Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!pandora.pix.com!stripes
From: stripes@pix.com (Josh Osborne)
Subject: Re: [Xfree86 on 386BSD] xtank ported yet?
Message-ID: <Bw506u.MC8@pix.com>
Sender: news@pix.com (The News Subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: pandora.pix.com
Organization: Pix Technologies -- The company with no adult supervision
References: <1992Oct14.105519.1@max.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:32:53 GMT
Lines: 19
In article <1992Oct14.105519.1@max.u.washington.edu> anything@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>Has anyone ported Xtank to XFree86/386BSD yet?
Yes, I pestered Kurt (lidl@pix.com/uunet.uu.net) until he got out the offending
code (the thread stuff, very hard to write portable threading code...), he
forced me to explain how longjmp.s did it's majic, I fumbled, and Dave Hsu
recovered for me.
The 1.3d release of xtank runs just fine on a *fast* 386BSD box. Consult
archie for the closest ftp site or try azathoth.sura.net. No, it doesn't
(yet) take advantage of the sound blaster driver, but it will (what else
would we have ported the driver code (from the BSDI version, which cane from
the Mach driver)?).
--
stripes@pix.com "Security for Unix is like
Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Multitasking for MS-DOS"
"The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on
when it's necessary to compromise. - Larry Wall