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.