Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:04:13 -0600 (CST) From: brian william wolter <bwolter@linux.thesadmachine.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com>, <questions@freebsd.org>, <advocacy@freebsd.org>, <tagdot57@aol.com>, <mongor@mail.com>, <onybear@aol.com>, <jdx@thesadmachine.org> Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0012011829490.95319-100000@linux.thesadmachine.org> In-Reply-To: <14888.13097.187777.80105@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > i paid for the right to whine! i still have a $60 box of software that is would i have the right to whine if i bought windows and was pissed that it wouldn't work on my SPARCStation? > > INTERIX. THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERNEL THAT > > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS! if you can make all of the stability what is this redemption you keep talking about? freebsd has grown steadily for years. in fact within the last year it was added to Best Buy's shelves. that's pretty good for a UNIX OS as most don't get a lot of mainstream support. > > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS. IT WAS A > > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE ELECTION! IT'S > > OVER!! that's alright, we'll just demand recounts until the vote swings in our favor. (heh) > > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO. I GEUSS > > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL. i geuss i was wrong to believe the advertising you spell guess wrong a lot > > space. i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to make-up > > for the shortcomings of one operating system. freebsd was supposed to have yeah... i'm not going to buy a new computer either just because windows doesn't run on my IBM 5100 PC (released 1975) > > it's inception. maybe i am way off base. i am often wrong. but i do know yes you are. > > it's statements of superiority. that box should have had a big asteRISK! on > > it. with more emphasis on RISK! as in buy at your own RISK!; the > > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be true. thank you... i didn't catch it the first time. > > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases. when MS completely integrates unix > > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on that > > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide that > > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN > > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOWS (AND > > HENCE THE WORLD)! microsoft has the power to make such a pronouncement for UNIX people don't like microsoft. microsoft people don't know how to use UNIX. that's how it is and i don't believe the UNIX people are about to give up competent UNIX for microsoft's interpretation. > > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperability > > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality with > > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX application > > migration and interoperability solution." DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON THE why do i want this when i don't want or need windows? that makes little sense. i'm not going to pay for windows so i can pay for UNIX when it's free to begin with. btw, weren't you the one complaining about how *holy shit!* advertisements stretch the truth? > > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL. i geuss i was wrong to believe the advertising > > on the box. i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the > > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WINDOWS, > > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD. WHAT JUSTIFIES ONE well to begin, they're both free... and i don't believe the point is to run linux *in* freebsd, but to have the ability to execute linux binaries. > > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (as > > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement. it will nolonger be a matter of microsoft already tried to make unix back in 1981. it was crap and nobody bought it. > > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical there are benifits? what? > > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. Interix yeah... windows security is just fabulous > > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates the need > > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting support and > > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and tools. i'm just not understanding why you would install microsoft in the first place if you're just going to run UNIX on it... why not use, um... UNIX? > > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREEBSD!!> i wish you had too. as a side note... i'm not sure exactly who you think you are that anyone here would care what you have to say. frankly i couldn't care less whether or not you fall out of a high window much less what type of operating system you use... i did enjoy the email though... thanks for the laughs. peace, brian t h e S a d M a c h i n e . o r g On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Mike Meyer wrote: > So go whine at the people you gave the $60 to, not the *volunteers* > who are on the -questions list. You might as well drop me from the CC > list - the only whining children I have to deal with are mine; except > they've grown past acting like you do. Once I read the claim that you > paid for the right, I stopped reading. > > <mike > > xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com> types: > > i paid for the right to whine! i still have a $60 box of software that is > > nothing more than a doorstop. ironically, the only way that i may be able to > > use the software on the freebsd cd's, is to buy a MICROSOFT PRODUCT aka > > INTERIX. THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERNEL THAT > > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS! if you can make all of the stability > > features of freebsd portable to windows, such that freebsd becomes a package > > that windows users can add-on to their existing platform, to function in the > > same way as the ANTICRASH and other utilities that i have running on my > > system, then you may have some sort of redemption in terms of a future. but > > based on what i have included in this email below, freebsd and everyone elso > > too) has a very limited term of existance in the face of increasing > > MICROSOFT encroachment into unix interoperability. UNIX WILL BECOME A > > UTILITY FOR WINDOWS. think i'm crazy? read (the third paragrph) below! > > THE ONLY THING THAT PREVENTED MICROSOFT FROM HAVING ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE > > BEFORE, WAS IT'S LACK OF A VIABLE UNIX IMPLEMENTATION. even APPLE computer > > now has a linux platform. when MICROSOFT does with linux what freebsd did, > > and allows linux to run in windows NT/2000, linux and unix will fall under > > the single auspices of MICROSOFT. whether that will be functionally true or > > not is irrelevant. MICROSOFT ONLY HAS TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION OR > > APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE INTEROPERABILITY. ONCE MICROSOFT HAS NEGATED THE > > ARGUEMENT OF WINDOWS VS UNIX (BY PORTING UNIX TO WINDOWS) THERE WILL > > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS. IT WAS A > > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE ELECTION! IT'S > > OVER!! > > > > [this paragraph was written before i added everything about INTERIX in the > > paragraph above. i only leave this here as history, as freebsd will shortly > > become. MS INTERIX may answer all of the questions and aspirations i > > previously had.] THE QUESTION WAS, WHEN WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO INSTALL > > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO. I GEUSS > > YOU DIDN'T READ THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT IT (THE > > SUBJECTLINE) IS FOR. IT STATED VERY CLEARLY THE INTENT, PURPOSE AND > > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL. i geuss i was wrong to believe the advertising > > on the box. i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the > > statement of `professional quality', `for serious internet users', etc.to > > mean that freebsd would offer a LOWER LEVEL OF COMPATABLITY than the linux > > systems i had previously used. i brought freebsd because i thought it would > > give me the level of interoperabilty that i wanted. what i wanted was a > > single OSystem that would run linux and unix on one single platform. the > > sad fact is that even if i did get it running, i still wouldn't have use of > > my cdrom or the scsi disk which i had previously used with both linux > > versions (and now NT as well) for the exclusive purpose of virtual memory > > space. i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to make-up > > for the shortcomings of one operating system. freebsd was supposed to have > > been around longer than linux. why then is it deficient in the area of > > drivers for ancient equipment that were clearly around before linux even > > existed? this is really not an issue of age or maturity regarding a > > specific OS. it is a matter of intent. linux strove for universality from > > it's inception. maybe i am way off base. i am often wrong. but i do know > > that i wanted a single OS that would handle unix and linux. (I HAD NO > > DESIRE TO GO BACK TO WINDOWS!!) SINGLE SYSTEM INTEROPERABLITY is what > > freebsd claimed to do. that is why i brought it. i thought i would not be > > without ANY of the functionality i came to expect from linux. freebsd did > > not deliver on the satisfaction of my expectations which were in fact > > reasonable, based on the statements i read on the box. superior is just > > that, SUPERIOR! it is a term of absolutes. it is was also further claimed > > in the 800 page handbook (which was my main reason for buying the > > power-pak), that freebsd had a higher level of developement than linux and > > was therefore more stable as a result. (based on these claims, why should i > > have expected to not be able to use the equipemnt i was already using in > > linux?) i had no reason to think that freebsd was in being selective in > > it's statements of superiority. that box should have had a big asteRISK! on > > it. with more emphasis on RISK! as in buy at your own RISK!; the > > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be true. > > > > now, while you gloat at the apparent triumph the unix community may think it > > gained by MS buying INTERIX and now including it as part of the windows > > environment, IT IS NOT A TRIUMPH. the bottomline is that MS is not about to > > go away. YOU CAN THINK OF THIS MICROSOFT ACQUISITION AS THE ANT OR WASP (i > > forget which does what to whom) THAT LAYS IT'S EGGS IN THE BODY OF THE > > OTHER, ONLY TO HAVE IT'S LARVAE EAT IT'S HOST FROM THE INSIDE OUT!! they > > will never forfeit their dominance on the computing community, no matter how > > infantile you may think their systems are. MS will eat you from the inside > > out. as i stated in another email, MS can integrate any opensource unix > > (and/or linux) into the windows environment it wants to. and it will. it > > (MS) has already stated that they are going include INTERIX into the > > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases. when MS completely integrates unix > > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on that > > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide that > > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN > > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOWS (AND > > HENCE THE WORLD)! microsoft has the power to make such a pronouncement for > > all the world to follow. and once said, the world will do just that, > > FOLLOW! including you! > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/zipdocs/interix_technotes.exe this is > > the link for all the documentation regarding the functionaslity of INTERIX > > in the windows environment. of course you need windows to read it. so for > > those of you who don't have windows, i'll download and extract it, and > > repackage it as a zip file to attach to this email. even if you don't use > > windows at all, it makes sense to know what MICROSOFT intends to do with the > > unix community. CANNABALISM couldn't be better! > > > > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperability > > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality with > > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX application > > migration and interoperability solution." DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON THE > > WALL? > > > > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WINDOWS, > > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD. WHAT JUSTIFIES ONE > > JUSTIFIES THE OTHER!! Microsoft may get it wrong to start out with, but > > that won't be the case for long. they want absolute domination. and they > > will do whatever it takes to do that. INTERIX is the "shot across the bow" > > of the unix community. it serves to give notice of the MS agenda to usurp > > any legitimacy of unix as their own. when (previously unix) developers > > realize that they have the absolute standard of windows on which to build > > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (as > > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement. it will nolonger be a matter of > > which version of unix is superior to another. that question will be MOOT. > > it will be as it has always been, a question of profitability and expense. > > NO, I DON'T REALLU LIKE THE IDEA OF ONLY HAVING MICROSOFT CONTROLLING > > EVERYTHING. but there are plenty of things in this life that i don't > > particularly like. and my or your disliking the reality of the world in > > which we live, does not change that world. only intelligent directed action > > will do that. my statement about writing the freebsd kernel as a windows > > dll or exe mayseem reprehensible to you, but ultimately your survival will > > depend on that very act of infiltration. you cannot stop the INEVITABILITY > > of MICROSOFT porting unix into windows NT/2000. that is clearly their > > intent. noone is going to want to write unix apllications that don't > > conform to any standards that MICROSOFT imposes by the dictates of their > > massive dominance. > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/default.asp > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp > > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Feb00/InterixPR.asp > > > > "Interix provided all of the UNIX functionality necessary to efficiently > > move the code to Windows NT," Klinect said. "One of the key advantages was > > that the code ported to Interix could still be deployed on the IRS' legacy > > UNIX systems during its transition to Windows NT, maintaining the required > > 24x7 full functionality for this mission-critical application." > > > > Interix 2.2 eases the migration of existing UNIX applications and scripts by > > providing a robust, high-performance environment for running such > > applications. It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage of > > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical > > applications. In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows-based > > application development environment to develop native Win32® API-based > > applications. Interix 2.2 provides over 300 utilities and tools and is fully > > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. Interix > > 2.2 is a native subsystem to Windows, providing the highest performance for > > running UNIX applications. The Interix 2.2 Software Development Kit, which > > is included with Interix 2.2, supports over 1,900 UNIX APIs and helps ease > > migration of existing UNIX applications to the Interix environment. > > > > Interix 2.2 provides UNIX users with a familiar environment and set of tools > > to leverage their existing UNIX expertise. For example, the tools and > > utilities behave exactly as they would on other UNIX systems while > > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates the need > > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting support and > > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and tools. > > > > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREEBSD!!> > > > > Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of a > > single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterprise > > platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications. Interix > > 2.2 also helps simplify the administration of heterogeneous environments by > > providing UNIX system administrators with access to Windows-based systems > > using familiar tools and management strategies, thus reducing system > > administration and total cost of ownership. Interix 2.2 also provides system > > administrators with a familiar set of remote administration tools and batch > > support, enabling efficient system administration. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> > > To: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com> > > Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:54 PM > > Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks > > > > > > > I hope you enjoyed writing your troll. I only wish you had been mature > > > enough to post it to the correct list, or not to post it at all. This > > > is QUESTIONS@freebsd.org. You didn't ask any. Since your message was > > > nothing but opinion and ranting, it should have gone to > > > ADVOCACY@freebsd.org. > > > > > > If you don't like FreeBSD because it won't do what you want, either > > > don't use, or fix it. If you don't have the expertise to fix it, > > > either hire someone, or ask politely. Coming off like a whining > > > preschooler won't get you help, it'll just make people mad at you. > > > > > > <mike > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > this is an updated version of the letter previously sent. > > > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE > > xavian anderson macpherson > > http://www.professional3d.com > > > > i purchased freebsd about two months ago. i have not yet been able to get > > it to run. i went through the trouble and expense of buying the power-pak > > 4.0 so that i would have the 800 page handbook. (i wanted freebsd because i > > thought it would be the last system i would ever need to buy.) i also > > wanted the full 10-cd collection of software. the fact of the matter is > > that the cd's were worthless to me because freebsd would not recognize my > > multifunction soundcard as a valid scsi device; which by the way, both > > versions of linux (suse and mandrake) and windows nt were able to use > > without any difficulty whatsoever. i have found the repeated claims of > > freebsd superiority to be a bunch of crap! > > > > i have absolutely no idea how something so superior to windows and linux is > > unable to recognize the presense of my adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor on my > > soundblaster 16 card. maybe it's too beneath freebsd to recognize my lowly > > implementation of scsi. i knew that freebsd claimed to be mature; maybe > > poor vision is also the side-effect of this protracted maturity. either > > that or this maturity has imbued you with yet another ailment common to > > advancing age. that ailment is arrogance. that seems to be the only > > explanation for this; as the common response that i have received from many > > but not all, has been one of arrogance and contempt that i would dare to > > question the godlike qualities of freebsd. so let me make it personal. > > there is no problem with my scsi card. i have had three working operating > > system to prove it. the problem is with the software (and it's developers) > > that freebsd uses. now you may like to claim that linux is a developer > > system. but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to be doing > > a much (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of drivers > > than freebsd. > > > > i was forced to use the ftp server as my source of installation; negating > > the very purpose for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything that is > > in the power-pak can be had on the net). after installing the system from > > the net, it ran just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86 4.0, > > which then made my system inoperable. after that i was never able to get it > > to run again. quite some time later after all of this, i tried to create > > bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd. when i went to reboot my > > system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel on the > > floppies. you make sense of it. i created the disks using a commandline > > instruction within NT. the first disks that i made were done with linux. > > as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot revert to it to make the > > bootdisks for freebsd. so either i have a freebsd installation system which > > runs from NT without rebooting, or it's unusable. i mean let's get real. > > if linux can (and does) allow for it (linux) to be run on a windows (not NT) > > formatted disk, what the hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the same > > and better (as you so fraudulently claim). and don't tell me how poor of a > > solution the UMSDOS is. certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there is no > > excuse for there not being an even better system available from freebsd; and > > especially for NT. since NT is the highend of the windows system, it only > > makes sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SOLUTIONS > > for NT. i don't want to hear excuses. I WANT RESULTS! > > > > NT has something that the standard UFS does not have. it has an integrated > > compressed filesystem. with it, i have increased my storage space by no > > less than 35%. if you had the same feature, i would have 5GB's of > > effective space instead of only 3.7GB's available for freebsd. but at this > > point in time, i am not willing to install freebsd until the aforemention > > criteria are met. if someone knows of a single package that i can install > > on my existing NT platform, that will allow for the seemless operation of > > unix programs as though they were native windows applications, i for one > > would like to hear about it. i just went to the windows site and found > > something they call WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 2.0. i don't know how long it > > had been around or how good it is. i found it by simply typing `windowsnt > > unix' into my browsers address bar to get a search on those keywords. > > > > http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServicesforUN > > IX[759]/ProductOverview.asp > > > > i just found what may be the very thing i was asking for. after writing the > > above paragraph, i went back to the link above and did further reading. i > > came across something called INTERIX. so once again i did a net search and > > came up with a site that sells it. in reading, i found that it is now a MS > > unix-product. it seems to provide the unix components to windows NT class > > environments. i will do more reseach on this. and if i find it to be > > usable, i'll buy it. putting an end to any further questions about freebsd > > or any other variant of unix or linux. let's face it, MS is in a much > > better position to employ unix components such as freebsd than the reverse. > > you might as well look at the writing on the wall. the very openness that > > allows anyone to use freebsd and linux source code, allows MS to add it to > > their own systems without anyone having any right to complain about it. as > > long as MS uses an open source version of unix, they could do anything they > > want to integrate it into the existing windows environment. and all that > > any of you can do is sit back and wipe your eyes. WHIMPER WHIMPER WHIMPER!! > > you have basically written your own obituarary. because windows can freely > > integrate open source systems, but the same is not true of the open source > > community. hence there will ultimately be no justification for your > > existance. you will be relegated to the status of footnote; and frankly the > > sooner the better. the system that MS ultimately chooses for their > > integrated environment, will become the status quo. if you thought that > > windows was dominant before, wait until they put unix interoperability into > > the windows NT/2000 framework. your only choice is to set the lead, by > > beating MS to the punch. and that can only be done if you make freebsd and > > linux operate from within NT/2000 before MS does. because mock my word. it > > will happen. and you will be left out in the cold with the tears frozen to > > your face. ; ) > > > > ALL OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in the paragraphs BELOW IS NOW MOOT. I HAVE > > FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS I HAD ABOVE. INTERIX 2.2 the only thing > > that you will possibly have over MS is price. yes their prices are > > rediculous. but then, based on my experience with freebsd and linux, that > > old saying of `you get what you pay for', has never been more truthful. > > don't bother bitching about my remarks. as i have already seen that i am > > not the only one who has made them. i simply represent your best hope of > > survival. i am a windows user that tried linux and then freebsd. and i > > have done so at an expense that is completely unrecoverable. if you don't > > like my attitude, just remember that there are thousands of prospective > > users just like me who will be no more tolerable of your shortcomings than i > > have been. and your arrogance will be your destruction. something i will > > greatly revel in. you purported to be the final solution to my and > > everyoine else's problem with regards to internet computing systems. that's > > a lie. > > > > http://www.provantage.com/scripts/go.dll/-s/fp_47736 > > http://www.provantage.com/FC_MCSB.HTM > > > > quite frankly, if i find the means to compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome for NT, > > i would probably never look back to linux or freebsd. i have already found > > numerous unix components to run under windows. and once i have learned how > > to use all of them, that will probably settle once and for all the question > > of which system to use. ATT and others make various products which allow for > > the running of unix programs in a windows environment. i had some of them > > installed before i reinstalled NT and thereby erased those systems. i am > > now deciding which ones to reinstall. > > > > so the bottomline is this. when i am able to install freebsd from a running > > windows nt system without the use of bootdisks (which supply the means to > > create and write to UFS, then and only then will i be willing to use > > freebsd. i installed NT (six days) after becoming thoughroughly frustated > > with freebsd. i need to have a completely functional heterogenious > > operating environment. one which runs windows nt and freebsd on the same > > computer (preferably with only one filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED). if freebsd > > is not capable of being installed from a running NT-environment without > > having to be rebooted, that is an absolutely indisputable indicator that > > freebsd cannot operate cohesively within an NT-system. it's not up to > > microsoft to provide the means to read and write between NTFS and UFS > > without the question of damaging either system. freebsd is the alien, not > > MS. when freebsd generates the code that allows NT to write to UFS and UFS > > to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, then and only then will freebsd be a legitamate > > addition to my NT environment. until then, it's just crap! > > > > > > > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ > Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant, email for more information. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0012011829490.95319-100000>