin M Geraci [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000311 03:54] wrote:
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
We'd be better off if people making suggestions like this would
"spin off".
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL
it was this announcement, but it's only words, the reallity can be
very different...
the equations are quite simple
step 1
--
bsd/os = $$ for bsdi
freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi -- lack of $$ for bsdi
step 2
--
merge + give code to freebsd -- lack of $$ but future investment
to try things out i create a static binary and coerce it to use my
C library instead of the system's one.
this is how i compile my program:
cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c
cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
Didier Derny wrote:
Hi,
I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
CDROM. (March 10 2000).
I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
it's own BSD could at the same time let
The big thing that you are missing from this equation is the
people.
Kirk and Mike, who I know, are more dedicated to seeing
BSD as a whole succeed, than most people, so I think that you
have to factor that in.
I think they see that they are spending too much of their time
trying to play
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, John Grimes wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
I don't entirely agree with the statement above. I would like to mention a
point to ponder. In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the
FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue
I snipped the following from the cc:
"Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Didier Derny [EMAIL PROTECTED],
hope they don't mind 8-)
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Thierry.herbelot wrote:
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
[SNIP]
If you think it's possible to bend the FreeBSD
Hi people !
I am new in this mail list and i like Free BSD verry much, I hope that this
guys
from BSDI have brain in their heads and dont want to stop this cool OS
Iam triyng to install Gnome Midnight Commander on FreeBSD
but without success...
I read that i must have at least gtk and dlib in
Out of da blue M Pendev aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Hi people !
I am new in this mail list and i like Free BSD verry much, I hope that this
guys
from BSDI have brain in their heads and dont want to stop this cool OS
Iam triyng to install Gnome Midnight Commander on FreeBSD
but
David Greenman wrote:
I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
Personally, I've
Hi,
I am the author of gPS (http://gps.seul.org) and I'm trying to finish the
FreeBSD native poller. All I need now is a routine to get the CPU usage.
My program needs it every quarter of second, so the loadavg value is not
enough accurate for me. (the objective is the CPU/memory history window
I hope I'm totally wrong and that FreeBSD will continue as it was before
And I hope that people will actually wait to SEE if they're wrong
before acting as if they really know how this is all going to turn
out, as it appears you and several other people are already doing in
extremely premature
One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
with the same quality.
I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
rationale for your fears here. Nobody has yet to come up with a
single reason as to how or why all these disaster scenarios would
Hi Felipe,
(You should probably be targeting -current for software under development)
Perhaps consulting /usr/src/usr.bin/top/machine.c might offer up
some clues.
Cheers,
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the
the equations are quite simple
Only if you're taking powerful drugs, perhaps. There are a number of
things which are hardly "simple" here and let's go over them:
bsd/os = $$ for bsdi
freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi -- lack of $$ for bsdi
False. If BSDI thought there was no money in
FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to
distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD" Is this another way of saying
that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model
for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the
Since WC didn't control any more than the server for the CVS tree, and
since we all have mirrors of that thanks to cvsup, if they decided to
make it unfree, then we as the FreeBSD development group would just
nominate a different central server and life would continue as before, ...
without
I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
How many different ways can we say this? THE COMPANY DOES NOT CONTROL
THE FREEBSD
What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to
Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group
of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of
contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep up?
Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
For the FreeBSD project :
- many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
Merced? .
definately.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is pursued by the core team, at least not
for impopular or older targets.
Paul Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The devil is in the detail. If the core team is stuffed full of WC and
BSDI employees, who have a responsibility to their employer as well as
to the project, then there will clearly be conflicts of interest and an
undoubted leaning to solutions and
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Paul Richards wrote:
It's interesting that everyone is jumping up and down worrying about the
effect that the merger between BSDI and WC will have. As you say, in
*theory* FreeBSD has nothing to do with WC and is a totally independent
project.
In practice however WC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
least you (of all people) realize that someone
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
with the same quality.
I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
rationale for your fears here. Nobody has yet to come up with a
single reason as
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
For the FreeBSD project :
- many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
Merced? .
definately.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is pursued by the core
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Not realistically. First of all, most "scruffy unshaven hackers" are not
qualified to make serious changes to important drivers. they might be able
to find a stray pointer, but not to make structural improvement.
This is just silly.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
merge + give code to freebsd -- lack of $$ but future investment
bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
freebsd users happy of the new features
Er, no.
I've known a lot of the BSDi folks since before there was a FreeBSD. One of
them,
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
with the same quality.
I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
rationale for your fears
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
your fortune teller! Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
your motives at this point.
(Well, I was going to stay away, but I can stand it no longer...)
Be sure
I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.
[..snip..]
does this clear up the difficulty for you?
did they need to clear this with you first?
I had no difficulties in the first place. I entirely support this. I was
just speculating as to why people could be
Dear Hackers,
In all of the discussion that has poured forth in the aftermath of
the press release concerning the merging of Walnut Creek and BSDI, no
one seems to have stated this simple fact: this merger brings an
amazing team (back) together to work on the collective product that
will be
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:59:50AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
How many
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:51:01AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kevin M Geraci [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000311 03:54] wrote:
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
We'd be better off if people making suggestions like
Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
with people who are scrutinizing this move?
No, I only feel there's something wrong with those who are both
scrutinizing it and jumping to a lot of
All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time. If you think
you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
your fortune teller! Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
than good
me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
USWest machines are living proof of that.
I'd even venture to say
[snip - paying a dropout $100/h to fix drivers]
Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
dependent on Alan Cox to fix drivers properly (mostly because the OS is
completely undocumented
FreeBDS? Is that some Bulgarian Standart or what ;^)
I think your question is not for this list.. But I want to say something
for the keyboard which involves midc.
I posted before a message with the same content.. but no response..
It is about two keyboard patches (kernel). The first
John Grimes wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
Didier Derny wrote:
Hi,
I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
CDROM. (March 10 2000).
I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
it's own BSD could
Paul Richards wrote:
I'd like to the see the core team being more prominent in promoting
FreeBSD to other commercial backers, rather than continuing to push WC
as the home of FreeBSD.
The opportunity has always been there for another company to promote
and profit from FreeBSD. Not a single
(kernel 4.0-2208-CURRENT)
I have a question about adstrategy() in ata-disk.c: it says
bufqdisksort() -- which appends to the drive queue using CSCAN,
and immediately, without a check for adp-active, there is
ad_start() -- which removes it from there and puts it into the
Will WC continue to sell FreeBSD packaged sets or will BSDI or a new
vendor take that over?
--
Ted Sikora
Jtl Development Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://powerusersbbs.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:50:02AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
The FreeBSD genie is out of the bottle and has been for over 7 years
now. Any attempts to put it back in are doomed to failure and
everyone at BSDI knows this very well already. Do you folks honestly
think I haven't covered
Felipe Paulo Guazzi Bergo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
I am the author of gPS (http://gps.seul.org) and I'm trying to finish the
FreeBSD native poller. All I need now is a routine to get the CPU usage.
[...]
I've already looked at the source of top but couldn't get
I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
Personally, I've been running
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Then look up the definition of kread() in the same file, and
how the contents of cur.cp_time are used in the cpustats()
function. Note that "cur" is a "struct statinfo", which is
defined in /usr/include/devstat.h. The CPU states are defined
in
|o|... Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:37:18PM -0800, Kris Kennaway ...|o| wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Then look up the definition of kread() in the same file, and
how the contents of cur.cp_time are used in the cpustats()
function. Note that "cur" is a "struct statinfo",
On Mar 11 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Michael Bacarella said:
Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
with people who are scrutinizing this move?
No, I only feel there's something
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Pedro A M Vazquez wrote:
We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
having to read kvm.
it's already there:
vm.loadavg: { 1.40 1.33 1.23 }
Thats the system load average. The question referred to CPU usage
percentages.
Kris
|o|... Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:56:30PM -0800, Kris Kennaway ...|o| wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Pedro A M Vazquez wrote:
We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
having to read kvm.
it's already there:
vm.loadavg: { 1.40 1.33 1.23 }
Thats
57 matches
Mail list logo
