From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 17:54:45 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA11710 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:54:45 -0800 Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA11703 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:54:43 -0800 Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00592; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:54:38 -0500 From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199511140154.UAA00592@crh.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:54:38 -0500 (EST) Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199511140146.SAA01144@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 13, 95 06:46:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 881 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > In summary, I think the VM folks are doing a good job, and posting like > 'Why didn't you do this, you had plenty of time' can sometimes come out > wrong when you are the receiving end. This is a fun project, and the > release folks are pretty stressed out right now. Wait until the release > is out before pointing fingers at over-worked folks. :) :) I agree, Again let me state my original intentions as to not be lynched when the VM crew gets back :) I was attempting to help them by pointing out a that a patch already existed that may help solve the problem. I bow at the feet of those people who can and do muck around in the kernel, I know I dont want to be touching ANYTHING down in VM land, I know what irate users are like :) -Crh Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/