Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On 23/02/2013 23:17, Joshua Isom wrote: That also ties in with NIH syndrome. Gnu does that a lot just to make sure they can change to GPLv4 without problems, while Linux is still GPLv2. It's also not just Berkeley, but other people and organizations hold copyrights. From a quick glance, neta

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On 2/23/2013 4:23 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:56:46 -0600 "Joseph A. Nagy, Jr" wrote: On 02/23/13 15:33, Joshua Isom wrote: On 2/23/2013 1:10 PM, Joseph A. Nagy, Jr wrote: It seems the regents copyright claims end in 1994. Perhaps some underlying piece of code is s

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:56:46 -0600 "Joseph A. Nagy, Jr" wrote: > On 02/23/13 15:33, Joshua Isom wrote: > > On 2/23/2013 1:10 PM, Joseph A. Nagy, Jr wrote: > > >> It seems the regents copyright claims end in 1994. Perhaps some > >> underlying piece of code is still in FreeBSD requiring this notic

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

Thank You all for explanations, it seems logical now ;) Regards, vermaden ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.o

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On 02/23/13 15:33, Joshua Isom wrote: On 2/23/2013 1:10 PM, Joseph A. Nagy, Jr wrote: It seems the regents copyright claims end in 1994. Perhaps some underlying piece of code is still in FreeBSD requiring this notice? Perhaps the creation of FreeBSD and the release of 4.4BSD? Nothing from

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On 2/23/2013 1:10 PM, Joseph A. Nagy, Jr wrote: On 02/23/13 12:32, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:11:50 +0100 Polytropon wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +0100, vermaden wrote: Why not simplify that: | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBSD Project. | Copyright (c)

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On 02/23/13 12:32, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:11:50 +0100 Polytropon wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +0100, vermaden wrote: Why not simplify that: | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBSD Project. | Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992,

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:11:50 +0100 Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +0100, vermaden wrote: > > Why not simplify that: > > > > | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBSD Project. > > | Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, &g

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:14:48 +0100, vermaden wrote: > > > Od: "Polytropon" > Do: "vermaden" ; > Wysłane: 17:11 Sobota 2013-02-23 > Temat: Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg? > > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +01

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

Od: "Polytropon" Do: "vermaden" ; Wysłane: 17:11 Sobota 2013-02-23 Temat: Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg? > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +0100, vermaden wrote: > > Why not simplify that: > > > > | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBS

Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:47:10 +0100, vermaden wrote: > Why not simplify that: > > | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBSD Project. > | Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 > | The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg?

Why not simplify that: | Copyright (c) 1992-2013 The FreeBSD Project. | Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 | The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. | FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation

Re: Why not add ZFS support on bsdinstaller? (FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT/RELEASE)

> "Alvaro" == Alvaro Castillo writes: Alvaro> The question... or maybe I'm wrong and will be included. There *is* ZFS support in the PC-BSD 8.2 installer. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix

Re: Why not add ZFS support on bsdinstaller? (FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT/RELEASE)

use pcbsd installer or mfsbsd On 20 July 2011 18:55, Alvaro Castillo wrote: > The question... or maybe I'm wrong and will be included. > > Greets! > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-qu

Why not add ZFS support on bsdinstaller? (FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT/RELEASE)

The question... or maybe I'm wrong and will be included. Greets! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Lokadamus wrote: > Jerry wrote: > >> I subscribe to the port@ list as well as this one obviously and I do >> not remember seeing that article. I will keep looking. >> >> > http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/ <-- Archiv of maillinglist :) > I remember commenting on it.

Re: Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

Jerry wrote: I subscribe to the port@ list as well as this one obviously and I do not remember seeing that article. I will keep looking. http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/ <-- Archiv of maillinglist :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http:

Re: Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

As a newcomer to freebsd and a long time Perl user, this was one of the first things I noticed. 5.8.8 as distributed on freebsd 7.1 is extremely old. -Will Jerry wrote: I was wondering if anyone can tell me why Perl was not updated to the latest stable release; i.e. 5.10.0 rather than 5.8.9

Re: Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:58:44 -0500 Robert Huff wrote: >>I was wondering if anyone can tell me why Perl was not updated >>to the latest stable release; i.e. 5.10.0 rather than 5.8.9 >>recently? > > This was discussed within the last 2-3 weeks, either here or on >po...@. Check

Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

>I was wondering if anyone can tell me why Perl was not updated >to the latest stable release; i.e. 5.10.0 rather than 5.8.9 >recently? This was discussed within the last 2-3 weeks, either here or on po...@. Check the archives. If this is important, you can always vo

Perl: Why not updated to latest version 5.10.0

I was wondering if anyone can tell me why Perl was not updated to the latest stable release; i.e. 5.10.0 rather than 5.8.9 recently? It appears that some ports are having problems with this odd version update; i.e., "/news/inn" and possibly "/mail/mailscanner" as examples. With the latest version

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:40:34PM +, Masoom Shaikh wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > most of the

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:32:23 + Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul B. Mahol wrote: > > On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Matthew Seaman wrote: > >>> Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>> > Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most > case

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

Paul B. Mahol wrote: On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>> Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it >>> will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to >>> use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/bsdtar

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

Matthew Seaman wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/bsdtar etc. This would be a good project to get some familiarity with the por

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:42:12AM +, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > > most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk > > > > stripping em all reduces their size dramatically > > > > I cannot see th

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:42:12AM +, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk > > stripping em all reduces their size dramatically > > I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? > > do I miss anything ? I haven't seen

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Paul B. Mahol wrote: And what about /usr/local/lib/** ? Interesting. I found that only 11 are stripped on my system compared to 272 not stripped That is pretty much the opposite of the ratio I round in /usr/local/ bin where there were something like 350 strip

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On 11/17/08, Masoom Shaikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> > >> > >most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on >> > > disk >> > > >

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

Kris Kennaway wrote: Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/bsdtar etc. This would be a good project to get some familiarity with the ports tree. Would it be

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:40:34PM +, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > > > >most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk >

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > >most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk > > > > > >stripping em all reduces their size dramatically > > > > > >I ca

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > >most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk > > > >stripping em all reduces their size dramatically > > > >I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? > > me too > > > >do I miss any

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk stripping em all reduces their size dramatically I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? me too do I miss anything ? no. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.

Re: large binary, why not strip ?

Masoom Shaikh wrote: most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk stripping em all reduces their size dramatically I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? do I miss anything ? Yes. Binaries installed from the ports system /are/ already strippe

large binary, why not strip ?

most of the programs installed from ports have large binary size on disk stripping em all reduces their size dramatically I cannot see the reason for not stripping them by default ? do I miss anything ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list ht

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:41:23AM -0400, Bob McConnell wrote: > On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Unga wrote: > >> > >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it > just the > >> >license, then that's fine. I p

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:41:23AM -0400, Bob McConnell wrote: > On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Unga wrote: > >> > >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it > just the > >> >license, then that's fine. I p

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:50:13PM +0200, Ross Cameron wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Chad Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > You are asking the wrong questions: why did GNU write their own version > > > of c

RE: Why not GNU cmp?

On Behalf Of Chad Perrin >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Unga wrote: >> >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it just the >> >license, then that's fine. I prefer the BSD versions of diff, etc. when >> >available. >> >> You are ask

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Chad Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > You are asking the wrong questions: why did GNU write their own version > > of cmp? FreeBSD's dates to 1987. > > Y'know -- that's a really good question.

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Unga wrote: > > >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it just the > >license, then that's fine. I prefer the BSD versions of diff, etc. when > >available. > > You are asking the wrong questions: why did

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

--- On Thu, 9/25/08, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Why not GNU cmp? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 3:34 PM > Unga wrote: > &

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

Unga wrote: In my past experience, the GNU ncurses and Flex (http://flex.sourceforge.net/) are simple not compatible with FreeBSD even though Flex is licensed under BSD. I wanted to know whether the GNU cmp is also the same fate other than the license because all these GNU tools comes in one

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

--- On Thu, 9/25/08, Chad Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chad Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Why not GNU cmp? > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 7:07 AM > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:05:19AM -0400, matt donov

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:05:19AM -0400, matt donovan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Unga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I have noted FreeBSD uses GNU diff, GNU diff3 and GNU sdiff. Why FreeBSD &

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Unga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > I have noted FreeBSD uses GNU diff, GNU diff3 and GNU sdiff. Why FreeBSD > uses its own version of cmp? why not use GNU cmp? Is

Re: Why not GNU cmp?

Unga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all > > I have noted FreeBSD uses GNU diff, GNU diff3 and GNU sdiff. Why FreeBSD uses > its own version of cmp? why not use GNU cmp? Is the GNU cmp not compatible > with FreeBSD? The GNU version of cmp is not licensed under the BS

Why not GNU cmp?

Hi all I have noted FreeBSD uses GNU diff, GNU diff3 and GNU sdiff. Why FreeBSD uses its own version of cmp? why not use GNU cmp? Is the GNU cmp not compatible with FreeBSD? Kind regards Unga ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Miguel Mayol i Tur wrote: > I do like to try free OSs and distributions > Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? > I cannot understand why not on these days. If you have enough of a net connection to download everything to put

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Monday 17 March 2008 08:15:25 am RW wrote: > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:29:29 -0500 > > Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, since the OP just wants a DVD version, and not specifically a > > version that's too big to fit on a CD, why not just create

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:29:29 -0500 Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, since the OP just wants a DVD version, and not specifically a > version that's too big to fit on a CD, why not just create a DVD iso > that contains just enough to install? That's som

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Mar 16, 2008, at 1:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16/03/2008, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 16 March 2008 21:03:27 Incoming Mail List wrote: I think I can answer this one. Perhaps, not enough disk space? See, the "Where is packages-6.2-release" for more context. You kno

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

said: I do like to try free OSs and distributions Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? I cannot understand why not on these days. I personally cannot understand everyone's fascination with a DVD installer. If everyone is so intent on using the "latest and greatest"

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

cause it'll mean that ٨٠% > > of > > what's downloaded then will never ever be used, yet it does use up the > > bandwidth on every new release. Stick to windows if you believe that's > > a > > proper use of resources. > > > > Well, since t

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

that ٨٠% > > of > > what's downloaded then will never ever be used, yet it does use up the > > bandwidth on every new release. Stick to windows if you believe that's > > a > > proper use of resources. > > Well, since the OP just wants a DVD version, and

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

lieve that's a proper use of resources. Well, since the OP just wants a DVD version, and not specifically a version that's too big to fit on a CD, why not just create a DVD iso that contains just enough to install? Personally, I wonder why there isn't a ISO image that

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Sunday 16 March 2008 21:20:20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 16/03/2008, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 16 March 2008 21:03:27 Incoming Mail List wrote: > > > I think I can answer this one. Perhaps, not enough disk space? See, > > > the "Where is packages-6.2-release" for more c

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On 16/03/2008, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 16 March 2008 21:03:27 Incoming Mail List wrote: > > > I think I can answer this one. Perhaps, not enough disk space? See, > > the "Where is packages-6.2-release" for more context. You know, disk > > space isn't infinite...uh-huh. > >

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

On Sunday 16 March 2008 21:03:27 Incoming Mail List wrote: > I think I can answer this one. Perhaps, not enough disk space? See, > the "Where is packages-6.2-release" for more context. You know, disk > space isn't infinite...uh-huh. Easy to bitch, ain't it? Make an iso-dvd then and provide the

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

I think I can answer this one. Perhaps, not enough disk space? See, the "Where is packages-6.2-release" for more context. You know, disk space isn't infinite...uh-huh. >I do like to try free OSs and distributions >Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? >

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

Miguel Mayol i Tur wrote: I do like to try free OSs and distributions Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? I cannot understand why not on these days. http://www.tuxdistro.com/download.php?id=921&name=FreeBSD-7.0-RELEASE-DVD-ISO.tor

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

Miguel Mayol i Tur said: > I do like to try free OSs and distributions > Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? > I cannot understand why not on these days. I personally cannot understand everyone's fascination with a DVD installer. If everyone is so intent on usi

Re: Why not a DVD iso version too?

me too. but download all CD's, copy all of them to one place, perform cd directory_where_you_copied_things mkisofs -b boot/cdboot -no-emul-boot -R -o /path_to_DVD_image . then record DVD image On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Miguel Mayol i Tur wrote: I do like to try free OSs and distributions Wh

Why not a DVD iso version too?

I do like to try free OSs and distributions Why not a DVD version at bittorent and or at the FTP? I cannot understand why not on these days. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To

Re: Why not?

> > I was under the impression that kernel.org was the authoritative source > > for the Linux kernel. What people are doing on the side was their own > > project. *shrug* I could be wrong :-) > > kernel.org is the official source of straight vanilla linux, but no > distros use vanilla linux

Re: Why not?

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:55:00AM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > >On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > >On the contrary, there are numerous cases when local patches, specific > >to the distributi

Re: Why not?

On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the contrary, there are numerous cases when local patches, specific to the distribution of Linux that is used, are used: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2002-Novemb

Re: Why not?

http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/60/112/ is the interview, btw On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:39:53 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While each distros kernel is probably less different than a NetBSD > >> vs.

Re: Why not?

On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> While each distros kernel is probably less different than a NetBSD >> vs. FreeBSD kernel, there still each different and a lot more of >> them. I had to download and install a very specific kernel from >> redhat to use on my debi

Re: Why not?

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Loren M. Lang wrote: > > >On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:24:42PM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > >> > >>On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Chris wrote: > >> > >>>Aperez wrote: > Hello everybdody > >

Re: Why not?

On Mar 13, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Loren M. Lang wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:24:42PM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Chris wrote: Aperez wrote: Hello everybdody I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that interview Linus mentioned the following:

Re: Why not?

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:24:42PM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Chris wrote: > > >Aperez wrote: > >>Hello everybdody > >> > >>I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that > >>interview Linus mentioned the following: > >> > >>"On the othe

Re: Why not?

On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Chris wrote: Aperez wrote: Hello everybdody I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that interview Linus mentioned the following: "On the other hand, no, Linux does not have that stupid notion of having totally separate kernel development for

Re: Why not?

etBSD. That___s just idiotic, to have different teams worry about different things." I guess Linus didn't have anything to say about the 200 different versions of Linux, with their 200 different installers, and 200 different file hierachies, and their multiple package management system

Re: Why not?

t > different things." > > I dont want to critize what Linus stated above. However, I find a > very valid point when he says that every BSD version team is woking > in different directions. > > My question is this: > > Why not all three teams work together for just one BSD

Re: Why not?

nt when he says that every BSD version team is woking in different directions. My question is this: Why not all three teams work together for just one BSD version? At the moment there are three groups of developers and users working in the same issues. I think if we should all work together and c

Re: Why not?

uot;system" is not just its kernel. - Linux "systems" have a lot more differences than he implies. - The BSD systems, when seen as a whole and not just as a kernel, have many more similarities among them than any set of at least two different Linux systems.

Re: Why not?

Aperez wrote: > Hello everybdody > > I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that > interview Linus mentioned the following: > > "On the other hand, no, Linux does not have that stupid notion of having > totally separate kernel development for different issues. If you wa

Re: Why not?

just idiotic, to have different teams worry about different things." I guess Linus didn't have anything to say about the 200 different versions of Linux, with their 200 different installers, and 200 different file hierachies, and their multiple package management systems. Why not all t

Re: Why not?

In the last episode (Mar 12), Aperez said: > Why not all three teams work together for just one BSD version? > > At the moment there are three groups of developers and users working > in the same issues. I think if we should all work together and create > well rounded BSD versi

RE: Why not?

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aperez > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 23:09 > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Why not? > > > Why not all three teams work together for just o

Why not?

that every BSD version team is woking in different directions. My question is this: Why not all three teams work together for just one BSD version? At the moment there are three groups of developers and users working in the same issues. I think if we should all work together and create well r

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Feb 17, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Chris Zumbrunn wrote: On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Sander Vesik wrote: as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs you have been posting links to on FreeBSD related materials? As far as I'm concerned, "the Beastie silhouette" can be used as long as

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Sander Vesik wrote: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:53:50 +0100, Chris Zumbrunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:53:50 +0100, Chris Zumbrunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? > > http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif > as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs you have been posting links to on

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Monday 14 February 2005 05:34 pm, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vonleigh Simmons writes: > > If you need to run explorer to access a website, someone should be > > fired. Standards compliance is a good thing. > > MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > I initially ran a pirated copy of DOS on it (remember, at that time > MS wasn't selling DOS retail) but shortly after I got it up I switched > over to...drumroll > > Minix. Ah, but anything even remotely similar to UNIX would have been superior to MS-DOS, so that move w

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Many wordprocessors write in Microsoft Word format these days. Currently I use Quark XPress instead of Word, as Word is too bloated and too uncontrollable, and does not produce output suitable for professional printing. > That is what AW used to layout my book, as a ma

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 17:58 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: [snip] Please copy this down and put it on a sticky note on your monitor: PLEASE SHUT UP ANTHONY. Do you find it strange that you get so much flack in pseudo-technical discussions? Your understanding of the technology and the issues

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > In short, there's no way to know how an incorrectly written > HTML page will display on IE. The solution is to not write HTML incorrectly. That's what HTML validators are for. No browser has any obligation to behave in any particular predetermined way in the face of b

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Where can I see a list of these? Here are just a few: A very basic one is the box model problem. Basically if you define the width of a box to be 100 pixels,

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Monday 14 February 2005 09:32 pm, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > > You can say all you want. > > Thank you. I feel better about it knowing that it's okay with you. > > > Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the > > p

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than almost any other browser. Firefox does pretty well, tough; Opera much less so. You are _definitely_ not a web designer. MSIE is _hell_ with standards compliance. Mozilla is the best, followed by Opera, KHTML/Safari is also up the

RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:11 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wr

RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:07 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > > Yes, and

RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:49 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > Chad Leigh -- Shire

RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Steffl > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 10:54 AM > To: freebsd-questions > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > ...

Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

On Feb 14, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Where can I see a list of these? This page points to

  1   2   3   >