IIRC there is anything comparable to the loop device in linux, and I had success installing linux 2.0 on a FAT partition and even had done it on NTFS if I didn't have to cancel. With initrd mounting the FAT (reads: host) partition and losetup'ing, and then echo $DEV_LOOP0 >/proc/sys/kernel/real_root_dev
it worked fine. Ok, handmade, but surely if you have time you'll put it out.
Hey, hey, hey.
You make a wrong deduction. You quote Walnut Creek etc.'s problems and deduce to the other *BSDs as well.
There are more, as
Darwin, supported by Apple
NetBSD, which runs on platforms no other OS ever will reach without peeking at it
OpenBSD, with a team auditing the code line-by-line, which also has its features
No, *BSD is not dead, because not all 100% of the computers in the world are run by people who cain't use them without mouse.
And finally, if this ever will become true (earliest after my death) Windoze will be ruling. Because of their marketing strategy, and their GUI isn't that bad (note I dont speak of XP).
--
Re:Freebsd? They still developing that thing?
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hah! MacOS X? Yes I know it has a nice GUI, but
what for people who either don't like no gfx
(as me) or who just want to run routers (any
*BSD or Linux), firewalls (I'd recommend OpenBSD) or servers (Linux' Samba sometimes works, *BSD I had no experience).
I, for example, dont want no steenking new "Clicki-clicki-coloured" UI but an OS which simply does run. And at the moment I'm using Linux (no distribution but hand-made), Win for gamez, DOS for SNES emu and will get OpenBSD 2.9 in the hope it is usable and administrable for me.
Every *BSD has its special features, e.g. NetBSD its portability. Always code has been exchanged between these OSes, and some developers even of the Linux side share their code which every else one gets GPL'ed with the *BSD developers (I think of "drivers").
So please stop flaming "BSD is dead", "$OTHER_OS rocks" etc. and remain democratic. I use several OSes and still am content with MS-DOS 3.30A of 1988 which I got with my first computer (at the age of 8). And, I sometimes still code in GW-BASIC. I expect some flame about this, but why put working stuff into the rubbish bin? Some people even still use COBOL in business. It seems as it has even survived Y2K, Y2.001K etc. crisis - so what? If any energy put on flaming against *BSD or making religious war of UN*X flavours were put into making every of the opensourced OSes better, we prolly even had a Win32 API in the (Linux, *BSD, *IX, *UX) kernels. As well as *BSD can run native Linux programmes.
We here in Germany always have had free speech as of 1949 with the release of the new constitution.
But such ideas always were to come out, though they usually were cut down fastly. Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
IMO it just would create lotta more net traffic, while the target sites just would move.
-mirabilos
Just put your crap under a OSI-approved license. Then it must not be used otherwise (read the TOS).
If it's not OSI they probably won't take it.
Safest: put non-OSI stuff as hypertext reference (aka "link") and not inline it.
For/. this is enough.
No, they don't own it: We do not claim ownership [...] reserve a right to use...
You are still responsible, and you are the owner.
But M$ has the right to use it.
If you'd put enough kernel patches via hotmail,
M$ could include them into windoze (ironically THIS was good for us). But they'd put it in modifictatedly so YOU dont have any rights on M$ code (but they on yours).
This sucks.
Read this license and tell me whether it's prohibiting them...
I have posted this as an article too, and I have actually read their TOS (because I have - personally and by title - access to several Hotmail accounts). I have set them a delay of two days, to change this or to tell me how to alter this on my/our mails, or I'll cancel these accounts. (Now need a good free mailer)
I have registered a.ppp and the only thing I miss is a DNS server that points it to my DynDNS (and an entry pointing the DNS server of the.ppp to my DynDNS...)
Why do not the ISPs migrate to the alternative namespace?
Linus is the only who can release Linux under a
different license than the GPL.
If he wants to discontinue being the head developer / releaser but does _not_ move the
main copyright to an other person, nobody could do something more to it than described in the GPL.
And btw, Linus doesn't do much more than releasing at this time. Look at the Linux-Kernel ML. How many posts are his? Not much actually.
Linux really should become a microkernel, since
it actually easily is outperformed in SMP systems.
In linux, at the time and hopefully forever, just
one CPU can be in the (micro-)kernel at one time.
And the kernel handles, beneath Interrupts, also
the other, un-important, stuff (sorry for my bad
English) like networking, fs etc. which all could
be done by user-space stuff. For example even net
and I/O could easily be done fully by ring-3 stuff
via the IOPL that now per default allows, and not
disallows any more, all currently unused I/O ports
for access by this task. Then the CPU which actually
serves the task does the I/O, and that's why the CPU0
which handles the IRQs branches to the other CPU
serving the I/O task, lets say IDE-PIO, if an IRQ
occured which has to be handled by it.
Microkernel hin und her, but the current kernel image
should get through since I _hate_ those large directories
containing "device drivers" (which for linux really spoken
don't exist) but _do like_ the way where one can choose to
build it into the kernel image or as module. I SAY that
"build into the bzImage" does NOT automatically mean
"included in the (micro-)kernel" !!!
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC there is anything comparable to the loop device in linux, and I had success installing linux 2.0 on a FAT partition and even had done it on NTFS if I didn't have to cancel. With initrd mounting the FAT (reads: host) partition and losetup'ing, and then
echo $DEV_LOOP0 >/proc/sys/kernel/real_root_dev
it worked fine. Ok, handmade, but surely if you have time you'll put it out.
--
You make a wrong deduction. You quote Walnut Creek etc.'s problems and deduce to the other *BSDs as well.
There are more, as
- Darwin, supported by Apple
- NetBSD, which runs on platforms no other OS ever will reach without peeking at it
- OpenBSD, with a team auditing the code line-by-line, which also has its features
No, *BSD is not dead, because not all 100% of the computers in the world are run by people who cain't use them without mouse.And finally, if this ever will become true (earliest after my death) Windoze will be ruling. Because of their marketing strategy, and their GUI isn't that bad (note I dont speak of XP).
--
Hah! MacOS X? Yes I know it has a nice GUI, but what for people who either don't like no gfx (as me) or who just want to run routers (any *BSD or Linux), firewalls (I'd recommend OpenBSD) or servers (Linux' Samba sometimes works, *BSD I had no experience).
I, for example, dont want no steenking new "Clicki-clicki-coloured" UI but an OS which simply does run. And at the moment I'm using Linux (no distribution but hand-made), Win for gamez, DOS for SNES emu and will get OpenBSD 2.9 in the hope it is usable and administrable for me.
Every *BSD has its special features, e.g. NetBSD its portability. Always code has been exchanged between these OSes, and some developers even of the Linux side share their code which every else one gets GPL'ed with the *BSD developers (I think of "drivers").
So please stop flaming "BSD is dead", "$OTHER_OS rocks" etc. and remain democratic. I use several OSes and still am content with MS-DOS 3.30A of 1988 which I got with my first computer (at the age of 8). And, I sometimes still code in GW-BASIC. I expect some flame about this, but why put working stuff into the rubbish bin? Some people even still use COBOL in business. It seems as it has even survived Y2K, Y2.001K etc. crisis - so what?
If any energy put on flaming against *BSD or making religious war of UN*X flavours were put into making every of the opensourced OSes better, we prolly even had a Win32 API in the (Linux, *BSD, *IX, *UX) kernels. As well as *BSD can run native Linux programmes.
Just my 0.02 €
--
We here in Germany always have had free speech as of 1949 with the release of the new constitution.
But such ideas always were to come out, though they usually were cut down fastly. Even the government wanted to forbid a fascist party and it couldn't.
IMO it just would create lotta more net traffic, while the target sites just would move.
-mirabilos
--
Just put your crap under a OSI-approved license. Then it must not be used otherwise (read the TOS). If it's not OSI they probably won't take it. /. this is enough.
Safest: put non-OSI stuff as hypertext reference (aka "link") and not inline it.
For
--
No, they don't own it: We do not claim ownership [...] reserve a right to use...
You are still responsible, and you are the owner. But M$ has the right to use it.
If you'd put enough kernel patches via hotmail, M$ could include them into windoze (ironically THIS was good for us). But they'd put it in modifictatedly so YOU dont have any rights on M$ code (but they on yours).
This sucks.
Read this license and tell me whether it's prohibiting them...
--
I have posted this as an article too, and I have actually read their TOS (because I have - personally and by title - access to several Hotmail accounts). I have set them a delay of two days, to change this or to tell me how to alter this on my/our mails, or I'll cancel these accounts. (Now need a good free mailer)
--
--
She didnt. There was no reply. If you look at it in "light mode" (user prefs) and with different date settings it's easier to see.
--
(and an entry pointing the DNS server of the
Why do not the ISPs migrate to the alternative namespace?
URI:
--
Don't look at it. About 2 pop-ups per second flooding your display.
--
Nice JavaScripten, eh? But I dislike the idea of popping-up windozes.
--
Linus is the only who can release Linux under a
different license than the GPL.
If he wants to discontinue being the head developer / releaser but does _not_ move the
main copyright to an other person, nobody could do something more to it than described in the GPL.
And btw, Linus doesn't do much more than releasing at this time. Look at the Linux-Kernel ML. How many posts are his? Not much actually.
Linux really should become a microkernel, since
it actually easily is outperformed in SMP systems.
In linux, at the time and hopefully forever, just
one CPU can be in the (micro-)kernel at one time.
And the kernel handles, beneath Interrupts, also
the other, un-important, stuff (sorry for my bad
English) like networking, fs etc. which all could
be done by user-space stuff. For example even net
and I/O could easily be done fully by ring-3 stuff
via the IOPL that now per default allows, and not
disallows any more, all currently unused I/O ports
for access by this task. Then the CPU which actually
serves the task does the I/O, and that's why the CPU0
which handles the IRQs branches to the other CPU
serving the I/O task, lets say IDE-PIO, if an IRQ
occured which has to be handled by it.
Microkernel hin und her, but the current kernel image
should get through since I _hate_ those large directories
containing "device drivers" (which for linux really spoken
don't exist) but _do like_ the way where one can choose to
build it into the kernel image or as module. I SAY that
"build into the bzImage" does NOT automatically mean
"included in the (micro-)kernel" !!!
Tnx, Greetings
Mirabilos(TM) openprojects:#icewm