[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenBSD 2.5 install on i386 (unexplained error)
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: OpenBSD 2.5 install on i386 (unexplained error)
- From: Rik Hemsley <rik_(_at_)_kde_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:14:32 +0000
#if Hugh Graham
> Which article was that? If these were the primary complaints he's
> quite out of date.
> pcvt has traditionally been a vt220 compliant terminal. To make certain
> persons/programs happy openbsd now has an option (on by default) to do
> a "pc-ansi" emulation instead.
Of course - there's always a way to do it. Hacks seem to have a problem
finding things like this. I believe it's genetic.
> Investigate "man ffs_softupdates", this is semi experimetal code, but
> should save you the pain of long fsck at boot after crash at least.
Good, but the problem is not really with losing data - all my work is
in KDE's CVS, so there's the odd backup lying about ;) I lost 32M of memory
the last time the power glitched (just before memory prices rocketed) so
I'm more concerned about the hardware.
=> I'm not going to switch back to Linux just because a journalling fs
got declared stable.
As for work installations, well I'm not doing my usual (UNIX admin) stuff
right now, but I'm certainly not a member of the must-have-this-feature
mindset. There are more important things than a journalling fs . How often
do I expect OpenBSD to crash anyway ? The only UNIX box I've ever seen crash
properly (kernel panic) was running SCO. 'nuff said.
/me wonders if there's any real possibility of finding a way to legally
port reiserfs. Time to ring a lawyer I know...