On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:00 -0700
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant
> > > with the 'standard'?
> >
> > I will believe that when they upgrade their FORTRAN c
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On (2003/06/01 23:53), Narvi wrote:
>
> > > The absence of credible Java support in FreeBSD has lost us significant
> > > penetration in the past, and it would be disastrous if the perceptions
> > > of the past shaped th
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On (2003/06/01 00:50), Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> > > I just built jdk13 a couple of days ago. No problem whatsoever. You
> > > guys must have rotten karma or something.
> >
> > Did you already have a native JDK installed?
>
> I built the native 1.4.1
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Narvi wrote:
[snip]
Ahem.. i am very embarrassed about having sent the reply, everybody please
pretend I was nowhere near the thread, pretty please?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, 29 May 2003, [iso-8859-1] Thorsten Futrega wrote:
> Dear users,
>
> The most important changes I'm going to commit today:
>
> - Remove gcc and replace it with a new TenDRA
> snapshot.
yay! but what about c++ support?
> - Remove GNU tar.
double yay!
> - Fix httpd.ko to make it work on
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> Harti Brandt wrote:
>
> > MD>NO no and again no. This would repeat the same design mistake
> > MD>that is already in Linux. On API level you DO NOT WANT versioning.
> > MD>What you really want is: type signature cheking. Like for example
> > MD>done th
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Scott Long wrote:
> Q wrote:
> > I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be
> > useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular
> > kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to load
> > and/or complain if t
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-02 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: rand() is broken ]
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:37:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > FreeBSD Redhat SunOS
> > > 660787754660787754645318364
> >
>
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
> >On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 19:32:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyway, last time we discussed this, I think we stuck with the rand()
> >> we had because we feared that people w
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 17:30:48 +, Mark Murray wrote:
> >
> > Why not? Arc4 is a) deterministic and b) good for all bits.
>
> If you mean arc4random() function - not, because it use true randomness,
> if you mean RC4 algorithm, probably yes, bu
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Narvi wrote:
> > Speculative writes can only happen to pages in the TLB (so you don't get
> > speculative TLB misses and replacements), not having a large amount of 4M
> > pages around in the TLB means that addresses covered b
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> - AMD write cache allocation due to speculative writes being cancelled and
> then written back later vs no cache snooping on AGP regions. I'm somewhat
> perplexed about this issue, there's lots of conflicting info going around,
> a good deal of it which
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Narvi
>writes:
> : You obviously haven't considered the ability to be able to near hot-swap
> : motherboard and cpu - or even RAM - in this way.
>
> The ACPI spec specifically states
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Josef Karthauser wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:40:30PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > The real issue here is persistent system state across the S4 suspend; ie.
> > leaving applications open, etc. IMO this isn't really something worth a
> > lot of effort to us, and
On Tue, 16 May 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
> >
> > > Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > >
> > > > Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
> >
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Paul Richards wrote:
> "Brian W. Buchanan" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >
> > > > I see this money scheme as an extension of the "finger pointing"
> > > > which does nothing to build team spirit.
> > >
> > > That depends very much on the way it's
Errrmmm Really, did you check the archives for the issue?
There used to be a real long thread on why/why not sysV style init
scripts. It produced not one but several flamewars iirc 8-)
In short - if we change from the present scheme, we want something better
than just stop and restart ent
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > I am still trying to find out about getting IEEE 1394 support -- cards have
> > been available to me for at least 3 years!!
>
> Did you even read the licensing site? It's pretty clear that you
> couldn't write code that Walnut Creek could ship on CD
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Southwell wrote:
> It would be good to be ahead of the game rather than behind it on this
> occasion --
>
> I am still trying to find out about getting IEEE 1394 support -- cards have
> been available to me for at least 3 years!!
>
E... Do you also have docs? And did y
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nar
> vi writes:
>
> >The summary of summaries would roughly look like this:
> >
> > Subject: -current build report
> >
> > Success: world, generic
> > Fail: lint
>
> The First part of the email is a
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2000-Apr-18 08:07:45 +1000, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As for the lists being tedious and long: I've sorted the content by
> >> relevance, and it was my hope that over time they would shrink to
> >> zero if we annoyed people
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Christopher Masto wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:28:13AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> > > It takes no more than a well-designed operating system service to
> > > ensure that badly written programs don't fail to release resources
> > > when they crash.
> >
> > We didn't
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > P.S. This also reminds me that FreeBSD is non-standard relative
> > > to Linux and all of the major vender commercial Unices in that a disallowed
> > > access, such as a write to a read-only region of memory, generates
> > > a SIGBUS rather than a
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> >
> > Let me retract the Ghost in the Shell statement. I just checked, and
> > my memory played tricks on me. It was a different letter effect. :-)
> >
> > Andrzej, can you somehow turn it into a p
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Kevin Day wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Kevin Day wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I hate to keep bringing things like this up, or start a legal war,
> > but this
> > > > screensaver is more than likely a copyright and/
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Kevin Day wrote:
>
> >
> > I hate to keep bringing things like this up, or start a legal war, but this
> > screensaver is more than likely a copyright and/or trademark violation, and
> > bringing it into the source tree may
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> Well, by "they" I hope you don't intend to mean modules in general. I am
> happily using my Riva TNT with XFree86 3.3.3.1, which is a module (the GLX):
>
I mean specificly the pex.so module (xie module also usewd to be broken).
> So what are the
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
> i just upgraded to current. i still have the following in my
> /etc/XF86Config
>
> Section "Module"
> Load"pex5.so"
> Load"xie.so"
> EndSection
>
> during X startup i get load errors for these. but i
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Narvi
>writes:
> >
> >On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> 7. [medium] The current naming for ptys doesn
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[snip]
>
> 7. [medium] The current naming for ptys doesn't scale that
> well. Changing it to ttyp%d / pty%d would probably be a
> good idea in the long run, but the ramifications are
> relatively widespread (think: "ports")
On 6 Jun 1999, Joel Ray Holveck wrote:
> >> I can only assume that we install our KDE headers somewhere different than
> >> the developers (primarily on Linux machines).
>
> By default, KDE installs to /usr/local/kde. On RedHat, the RPM
> installs it to /opt/kde. All the includes are in
> /usr
On Sat, 15 May 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 1999, Narvi wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 14 May 1999, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> >
> > > At 3:51 PM +0700 5/12/99, Ustimenko Semen wrote:
> > > > Are we going to get this license? I am
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Dean Lombardo wrote:
> Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> >
> > At 3:51 PM +0700 5/12/99, Ustimenko Semen wrote:
> > > Are we going to get this license? I am interested in NTFS
> > > source code a lot...
> >
> > I would be very careful about getting an NT source license if
> > your
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> At 3:51 PM +0700 5/12/99, Ustimenko Semen wrote:
> > Are we going to get this license? I am interested in NTFS
> > source code a lot...
>
> I would be very careful about getting an NT source license if
> your intention is to write NTFS support for
34 matches
Mail list logo
