Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!arlut.utexas.edu!arlut.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: pug@arlut.utexas.edu (Richard P. Bainter) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: NetBSD 0.9 woes (or would I rather go back to DOS?) Date: 20 Jul 1994 08:33:10 -0500 Organization: Applied Research Laboratories : The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 48 Message-ID: <30j92m$oq@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu> References: <30h5m6$42v@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu> <michaelv.774688059@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu In article <michaelv.774688059@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@iastate.edu> wrote: >> I finally get my kernel, and I still can't get wt0 to work. What is >> the magical incantation to get a Conner 250 working? I've read the FAQ >> repeatedly, but can't figure it out. >I'm not sure what you're asking... What I am wanting to know is the steps to get a Conner 250 meg tape drive working. It should be wt0, but when I add the kernel information for what I *think* it is, it still tells me that the device is not configured. So I'm looking for someone who has one, and what sequences they went through to get it to work. >> I'd love to be able to use UN*X at home, but this is getting rediculous. >> It took me forever to get SL/IP working because the FAQ says you can >> background the tip job. This didn't work for me and silly me didn't >> just do the AT&D0 until recently. >Unix com port semantics are a very different beast from DOS. It's >definitely true that it's more complex. Well my only problem is the fact that the FAQ told me to do something that definately didn't work. After I did the AT&D0 to disable DTR drop, and exited tip with ~. instead of backgrounding it, everything worked. >> Thanks for any bits of sanity before I put DOS back on the partition. >Actually, trying to install current at this point is not only an >exercise in masochism and insanity since the code/makefiles/etc. are >just too different to even compile on 0.9 anymore, but it's really a >wasted effort since the true 1.0 release is expected to be announced >by the end of July. So, if you are patient for just a couple more >weeks, you'll probably be able to do a complete canned install with >true 1.0 binaries, and you won't have to worry about building all the >new source. The wait will definitely be worth it -- I don't encourage >you beating your head against the wall with 1.0 sources on a 0.9 >system at this point. Well this is encouraging. I guess jumping in the game late is not a good idea. Will I be able to just download the base10 files (etc) and do the sequence to expand them, or will I have to go back to step one and use the boot disk? Ciao, -- Richard Bainter Mundanely | System Analyst - OMG/CSD Pug Generally | Applied Research Labs - U.Texas pug@arlut.utexas.edu | pug@bga.com Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.