From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Dec 27 21:05:01 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21212
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:05:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from po4.wam.umd.edu (po4.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.166])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21186
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:04:59 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from culverk@wam.umd.edu)
Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu ((IDENT root)@rac1.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.141])
	by po4.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id AAA09450;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:05:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu ((IDENT sendmail)@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with SMTP id AAA24215;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:04:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with SMTP id AAA24210;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:04:33 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: rac1.wam.umd.edu: culverk owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:04:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu>
To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: So we're stuck with using timidity now?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.981227173848.13827C-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981228000206.24007A-100000@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > Like I said before... Just use OSS/FreeBSD... It is better than VoxWare
> > anyway. And with some talking to Dev at 4-front tech, I'm sure an
> > agreement could be made.
> 
> OSS is better. Better at panicing my system. Lets use the homegrown
> solutions before we start implementing a _known_ buggy module.

Are you using the newest OSS? Also, Dev at 4-front tech has told me that
the problem with his software panicing the kernel is because of problems
with FreeBSD's virtual memory system. So do we need to fix that, or do we
need to make Dev find a non-existant workaround (he has already looked for
one)?? 

Kenneth Culver


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message