James Carlson wrote: >> I am *so* sorry I upgrade to snv_98... > > I don't see how that relates to the previous poster's note about > snv_100.
I had snv_86 working quite well on two machines and I was very happy with it. Since upgrading those machines and installing snv_98 on another machine (the one that started this thread), I've found quite a few things that are worse than snv_86. When I point out the problems, they're all expected to be fixed in snv_100 or snv_101 or snv_102. I just feel like I upgraded too soon. > If you had a working *static* configuration at some point, and an > upgrade broke it No, that's not it. > As for the static network configuration logic, there's nobody working > on that, so it's static. And the GUI is broken. I just tried the GUI on another of my snv_98 machines and it seems to be working fine. At least, it finds the interface. So maybe it's something peculiar about the original machine or the interface on that machine that's causing the problem? You don't suppose it's confused because the interface name is 4 characters (iprb) instead of three (nge)? _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
