I think most people on this mailing list are smart enough to figure this
out, but for those of you that are not, let me just expound on the concept
of free will.

Free will to most of you is something that is taken for granted.  We just
carry on our daily activities under the assumption that we are master of ou=
r
own destiny.   We know that we are free to make choices.  We also know that
there will be people who will disagree with our choices.   That's just the
nature of the beast.   As sentient beings, we are able to exercise whatever
control over our fates and destinies as is permissable by law.

Some of us are bound to laws greater than that imposed by our respective
legislators, while others subscribe to a much more base common denominator.
Basically, unless the law specifically forbids me from doing or saying
something, I am free to say and do as I please.   All of my posts in this
mailing list, as are yours, are formed and offered based on this lowest
common denominator:  If I'm not specifically forbidden to broach a
particular subject, or to offer a particular opinion or perspective, I am
free to do so.  And well within my right as a free thinking person.

I know that in the past I have delighted in offering my opinions, and I wil=
l
continue to do so, and that I have received some rather condescending
remarks and looks for having done so, but it is important to note that my
opinions are just that: Opinions!   I'm sure that no one in this mailing
list feels compelled to do as I say.  I must admit, I would be very tempted
to give you a big old slap across the face were you to conduct yourself
according to the perceived edict of my very formed opinions.

So when I say, "go with the softfloat build," for example, I'm offering a
suggestion based on personal experience.  In essence, I am offering the
opinion of one man.  Sometimes my suggestions will not have been formed fro=
m
my own experiences or opinions, but from what I have heard or read from
another person.  Regardless, the fact remains that you, as a free thinking
person, are free to say and do as you damn well please -- within the
confines of the law, of course.

I don't think that I really needed to mention this to the people in this
mailing list, as I am quite aware that you folks are smart enough to know
that your circumstances may be entirely different from that of myself or
another.   I have every confidence that you are sufficiently able to
determine your own best course of action.

That having been said, I do hope that everyone here is enjoying the new yea=
r
and that you're able to reap all of the rewards that 2006 may offer you.
Good luck and may the good fortunes of the NetBSD operating system serve yo=
u
well in your day to day computing endeavours.

Regards,
=20

> From: William Duke <wduke@cogeco.ca>
> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:51:42 -0500
> To: Raw Power <rawpower@tele2.be>, <port-mac68k@NetBSD.ORG>
> Subject: Re: booting ... "no init", no "init.bak" ???
>=20
> I have had no problems running NetBSD 2.1 and earlier on my LCIII.   I ha=
ve
> used the traditional method in all instances and have met with success ev=
ery
> single time.   I did try an install of the pre-release 3.0 and had some
> problems, although I haven't tried 3.0 since it was officially released. =
 Nor
> have I tried any of the RC releases.
>=20
> On the 68k Macintosh, I never use anything other than the traditional met=
hod.
> If you don't have an FPU installed in your LCIII, go with the softfloat b=
uild.
>=20
> And I haven't experienced any of the ADB problems that you refer to.  To =
the
> best of my knowledge, it is the machines with the IOP's that have the ADB
> problems. i.e IIfx, 950, etc.  Of course, I could be wrong about this.  I=
'm
> just talking from my own personal experience.
>=20
>=20
>> From: Raw Power <rawpower@tele2.be>
>> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:44:52 +0100
>> To: port-mac68k@NetBSD.ORG
>> Subject: Re: booting ... "no init", no "init.bak" ???
>>=20
>> Did somebody write a manual so that you can install 3.0 ??
>>=20
>> If I do it the old way, will it work ????
>> with installer, etc ???
>> I then take the kernels that are in the "sets" dir, and it should boot
>> ???
>>=20
>> The problem I also see on a LC III: it sometimes doesn't get past adb
>> ...  was an err I saw in 1995 too (on a colour classic).
>>=20
>>=20
>> Marc
>>=20
>>=20
>> Op 8-jan-06 om 12:50 heeft Marco Trillo het volgende geschreven:
>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> It depends on your disklabel, but it is normally:
>>>=20
>>> /dev/sd0a --> root (/)
>>> /dev/sd0b --> swap
>>> /dev/sd0g --> user (/usr)
>>>=20
>>> Are you using the 3.0 release?
>>> Its sysinst-based installer is currently broken. As an example, it
>>> does not write a valid /etc/fstab file.
>>>=20
>>> I recommend booting the INSTALL kernel, opening a shell, and writing a
>>> valid /etc/fstab.
>>>=20
>>> # Mount the root device
>>> $ mount /dev/sd0a /mnt && cd /mnt
>>> $ cat > etc/fstab
>>> # fstab example for the above scheme
>>> /dev/sd0a / ffs rw 1 1
>>> /dev/sd0b none swap sw 0 0
>>> /dev/sd0g /usr ffs rw 1 2
>>> ^D
>>> $ cd /
>>> $ umount /mnt
>>> $ exit
>>>=20
>>> Of course you should write a fstab according to your disk.
>>> I.e.; if you have a partition /dev/sd0e which should be mounted in
>>> /home,
>>>=20
>>> /dev/sd0e /home ffs rw 1 2
>>>=20
>>> If you don`t remeber the mount points of each partition, you can use
>>> the "Install NetBSD to hard disk" to see the partition table and then
>>> abort the installation.
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Marco.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Jan 8, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Raw Power wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> the root&usr is on the fifth partition.
>>>>=20
>>>> =CCS
>>>> that  /dev/sda5  or /dev/sd0e   ??
>>>>=20
>>>> The booting process reads & execs kernel, then
>>>> says
>>>> booting from /dev/sd0a, swap on /dv/sd0b   ...
>>>>=20
>>>> Marc
>>>=20
>>=20