Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.new-york.net!main.put.com!not-for-mail From: le@put.com (Louis Epstein) Subject: Re: Can FreeBSD 2.1.1 support Cyrix 6x86??Etc... X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] X-Nntp-Posting-User: le Lines: 44 Organization: Putnam Internet Services Message-ID: <DtKMt8.AyC@news2.new-york.net> References: <Dt5v2D.A6I@news2.new-york.net> <4qjgpi$4ds@uriah.heep.sax.de> X-Trace: 835731833/13456 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: main.put.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:43:56 GMT J Wunsch (j@uriah.heep.sax.de) wrote: : le@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote: : : > Just what is the pre-release status of 2.1.1 at the moment? : > Another posting indicated that a 6x86 option was only added to the : : Hmm, i seem to remember that the 6x86 works fine, but is detected as a : 486. (So if you accidentally removed the I486_CPU, it won't work for : you.) Apparently(see messages down-thread) this depends on the motherboard?? : > latest SNAP of 2.2,and as 2.1.1 will be out first,yet has no SNAPs : > in circulation,I am wondering what will be covered and what will : > not? : : Btw., the naming has been settled to be 2.1.5 (and it will be the last : in the 2.1.X line). I was wondering about this...I checked out the FTP sites and saw the 960606 SNAP (which didn't rate a mention in the "Latest FreeBSD information" on the WWW?) release notes talking about "2.1.5"... : It won't offer much new features -- that wasn't the goal. The intent : was to provide a bugfix update over 2.1, with all potentially : dangerous changes left out. A few new drivers went in nevertheless, : as long as they were not assumed to affect the stability of the rest : of the kernel. Some other portions of the system have been kept up to : -current level of development (like the APM stuff), since the existing : version in 2.1 was basically unusable, so any usable version must be : considered better than the previous state. Hmm,I thought 2.1 was supposed to be the bugfix release of 2.0.5? (But 2.0.5 was a bugfix release of 2.0,no?) Will there ever be a FreeBSD-really_stable? As I've noted,I run an ISP and am looking for minimum downtime,thus the current branch interests me less than stable.The fewer reboots when sendmail stops or something else crashes the better...recently I added a user account that unaccountably was missing execute permission for its home directory,unlike any other...no idea what momentarily corrupted adduser.