Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 11:36:55 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> Cc: alk@pobox.com, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PETSc Message-ID: <19981003113655.T2176@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19981002205856.25864@right.PCS>; from Jonathan Lemon on Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 08:58:56PM -0500 References: <13845.8432.160567.743719@avalon.east> <19981002143756.08043@right.PCS> <19981003112227.S2176@freebie.lemis.com> <19981002205856.25864@right.PCS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 2 October 1998 at 20:58:56 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Oct 10, 1998 at 11:22:27AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: >> On Friday, 2 October 1998 at 14:37:56 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 1998 at 01:53:00PM -0500, Tony Kimball wrote: >>>> from http://www.msc.anl.gov: >>>> >>>> We no longer actively support FreeBSD or the Intel Paragon.. If you >>>> are really need these machines with PETSc and it is important to you, >>>> please send mail to petsc-maint@mcs.anl.gov and we will provide you >>>> with the bmake files. If you currently use FreeBSD, we highly >>>> recommend switching to Linux; we plan to provide strong Linux support >>>> in the future. >>> >>> They also say: >>> >>> One must use gnumake, not the freeBSD make. The freeBSD >>> make was heavily modified from real make and is essentially >>> worthless; it should not even be called make! >>> >>> Showing a certain bias (and ignorance) here, aren't they? >> >> Well, you must be looking at a whole different web. My DNS can't find >> www.msc.anl.gov, so I tried http://www.mcs.anl.gov. But there's no >> mention of FreeBSD on that page. > > I believe it was http://www.mcs.anl.gov -> software -> petsc -> machines > > (sorry, I don't have the url handy right now) Ah. It's http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/docs/machines.html (but it's hidden behind an unbookmarkable frame. What do these people think of?). Well, yes, it's another typical case of Linux bigotry. I wouldn't take it much more seriously than a teenager flaming in a newsgroup. > Also, IIRC, BSD make (pmake) took a lot of pains to remain compliant > with "basic" make, so I feel that this was an unwarranted slam. > (Yes, I did send off a note to the maintainers). Well, that's not the way I see it. BSD (p)make does contain some gratuitous changes compared to AT&T make. It works pretty well, but it's not suitable for compiling GNU software. GNU make also contains a number of changes which are incompatible with the BSD changes, but on the whole it stays much more compatible with AT&T make. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981003113655.T2176>