Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:44:04 +0200
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
Cc:        freebsd-emulation <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: What is the recommended LinuxEmulator and kernel that will run skype-devel and maybe Flash9
Message-ID:  <20080316144404.GP10374@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20080316140618.1532db62@deskjail>
References:  <20080315080424.13561oymhrersh8g@intranet.encontacto.net> <62449124@ipt.ru> <20080315135046.50957aqphwntgv40@intranet.encontacto.net> <40994934@ipt.ru> <20080316095023.4a64aecd@deskjail> <20080316102336.GA44640@freebsd.org> <20080316140618.1532db62@deskjail>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 02:06:18PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> (Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:23:36 +0100):
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:50:23AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:24:25 +0300):
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:50:46 -0500 eculp wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I had already set the kernel to 2.4.20 and though that there might be
> > > > > an advantage to go to f7 and a 2.6.?? kernel.  UPDATING doesn't give
> > > > > me that info.  If there is major advantage, like flash9, the new skype
> > > > > with video, etc. I will think about it it bit more.
> > > > 
> > > > Can't say anything about 2.4.20. Only 2.4.2 (the default one) and
> > > > 2.6.16 (with is intended to become a default in the future) are
> > > > tested. Use any other values at your risk.
> > > 
> > > 2.4.20 expects the NPTL in the kernel, but our kernel only activates
> > 
> > I seriously doubt that... NPTL is 2.6 stuff
> 
> Wasn't 2.4.20 the backport of the NPTL stuff from RedHat? Or do I mix
I believe so.

> this with futexes or something else?

Futexes are prerequisites for the NPTL, at least so it seems for the
casual observer.

[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkfdMjMACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hTuwCdGLU/MyQ9Ov5+fsHSzLgo3MvE
b+8An3DF31+1Yw/Rbg/Qh0QG75U9kNAO
=tzEy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080316144404.GP10374>