I'm quite happy with the new GCC. It's a big improvement over the old 2.95 version. Btw, it's easy to build a system with the new GCC, running fine here, although my kernel is still built with 2.95.
The point is to educate SCO Unix users (if there are any) that the next version of GCC may not support SCO Unix. I don't know how many people there are using latest GCC version with SCO Unix. A lot of weird platforms are supported by GCC. They seem to care about every one. The other point is of course the propaganda, slashdot, google news...
The SCO people are so evil. The should tell where that verbatim stuff is so it can be removed. I guess this happens when corporations are making money...
Are you forgetting UFS2. Of course, it's not the most innovative system around, but surely BSD filesystem development exists. I think UFS2 was integrated to FreeBSD a year or two ago? About, NetBSD's LFS, you are correct, it's not for production use. I don't know if anyone is working to get it stabilized, there has been some interest...
Any one get the feeling most of the BSD users here are trolls, i'd have guessed beasties. Well, maybe prior 4.7 FreeBSD is not the most exiting thing to chat about...
Anybody remember the NeWS window system, it also had postscript programs in it. I'd be interested to know if there are some online documents or books about it.
One reason I can think of is that, if you have fast Windows XP box and some weird machine running NetBSD which is not so fast, then using the latest and greatest sometimes requires compiling... Another reason is that in principle NetBSD should compile on any POSIX platform, I was not enough brave to dig into details why this was not possible earlier...
I don't think it will. You know, AMD64 technology is only 64 bits, whereas Commondore 64 is 64K bytes, which according to my calculations is 524288 bits. Keep your C64 in a closet for a while longer...
FYI, ipfilter is not under BSD license, I bet the OpenBSD developers did not like putting their effort to deleveloping non BSD licensed software, with more strings attached... For this reason, I think that also NetBSD should have pf.
I will always call it Mozilla. Not matter what fud they give about new components. This is not a super-internet-platform, it's just a browser. BTW, I really like the browser-news-mail integration in Mozilla.... -- I pity everyone reading this message
You have some proof of "moving to finer grained locking"... The way I see it there is work to do to make SMP really stable and also make it work with the threads library that just appeared. Who is working on those finer grains when there is more important stuff to do... Ofcourse, open source developers can do what they want when they want!
There is no SMP because they have no resources to do it. Of course the their system is approaching stone age because they are working on security of an ancient system. Some people seem to like that, while others need all latest and greatest stuff, but this system is not for them. There is no need for innovation. In open source everything is a copy of already existing stuff. Conclusion: you must love traditional stuff and be totally freaked out about security. That is the target market. Of course, your super computer needs something else...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite happy with the new GCC. It's a big improvement over the old 2.95 version. Btw, it's easy to build a system with the new GCC, running fine here, although my kernel is still built with 2.95.
The point is to educate SCO Unix users (if there are any) that the next version of GCC may not support SCO Unix. I don't know how many people there are using latest GCC version with SCO Unix. A lot of weird platforms are supported by GCC. They seem to care about every one. The other point is of course the propaganda, slashdot, google news...
The SCO people are so evil. The should tell where that verbatim stuff is so it can be removed. I guess this happens when corporations are making money...
Are you forgetting UFS2. Of course, it's not the most innovative system around, but surely BSD filesystem development exists. I think UFS2 was integrated to FreeBSD a year or two ago? About, NetBSD's LFS, you are correct, it's not for production use. I don't know if anyone is working to get it stabilized, there has been some interest...
Any one get the feeling most of the BSD users here are trolls, i'd have guessed beasties. Well, maybe prior 4.7 FreeBSD is not the most exiting thing to chat about...
Anyone know the price tag of these boxen?
Hi, is the free (of charge) AAC encoders and/or decoders available?
Anybody remember the NeWS window system, it also had postscript programs in it. I'd be interested to know if there are some online documents or books about it.
One reason I can think of is that, if you have fast Windows XP box and some weird machine running NetBSD which is not so fast, then using the latest and greatest sometimes requires compiling... Another reason is that in principle NetBSD should compile on any POSIX platform, I was not enough brave to dig into details why this was not possible earlier...
I don't think it will. You know, AMD64 technology is only 64 bits, whereas Commondore 64 is 64K bytes, which according to my calculations is 524288 bits. Keep your C64 in a closet for a while longer...
Let me feel your sweet potato , if it were my own distro , it would smell like a sweet potato. mmm I loooove potato chips
This is a dupe! Hehee, your system is totally screwed...
FYI, ipfilter is not under BSD license, I bet the OpenBSD developers did not like putting their effort to deleveloping non BSD licensed software, with more strings attached... For this reason, I think that also NetBSD should have pf.
Get the facts straight.
I will always call it Mozilla. Not matter what fud they give about new components. This is not a super-internet-platform, it's just a browser. BTW, I really like the browser-news-mail integration in Mozilla....
--
I pity everyone reading this message
This is an interesting article.
I was able to listen to the song in my pc ok, but how do I build it from source? Where are the makefiles?
Yes, it is now possible to launch 32 preemptive NUMA-Q missiles strikes simultaneously using the Linux kernel. Excelent!!!
about 1000000... waiting for 20 seconds to pass...
You have some proof of "moving to finer grained locking"... The way I see it there is work to do to make SMP really stable and also make it work with the threads library that just appeared. Who is working on those finer grains when there is more important stuff to do... Ofcourse, open source developers can do what they want when they want!
Only post about Duken Nukem Forever is missing.
It should be: FreeBSD from Arse
This very surely is very difficult!
They should add a diplomatic phase to c&c. Only I you failed that you could go to war.
There is no SMP because they have no resources to do it. Of course the their system is approaching stone age because they are working on security of an ancient system. Some people seem to like that, while others need all latest and greatest stuff, but this system is not for them. There is no need for innovation. In open source everything is a copy of already existing stuff. Conclusion: you must love traditional stuff and be totally freaked out about security. That is the target market. Of course, your super computer needs something else...