The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot - BSD

This is a discussion on The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot - BSD ; If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you bother do use it? And why do bother to troll this newsgroup? Loser. llothar wrote: > I had to install 6.3. in my hotel room this evening only using the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

Thread: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

  1. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you bother do use it? And why do bother to troll this newsgroup? Loser.

    llothar wrote:
    > I had to install 6.3. in my hotel room this evening only using the CD-
    > ROM images no access to Internet.
    >
    > Wow, this sucks. Is it so difficult for the maintainers to write a
    > short sort routine on the packages sorting in Disk order?
    >
    > I had to do about 40 cd switches. This remembers me on the windows 3.0
    > installs in 1991.
    >
    > Boys this sucks. Just because i don't have to pay for this doesn't
    > mean it shouldn't be acceptable to be so bad. And i remember it was
    > the same already 3 years ago.
    >
    > So thats the "Free" in FreeBSD. Free from Improvements.


  2. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Am 20.02.2008, 13:34 Uhr, schrieb Steve O'Hara-Smith :

    > On 20 Feb 2008 10:55:37 GMT
    > jpd wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:55:02 -0800,
    >> Michael Sierchio wrote:
    >> > I was just pointing out an example solution that exists in reality.

    >>
    >> So? I haven't seen it, and therefore have no knowledge of its internals,
    >> its tradeofs, and so on and so forth. Which is what I said.

    >
    > I think Michael outlined it pretty clearly - however I may have
    > read between the lines and assumed too much. This sounds like the
    > solution
    > he was describing:
    >
    > 1: Prepare a dependency tree in some convenient fashion and place it
    > on CD1 as part of the CD build. This tree to include an indication of
    > which
    > CD each package is on,
    >
    > 2: When the user decides on which packages are wanted use the tree to
    > determine which packages including dependencies are needed from each CD.
    >
    > 3: Copy the required packages from the current CD to a staging area on
    > the
    > disc.


    I may misunderstand the underlying system, but, if you have a list ready
    of all packages you are going to install, couldn't you just install them
    without regard to their dependencies, like with pkg_add's -f option?

    Michael



  3. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Oops, spelling error.
    If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you bother to use it? And ...
    Loser.

    mark wrote:
    > If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you bother do use it? And
    > why do bother to troll this newsgroup? Loser.
    >
    > llothar wrote:
    >> I had to install 6.3. in my hotel room this evening only using the CD-
    >> ROM images no access to Internet.
    >>
    >> Wow, this sucks. Is it so difficult for the maintainers to write a
    >> short sort routine on the packages sorting in Disk order?
    >>
    >> I had to do about 40 cd switches. This remembers me on the windows 3.0
    >> installs in 1991.
    >>
    >> Boys this sucks. Just because i don't have to pay for this doesn't
    >> mean it shouldn't be acceptable to be so bad. And i remember it was
    >> the same already 3 years ago.
    >>
    >> So thats the "Free" in FreeBSD. Free from Improvements.


  4. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Begin <20080220123411.ce62aa51.steveo@eircom.net>
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:11 +0000,
    Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
    > I think Michael outlined it pretty clearly - however I may have
    > read between the lines and assumed too much. This sounds like the
    > solution he was describing:


    Maybe, maybe not. That still doesn't change that I have no firsthand
    knowledge of that system. On what was described I already made most
    comments I am prepared to make.


    > This method has a disk overhead of the size of the largest single
    > package plus the size of the dependency tree, which doesn't seem too
    > bad but is greater than the current method which will in principle
    > install sufficient packages to fill the disc exactly.


    You don't need the dependency tree in the staging area. You need the
    list of packages that are to be installed, sorted in some addable order.
    pkg_add will figure out the rest and you can keep score by deleting
    packages.

    Assuming packages are always smaller than the installed result, assuming
    you're installing from least (zero) to most dependencies, assuming you
    can timely delete installed packages from the staging area, and assuming
    the footprint of packages installed earlier is always sufficiently
    smaller than those installed later, the overhead may be smaller than the
    largest package. It probably is a reasonable approximation, though.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  5. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Begin
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:30 +0100, Michael Ross wrote:
    > Am 20.02.2008, 13:34 Uhr, schrieb Steve O'Hara-Smith :
    > I may misunderstand the underlying system, but, if you have a list ready
    > of all packages you are going to install, couldn't you just install them
    > without regard to their dependencies, like with pkg_add's -f option?


    Yes, provided your list includes all dependencies, not just the primary
    selection, you could. Should we want to? Well...

    If something fails halfway for some reason[1] you have to sort out
    what was and what was not successfully installed and the current tools
    are likely to balk at missing, incomplete, or incorrect entries in the
    installed package database. Worse, before you succeed at that, you'll
    have applications installed that plain don't work because of missing
    dependencies, generating lots of cryptic[2] references to missing shared
    libraries. The upshot of installing in order is that there will be no
    missing dependencies to installed applications and you don't have to
    sort out anything later; the database can be kept up-to-date as the
    installation proceeds.

    So, going for the pkg_add -f option, you'd make the installer system
    require less cd swaps in a way that makes installing brittle. Not a good
    first introduction to a system that has a reputation for robustness.

    I believe I mentioned something to that tune somewhere upthread.


    [1] Someone yanked the cable, spilled coffee and aborted the install
    while cleaning the keyboard, power outage, some package proves
    corrupt, the cd is scratched, whatever.
    [2] If we're to rehash the DAU argument, we'd get many many more
    complaints of this type than it would save in other messages
    complaining of existing problems relating to the installer.

    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  6. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:30 +0100
    "Michael Ross" wrote:

    > I may misunderstand the underlying system, but, if you have a list ready
    > of all packages you are going to install, couldn't you just install them
    > without regard to their dependencies, like with pkg_add's -f option?


    First off I'm assuming the user chooses the packages they want and
    the dependencies have to be found (ie. they may choose KDE).

    Yes once the list of all packages has been found they could be
    installed in any order provided you are certain the task is going to finish
    or you are prepared to accept that there will be packages with missing
    dependencies if you terminate early. Doing them in dependency order ensures
    that the system is in a reasonably good state whenever the process stops.

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  7. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    On 20 Feb 2008 15:45:25 GMT
    jpd wrote:

    > Begin <20080220123411.ce62aa51.steveo@eircom.net>
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:11 +0000,
    > Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:


    > > This method has a disk overhead of the size of the largest
    > > single package plus the size of the dependency tree, which doesn't seem
    > > too bad but is greater than the current method which will in principle
    > > install sufficient packages to fill the disc exactly.

    >
    > You don't need the dependency tree in the staging area. You need the
    > list of packages that are to be installed, sorted in some addable order.
    > pkg_add will figure out the rest and you can keep score by deleting
    > packages.


    Good point.

    > Assuming packages are always smaller than the installed result, assuming
    > you're installing from least (zero) to most dependencies, assuming you
    > can timely delete installed packages from the staging area, and assuming


    Timely deletion is a given with something like

    for package in
    do
    pkg_add $package
    rm $package
    done

    > the footprint of packages installed earlier is always sufficiently
    > smaller than those installed later, the overhead may be smaller than the
    > largest package. It probably is a reasonable approximation, though.


    It's the worst case that only happens if the largest package is also
    the last one to be installed unless some of the packages are actually
    larger than their installed footprint (which seems very unlikely).

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  8. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Michael Ross wrote:
    > I may misunderstand the underlying system, but, if you have a list ready
    > of all packages you are going to install, couldn't you just install them
    > without regard to their dependencies, like with pkg_add's -f option?
    >


    This is susceptible to corrupt the +REQUIRED_BY files in the "package
    database" under /var/db/pkg

    > Michael
    >
    >


    --

    Michel TALON


  9. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    In article ,
    jpd wrote:
    % Begin
    % On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:30 +0100, Michael Ross wrote:
    % > Am 20.02.2008, 13:34 Uhr, schrieb Steve O'Hara-Smith :
    % > I may misunderstand the underlying system, but, if you have a list ready
    % > of all packages you are going to install, couldn't you just install them
    % > without regard to their dependencies, like with pkg_add's -f option?
    %
    % Yes, provided your list includes all dependencies, not just the primary
    % selection, you could. Should we want to? Well...

    The CD install comes with a list of all packages on the CDs telling
    what CD the package is on and what all the dependencies are for that
    package. Given a set of packages to install, it's possible to determine
    every package that needs to be installed to satisfy the full set of
    dependencies from this list. In fact, the installer already does this.

    % If something fails halfway for some reason[1] you have to sort out
    % what was and what was not successfully installed and the current tools
    % are likely to balk at missing, incomplete, or incorrect entries in the
    % installed package database.

    I'm not sure you have a point here. Presumably the -f option doesn't
    cause problems with the package database, or at least it doesn't increase
    the likelihood of problems vs a normal call to pkg_add if the install fails
    part way through.

    For packages with pre- and post-install scripts, an installer which
    followed Ross's approach would have to make sure all dependencies were
    in place before running those scripts.

    % Worse, before you succeed at that, you'll
    % have applications installed that plain don't work because of missing
    % dependencies, generating lots of cryptic[2] references to missing shared

    My experience is that you can get this when attempting to upgrade a
    system using the current installer.

    --

    Patrick TJ McPhee
    North York Canada
    ptjm@interlog.com

  10. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Hi
    On 2008-02-21 02:33:29 +1100, mark said:

    > Oops, spelling error. If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you
    > bother to use it? And ...
    > Loser.


    It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.

    He does have a point, and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer
    system of all.

    So the usual response "if you don't like it , don't use it" is rather
    pointless and as non-constructive as the first post.

    If the aim of FreeBSD is to exist and prosper it has to improve on area
    where it's performing poorly. Installation is one of them.

    I'm actually surprised that people get so defensive on that topic, even
    thinking that it's okay to make you switch CDs 40+ times.
    It would have been far more constructive to admit that yes this is an
    issue and what can we do to make it better.

    Rather than the emotional rant that followed straight after, especially
    from jpd (but he's known to rant anyway on most issues)

    JY
    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
    deserve neither liberty or security (Benjamin Franklin)


  11. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:58:08 -0000,
    Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
    > I'm not sure you have a point here. Presumably the -f option doesn't
    > cause problems with the package database, or at least it doesn't increase
    > the likelihood of problems vs a normal call to pkg_add if the install fails
    > part way through.


    Why do you presume that, when several messages in the threat express
    opinions presuming the opposite?


    > For packages with pre- and post-install scripts, an installer which
    > followed Ross's approach would have to make sure all dependencies were
    > in place before running those scripts.


    Which means that once you're done installing the package... you're not
    done: You have to postpone executing at least the post-install-scripts
    until the dependencies are satisfied, or make them more complex to deal
    with the case of the assumptions that the package depends on not being
    true.

    Or, for pre-install scripts, you have to postpone that package until the
    dependencies can be satisfied, meaning you're obeying the order after
    all. So what is the gain here, then, except make the installer and/or
    the scripts more complex and more brittle? I don't see it.


    > % Worse, before you succeed at that, you'll
    > % have applications installed that plain don't work because of missing
    > % dependencies, generating lots of cryptic[2] references to missing shared
    >
    > My experience is that you can get this when attempting to upgrade a
    > system using the current installer.


    But we're talking new installs here, and presumably[1] people who don't
    know yet what they're doing, and who'll necessairily have to trust the
    installer to at least produce a correct result.

    Does your experience include that, when combined with, say, taking
    a list of 50 packages forcibly installed in random order? Then, for
    stress testing, yank the plug after package 24, and have the installer
    automatically sort out the mess? Successfully?

    Of course, you can start over from the beginning. It's the easy way out.
    But who's to say there won't be another outage halfay through? It would
    be wise to make use of what's already installed, and having it in a
    known state is a much easier option all around.


    [1] There is an assumption of basic competence to the user of FreeBSD,
    even if he is new to the system and does not know the details yet.

    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  12. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:31:04 +1100, JYA wrote:
    > It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    > unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.


    True. Catching flies with honey, etc...

    > He does have a point, and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer
    > system of all.


    People have opined back and forth on this subject. I'm not super-keen on
    it, but it's worked OK when I've used it. It has one huge advantage over
    the previous dumb-tty version: it is really easy to do a good job of
    partitioning and formatting the disk drive. After that, it's easy to get
    a basic install. That's all it's good for, IMO. Wouldn't dream of
    installing ports with it.

    > If the aim of FreeBSD is to exist and prosper it has to improve on area
    > where it's performing poorly. Installation is one of them.
    >
    > I'm actually surprised that people get so defensive on that topic, even
    > thinking that it's okay to make you switch CDs 40+ times. It would have
    > been far more constructive to admit that yes this is an issue and what
    > can we do to make it better.


    I doubt that *anyone* seriously thinks that switching CDs (> 1) times is
    OK. The point is that most FreeBSD users don't care. Reasonable use
    doesn't require that. In fact, most FreeBSD users have probably never
    used the installer more than once or twice on any given computer, because
    upgrade-in-place is one of FreeBSD's great strengths.

    Now, if there was a commercial marketing department, and paid programmers
    who's job it was to woo newbies with shiny easy-install tools, then
    things might be different. Maybe they will be different one day,
    anyway. It just doesn't sound like the sort of job that would get me
    interested to spend my spare time on, anyway.

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew

  13. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Begin <47bd1aa8$0$11198$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:31:04 +1100, JYA wrote:
    > Rather than the emotional rant that followed straight after, especially
    > from jpd (but he's known to rant anyway on most issues)


    *reads the start of the thread again*

    Frankly, I don't see how commenting on the tone in justifyably
    constructed as defense of a bad system. I think you've let yourself be
    coloured by your own prejudices just a bit there. As the Germans say:
    He who can read is clearly in the advantage.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  14. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Begin <624r9pF1vl5gdU1@mid.individual.net>
    On 21 Feb 2008 08:32:58 GMT,
    Andrew Reilly wrote:
    > [The installer] has one huge advantage over the previous dumb-tty
    > version: it is really easy to do a good job of partitioning and
    > formatting the disk drive. After that, it's easy to get a basic
    > install. That's all it's good for, IMO. Wouldn't dream of installing
    > ports with it.


    I think this pretty well sums it up. I wanted to chip in with noting
    that I have observed OpenBSD users claim their installer is actually far
    superior to anything else exactly because it's a dumb-tty installer,
    after somone (similarly) loudly and irately complained how bad it was.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  15. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Am 21.02.2008, 09:27 Uhr, schrieb jpd
    :


    > Of course, you can start over from the beginning. It's the easy way out.
    > But who's to say there won't be another outage halfay through? It would
    > be wise to make use of what's already installed, and having it in a
    > known state is a much easier option all around.


    Whenever sysinstall failed for me, mostly due to scratched CDs, it is
    exactly wanting to have the system in a known state leading me to
    reinstalling the whole. After all, the error messages are most
    descriptive, like "Some packages could not be installed".
    Then, before trying if the system boots at all and sorting out what was
    and what was not installed, I rather burn the .iso again and start over.

    But I can see your point.

    Michael


  16. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Actually the point he raised was not lost. I just think it is not valid. To publicly complain because he is too lazy or frustrated to find a solution to a "problem" is a bit absurd. This isn't windows or mac. You need to do a little work. If that's unacceptable don't use the product. I find it hard to believe that he is unaware of PC-BSD. Which would give him a nice graphical installer and FreeBSD OS all on one cd, two if you want some extra programs on disk. Besides I really think he's just an annoying newsgroup troll. So yes, my response was a bit nasty, but then I'm old enough to where my patience for bs is gone.


    JYA wrote:
    > Hi
    > On 2008-02-21 02:33:29 +1100, mark said:
    >
    >> Oops, spelling error. If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you
    >> bother to use it? And ...
    >> Loser.

    >
    > It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    > unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.
    >
    > He does have a point, and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer
    > system of all.
    >
    > So the usual response "if you don't like it , don't use it" is rather
    > pointless and as non-constructive as the first post.
    >
    > If the aim of FreeBSD is to exist and prosper it has to improve on area
    > where it's performing poorly. Installation is one of them.
    >
    > I'm actually surprised that people get so defensive on that topic, even
    > thinking that it's okay to make you switch CDs 40+ times.
    > It would have been far more constructive to admit that yes this is an
    > issue and what can we do to make it better.
    >
    > Rather than the emotional rant that followed straight after, especially
    > from jpd (but he's known to rant anyway on most issues)
    >
    > JY


  17. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    JYA wrote:
    > He does have a point, and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer
    > system of all.


    Why do you say that?
    It has a higher learning curve than many others, agreed.
    But once you have learned how to use it, it is quite functional and
    quickly lets you get the operating system installed.

    > If the aim of FreeBSD is to exist and prosper it has to improve on area
    > where it's performing poorly. Installation is one of them.


    FreeBSD doesn't care if you use it or not.

    > I'm actually surprised that people get so defensive on that topic, even
    > thinking that it's okay to make you switch CDs 40+ times.


    Well, see, most people don't do that. At least not twice.
    Most people who use FreeBSD use sysinstall to install the base operating
    system, and then install whatever packages you need afterwards.

    > It would have been far more constructive to admit that yes this is an
    > issue and what can we do to make it better.


    What can be done has already been identified: get some people to work on
    a better installer.
    Now, would the tens or hundreds of "some people" please step forward?
    No?
    Well, then ...
    --
    Torfinn Ingolfsen,
    Norway

  18. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    JYA wrote:
    > Hi
    > On 2008-02-21 02:33:29 +1100, mark said:
    >
    >> Oops, spelling error. If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you
    >> bother to use it? And ...
    >> Loser.

    >
    > It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    > unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.


    Probably not unfortunate so much as intentional. It sounded like a
    troll, and a quick search showed the OP was prone to such postings on
    other topics.

    In the three years of being aware of the problem, he wasn't bothered
    enough to submit a PR. That would have been easier than posting on
    Usenet, yet have a chance of making an improvement.

    > He does have a point,


    "This thing that worked but was inconvenient (but not inconvenient
    enough for me to actually do something constructive even though I had
    three years) sucks!"

    > and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer system of all.


    I disagree. It's quick and minimal. There are things I'd change, but
    most are tweaks and tuning. For example, ask all the questions up
    front, and then do the installation. Oh, and the keystrokes and menus
    could use some adjustment. But the bsdinstaller is coming up, so we'll
    likely have a whole new set of installer problems.

    --
    Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

  19. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Andrew Reilly writes:

    > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:31:04 +1100, JYA wrote:
    > > It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    > > unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.

    >
    > True. Catching flies with honey, etc...
    >
    > > He does have a point, and yes, FreeBSD has one of the worse installer
    > > system of all.

    >
    > People have opined back and forth on this subject. I'm not super-keen on
    > it, but it's worked OK when I've used it. It has one huge advantage over
    > the previous dumb-tty version: it is really easy to do a good job of
    > partitioning and formatting the disk drive. After that, it's easy to get
    > a basic install. That's all it's good for, IMO. Wouldn't dream of
    > installing ports with it.
    >
    > > If the aim of FreeBSD is to exist and prosper it has to improve on area
    > > where it's performing poorly. Installation is one of them.
    > >
    > > I'm actually surprised that people get so defensive on that topic, even
    > > thinking that it's okay to make you switch CDs 40+ times. It would have
    > > been far more constructive to admit that yes this is an issue and what
    > > can we do to make it better.

    >
    > I doubt that *anyone* seriously thinks that switching CDs (> 1) times is
    > OK. The point is that most FreeBSD users don't care. Reasonable use
    > doesn't require that. In fact, most FreeBSD users have probably never
    > used the installer more than once or twice on any given computer, because
    > upgrade-in-place is one of FreeBSD's great strengths.


    True, and also most people installing FreeBSD have network access.

    > Now, if there was a commercial marketing department, and paid programmers
    > who's job it was to woo newbies with shiny easy-install tools, then
    > things might be different. Maybe they will be different one day,
    > anyway. It just doesn't sound like the sort of job that would get me
    > interested to spend my spare time on, anyway.


    I think it's a good thing that the installer works with a
    character-based terminal instead of requiring a GUI to be running.
    GUIs have their place but it's nice to get the cake baked before
    putting the frosting on.

    -- Patrick

  20. Re: The 6.3. FreeBSD Install sucks a lot

    Am 21.02.2008, 18:09 Uhr, schrieb Warren Block :

    > JYA wrote:
    >> Hi
    >> On 2008-02-21 02:33:29 +1100, mark said:
    >>
    >>> Oops, spelling error. If you dislike FreeBSD so much then why do you
    >>> bother to use it? And ...
    >>> Loser.

    >>
    >> It is unfortunate that the tone used by the original poster was so
    >> unfriendly, because that's all what people focused on thereafter.

    >
    > Probably not unfortunate so much as intentional. It sounded like a
    > troll, and a quick search showed the OP was prone to such postings on
    > other topics.


    Another search shows that this is the longest thread in this group since
    August 6, 2007.

    adding to it (we have to beat 159 messages on "Building one's own UNIX
    system?". Or have we?):

    Michael

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast