From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Nu3qF-0003Bz-9q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:08:19 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41012 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nu3qE-0003BY-UP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:08:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <revol@free.fr>) id 1Nu3qE-0005Q9-07
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:08:18 -0400
Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.2]:41364)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <revol@free.fr>) id 1Nu3qD-0005Px-Ai
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:08:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <E661E07D-0150-4FFC-829A-0C54C14C4DE9@claunia.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] BeOS R5 boot failure
From: "=?utf-8?q?Fran=C3=A7ois?= Revol" <revol@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:08:09 +0100 CET
Message-Id: <825397994-BeMail@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Natalia Portillo <claunia@claunia.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> It's a known bug but nobody knows or has time to apply a solution.
> 
> Bochs had the same bug and corrected it about November 2009, maybe  
> checking their commit will make light to correct QEMU.

Ok, I might have a look at it, thanks.

> > It seems VirtualBox has the same issue. Older versions (ZETA) seem 
> > to
> > work fine, but they have a totally different IDE subsystem.
> 
> VirtualPC had the same fail also.
> Zeta however is not an older version but a newer one.

Yes I messed up, I meant newer of course.

> Considering Zeta is a non-authorized hack, who knows what have they  
> changed.

I do, I worked at yellowTAB for a while. :p

ZETA switched to a customized version of the "IDE Replacement" stack 
from Thomas Kurschel at some point:
http://bebits.com/app/2625


This whole FUD about ZETA not being legal has nothing to do in here. 
Besides, if PalmSource/Palm/ACCESS loose documents in their cupboards 
it's not my fault.


Fran=C3=A7ois.