:Unfortunately, it is the binary driver from Nvidia. Maybe someone using
:DragonFly is having similar problems?
Not that I know of. There's not much that can be done with binary-only
drivers short of throwing them away and finding hardware that works
with normal drivers.
:I ran the
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:47:10AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > > Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
> > > removed completely from the ba
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
>
> >I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
> >others have said, if someone has an operational requirement for plain old
> >csh, they are free to ins
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:>Here is the DragonFly commit.
:>
:>
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/cvsweb/src/sys/vm/vm_contig.c.diff?r1=1.10&r2=1.11&f=u
:>
:>FreeBSD-4:
:>
:> FreeBSD-4 is in the same situation that DFly was in and requires
:> the same fixes as the above p
Damn... Thought this was Age of Empires... :-(
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:41:37 -0500, Sam Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > At 3:36 PM -0500 11/10/04, Sam Hopkins wrote:
> >>Hello all,
> >>
> >>Just a quick note to mention that I've added AoE support to
> >>FreeBSD 4.10, 5.3, and 6.0.
Hello,
Misunderstandings such as this seem to be all too common in volunteer
open source projects, sadly, and the resultant slagging match on
mailing lists is counterproductive for all concerned.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> As an interested (and innocent)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:50:05AM -0800, Paul Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > > This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of
> > > Unix.
> > > I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on
> >
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
others have said, if someone has an operational requirement for plain old
csh, they are free to install the port and make the appropriate links.
As an interested (and innocent) bys
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 01:50:24PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
> Presumably pure csh is the last stable release of csh before tcsh came
> along. Openbsd, netbsd, sun and sgi all seem to have been able to
> settle on a csh.
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
David O'Brien wrote:
What is a pure 'csh'?? Please answer in detail. Have you ever looked at
the source code for 4.3BSD 'csh'? What about 'tcsh' source code? Hint,
Christos Zoulas had at CSRG login and was maintaining and enhancing BSD
'csh'. The 4.4BSD 'csh' was Zoulas's work. 'tcsh' is simp
David O'Brien wrote:
1. Why don't you ask about this on the tcsh mailing lists?
I have.
2. OR why don't you send me a patch that fixes the bug?
This behavoir is described in the man page so I thought it was intended.
My thinking was if tcsh wants this fine. It is just not compat with
csh which
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
> > removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
> > ports system. Other than hi
> At 3:36 PM -0500 11/10/04, Sam Hopkins wrote:
>>Hello all,
>>
>>Just a quick note to mention that I've added AoE support to
>>FreeBSD 4.10, 5.3, and 6.0. Patches are available at
>>http://www.coraid.com/support/freebsd.
>>
>>If anyone knows where else I could announce this, I'd
>>appreciate it.
At 3:36 PM -0500 11/10/04, Sam Hopkins wrote:
Hello all,
Just a quick note to mention that I've added AoE support to
FreeBSD 4.10, 5.3, and 6.0. Patches are available at
http://www.coraid.com/support/freebsd.
If anyone knows where else I could announce this, I'd
appreciate it.
This looks interesti
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:28AM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
> FreeBSD - does not work (they knew better and renamed tcsh csh rather
> than just calling a spade a spade, some commit bit vandal got a hair to
> rename parts of the world for the sake of mankind.)
That would be me.
1. Why don't you
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of
> > Unix.
> > I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on
> > Linux because /bin/sh on Linux is really /bin/bash and is not bacwards
> What's the performance like? Do you have any benchmark numbers?
What benchmark do we care about here? We've tested various configurations
and the I/O rate scales linearly with the number of blades involved.
On Linux with dual 2GHz processors, two GbE interfaces, and one
shelf per interface --
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 06:59:32PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:00:25PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
> Thus, if there is a bug in tcsh's csh compatibility mode, you really
> might do better to report it to the tcsh maintainers - on the several
> occassions when I've neede
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:00:25PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >
> >Please raise tcsh compatibility bugs with the tcsh developers.
>
> Well I think that this problem is not so much with tcsh as freebsd. If
> tcsh wants to pull this kind of crap, fine.
>
> But I really t
Erik Trulsson wrote:
100% compatible with WHAT?!? Remember that even 'classic' csh went
through several versions, and I very much doubt that the last version
was 100% compatible with the first version.
They added some features. Existing functionality was not broken.
__
What's the performance like? Do you have any benchmark numbers?
Joe
On 11/12/04 7:59 AM, "Sam Hopkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:26, Sam Hopkins wrote:
Yet gross at the same time :)
>>>
>>> Actually, that was our motto for a while.
>>
>> Hahah :)
>>
>>> But
Sam Hopkins wrote:
They look nice, but hideously expensive for anything I could use them in :(
Compared to other solutions, or just based on your wallet? We'd like to think
we've priced them competitively.
Being this a FreeBSD list, I guess one could achieve similar function
with a rack mountable
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
> > removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
> > ports system. Other than hi
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:26, Sam Hopkins wrote:
>> > Yet gross at the same time :)
>>
>> Actually, that was our motto for a while.
>
> Hahah :)
>
>> But seriously, criticism is welcome -- specifics appreciated.
>
> They look nice, but hideously expensive for anything I could use them in :(
Comp
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > I'm not opposed to adding a real csh to /bin, but if we're only adding
: > it to work around a minor incompatability that few if any programs rely
: > on I don't see it as being a necessity.
:
: And the micro
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:28AM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
> FreeBSD - does not work (they knew better and renamed tcsh csh rather
> than just calling a spade a spade, some commit bit vandal got a hair to
> rename parts of the world for the sake of mankind.)
[...]
> >I'm not opposed to adding
Ryan Sommers wrote:
How many programs does this incompatability actually break?
Realistically? If it hasn't been a problem in the last 4 years it makes
me wonder if anyone is actually writing or using shell scripts written
for this.
I think it is a mistake to say that just because this is the fi
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:26, Sam Hopkins wrote:
> > Yet gross at the same time :)
>
> Actually, that was our motto for a while.
Hahah :)
> But seriously, criticism is welcome -- specifics appreciated.
They look nice, but hideously expensive for anything I could use them in :(
--
Daniel O'Connor
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:38, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Sam Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : Hello all,
>> :
>> : Just a quick note to mention that I've added AoE support to FreeBSD 4.10,
>> : 5.3, and 6.0. Patches are available at
>> : http:/
Kevin Lyons wrote:
>Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> but you're 4 years too late to affect
>the outcome...
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and
let /bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I
realize that will add all of 300kB to the system. Oh and there wou
Richard Coleman wrote:
I think the reality is that most people here would rather deal with a
few csh incompatibilities in order to have a much more featureful shell,
rather than use an ancient shell in order to get bug for bug compatibility.
I humbly suggest that /bin contain csh and tcsh. Is th
>Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> but you're 4 years too late to affect
>the outcome...
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and let
/bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I realize
that will add all of 300kB to the system. Oh and there would also have
to be
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Please raise tcsh compatibility bugs with the tcsh developers.
Well I think that this problem is not so much with tcsh as freebsd. If
tcsh wants to pull this kind of crap, fine.
But I really think it is a mistake for freebsd to put a copy of tcsh in
/bin and call it csh. Fo
At 03:30 12/11/2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Also keep in mind that ash is not POSIX sh (at least not as completely
as one might like). [etc]
Indeed. It's POSIX sh far more completely than one might like.
/duck
--
Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 940 1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax +4
34 matches
Mail list logo
