On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> Hello
>
> From the SUN ZFS Administration Guide:
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gaztn?a=view
>
> "If ZFS is currently managing the file system but it is currently
> unmounted, and the mountpoint property is changed, the file system
Hello
>From the SUN ZFS Administration Guide:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gaztn?a=view
"If ZFS is currently managing the file system but it is currently
unmounted, and the mountpoint property is changed, the file system
remains unmounted."
This does not seem to be the case in FreeB
Hi questioners,
I wanted to test ZFS support for a 10-disk RAID-Z2 pool I have under
FreeBSD 8, as I found Solaris 11 too unstable for my needs.
One disk in the pool is faulted, and is physically not connected to
the machine at the moment. The remaining 9 (plus one slog device) are
attached, and
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:04:33 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> They don't just dumps out potential readers that don't use "the only
> right" OS and browser.
>
> They too - dumps out all disabled people, most importantly blind.
>
> It's not a problem for a blind to read plain text on comput
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:23:31 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all
> without flash most often doesn't have any usable information.
There are web pages that, without "Flash", won't even let you know
if you're on the correct page
do stupid things
I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one
to view many sites ISN'T within the moral
stupid things
I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like
the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the
tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this
propretary product / format.
Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD,
foun
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
> >> but what would the compatibility be between
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
They DO NOT DICTATE ANYTHING. It's quite free market here, you can use
they product or not. I don't use, mostly because it doesn't run on an OS
that i use.
___
freebsd-q
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
>> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
>> Solaris?
>>
>> Why I ask is Adobe have rele
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
>
> If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product.
> They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:12 +0100, Andreas Xanke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
> > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> > don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
> >
> > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
>
> If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product.
> They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat type
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:46:17 +1000
Da Rock wrote:
> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and
> I'm wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types.
> I tried running it straight out, but I'm getting errors of a missing
>
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat type
Claus Guttesen wrote:
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:
nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mnt
> > we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
> > It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
> > We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
> > We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
> > This is our mount:
> >
> >
Valerio Daelli wrote:
Hi list
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:
nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7
Hi list
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:
nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mnt/nest.xx.xx nfs
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:21:21PM +, Christian Walther wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2007 15:31:38 Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> > Harley Race <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I have been playing around with Solaris 10 and was thinking about
> > > testing mail
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 15:31:38 Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> Harley Race <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have been playing around with Solaris 10 and was thinking about
> > testing mail services in a zone. What I would like to know from any
> > of the MD/Solaris us
Harley Race <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been playing around with Solaris 10 and was thinking about
> testing mail services in a zone. What I would like to know from any
> of the MD/Solaris users is whether you used Sun tools to compile MD
> or did you use the ancient v
7;s are the same.
Quick check: -o rw (without the spark) ; "svcadm restart net/nfs" on the
solaris box and check.
> In fact I can't even cd into /mnt/share as root on FreeBSD.
That's normal. I can't on solaris too. Root has no access and that's a
good thing. If you wan
>
> Doesn't solaris use UFS filesystems? I think plain old mount shoud do
> the trick.
No, mounting without the -t option gives and incorrect super block error
message.
If no other tips come, im afraid i have to reconfigure my kernel then.
Thanks
>
> You might wan
On 10 Apr Roland Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:09:51AM +0800, Tun Eler wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > i have to mount a Solaris HD on my FBSD 6.2 machine in order
> > to extract some data. It is recognized at boot time as
> > mount -t ext2fs /dev/ad1
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:09:51AM +0800, Tun Eler wrote:
> Hi all,
> i have to mount a Solaris HD on my FBSD 6.2 machine in order
> to extract some data. It is recognized at boot time as
>
> ad1: 76319MB at ata0-slave UDMA66
>
> I tried
>
> mount -t ext2fs /de
Hi all,
i have to mount a Solaris HD on my FBSD 6.2 machine in order
to extract some data. It is recognized at boot time as
ad1: 76319MB at ata0-slave UDMA66
I tried
mount -t ext2fs /dev/ad1 /mnt
and got the answer:
mount_ext2fs: /dev/ad1: Invalid argument
The only device for the disk is
--- White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, the lack of documentation is a shame.
> >
> > In Windows, yes. In FreeBSD I can't see a lack.
>
> You are kidding right. I can find vastly more
> documentation available for a win32 machine than for
> FBSD. In fact, the lact of documentat
White Hat wrote:
> --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> I have
>>> tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
>> is
>>> just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
>> even
>>> close.
>>
>> True, but also compare the c
--- White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have
> > > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says,
> it
> > is
> > > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is
> not
> > eve
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is a totally unqualified evaluation.
No it's not. It's in response to YOUR comment that "A very large majority of
users simply want to use their PCs for email, occasional word processing and
possible game playing". And OpenOffice fits th
On 06 Sep P.U.Kruppa wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> >I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
> >studying this OS.
> >Hope to get some advice and reading points. I have years of experience
> >with linux and FreeBSD
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Freminlin
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 06/
"P.U.Kruppa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
>> I have a 3-part disk:
>> (a) XP for games
>> (b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
>> (c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
>>
>> I want to replace the third partition
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will it install solaris on this
third partition
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature
> is
> > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
> > work, what good is it?
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have
> > >
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature
> is
> > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
> > work, what good is it?
>
> It depends what you are using it for. You made a
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Immaterial. the singularly most important feature is
suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
work, what good is it?
It depends what you are using it for. You made a comment about "occaisonal
word processing" (pasted below). For suc
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have
> > > > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says,
> it
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have
> > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
> is
> > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
> even
> > close.
>
On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:41 AM, White Hat wrote:
Most of these can be far more easily done on a WinXP
machine then anything now available in the *nix
family.
OS X will do it as easily or more easily for the average person than
WinXP. OS X is a unix based OS.
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have
> > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
> is
> > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
> even
> > close.
>
>
> True, but also compare the cost. Not even close
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have
tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it is
just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not even
close.
True, but also compare the cost. Not even close...
He/she does
not want to read tons of manuals and spend hours in a
f
ho did that
and it did not work. Nothing always works. Usually
though the problem can be attributed to 'PEBKC'.
> Solaris is cool if it will run, FreeBSD will run if
> Solaris won't; lets band together and destroy
> Micrsoft... :)
Please, I just had a friend laid of from Intel. The
la
;ANYTHING" I always found
> > it troubling that SUN Microsystems, with all it's
> resources, could
> > not, at the least, make their x86 OS (think
> Solaris-10) install with
> > support, for lets say, what FreeBSD had for 4.2?
> >
> > I mean, all
coders can
> > produce an OS that will install on damm near "ANYTHING" I always found
> > it troubling that SUN Microsystems, with all it's resources, could
> > not, at the least, make their x86 OS (think Solaris-10) install with
> > support, for lets say, what Fr
7;s resources, could
> not, at the least, make their x86 OS (think Solaris-10) install with
> support, for lets say, what FreeBSD had for 4.2?
>
> I mean, all the drivers are available, wouldn't one think that they
> could at least support what FreeBSD supports in terms of numbe
will
> admit I installed without really looking at the
> hardware compatability list... That being said
> ususally the boot loader will not load Solaris for me.
> The funny thing is when I had it on a machine with
> windows it would boot windows, just not Solaris.
>
I was just think
--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 2006-09-04 15:52, backyard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would recommend the second drive option.
>
> Me too. Not for the same reasons though.
>
> > I have attempted installing Solaris 10 on m
On 2006-09-04 15:52, backyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would recommend the second drive option.
Me too. Not for the same reasons though.
> I have attempted installing Solaris 10 on multiple computers and all
> if ever seems to do is corrupt the drive on me. Once I got it t
On 2006-09-04 08:41, Bill-S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Matthew Seaman composed:
>> Back in the Solaris 8 days, the trick was to use fdisk to create a primary
>> partition and mark it as type 'Linux Swap' after which Solaris wou
On 2006-09-04 16:57, dick hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
> > I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
>
> I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
> t
--- Bill-S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Chad Leigh --
> Shire.Net LLC composed:
>
> >
> > On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> >
> > > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> > >
>
At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC composed:
>
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
> > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
> >
On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
table. That's the reason I ask. I know that I
At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Matthew Seaman composed:
> dick hoogendijk wrote:
> > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> >
> >> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
> >
> > I remember one of the FBSD's
dick hoogendijk wrote:
> On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
>> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
>
> I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
> table. That's the reason I ask. I know th
On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
table. That's the reason I ask. I know that I don't have to use the main
option (that&#x
On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:20 PM, P.U.Kruppa wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will it install solaris on this
third partition
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will it install solaris on this
third partition without trouble? Will I be able to continue to use
freebsd 6.1 solaris9
questions on the freebsd side:( internal machine running no firewall)
- soalris 9 is the yp server, and two ypslaves are also on solaris 9
built a freebsd 6.1 and i am running into some problems
***
when i initiate
>-Original Message-
>From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:56 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Free BSD Questions list; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
>
>
>On
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Indeed. But this is not Solaris 10 - thats when all of this
changed.
I never understood why anyone would go to Solaris 10 unless they
had a
64 bit processor and compiled all their
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
>Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
>Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:01 AM
>To: Free BSD Questions list
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
&g
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of P.U.Kruppa
>Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:13 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Victor Watkins; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; J.D. Bronson
>Subject: RE: Sol
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Indeed. But this is not Solaris 10 - thats when all of this changed.
I never understood why anyone would go to Solaris 10 unless they had a
64 bit processor and compiled all their apps under a 64 bit compiler.
Sun
didn't either, whi
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: J.D. Bronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:00 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Victor Watkins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Solaris patches and Solaris
>-Original Message-
>From: J.D. Bronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:00 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Victor Watkins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: RE: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
>
>
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 AM, J.D. Bronson wrote:
At 03:52 AM 11/17/2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hmmm,
We run a lot of Solaris 8 and FreeBSD. I find Solaris 8 pretty
much the same speed as FreeBSD for what we do. However, one thing
is that we do not run X-windows on either our Solaris 8
At 03:52 AM 11/17/2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hmmm,
We run a lot of Solaris 8 and FreeBSD. I find Solaris 8 pretty
much the same speed as FreeBSD for what we do. However, one thing
is that we do not run X-windows on either our Solaris 8 or FreeBSD
systems, because they are servers and
Hmmm,
We run a lot of Solaris 8 and FreeBSD. I find Solaris 8 pretty
much the same speed as FreeBSD for what we do. However, one thing
is that we do not run X-windows on either our Solaris 8 or FreeBSD
systems, because they are servers and there is no need for it.
I've generally not
At 11:29 AM 11/16/2005, Lee Capps wrote:
At 18:46 Tue 15 Nov 2005, J.D. Bronson wrote:
> I still run 1 solaris machine and thats a sparc running 9.0 ...as
> soon as the machine dies or the OS is no longer supported, the
> machine will find a nice resting spot in some city dump (or
At 18:46 Tue 15 Nov 2005, J.D. Bronson wrote:
> I still run 1 solaris machine and thats a sparc running 9.0 ...as
> soon as the machine dies or the OS is no longer supported, the
> machine will find a nice resting spot in some city dump (or recycler)
>
Not to start a holy war
o rather than there being a problem with the
Update Manager connecting, etc.
No longer personally worried about it though..I nuked my Solaris install
and have a nice, shiny new FreeBSD 6.0 kit now, and I gotta say, after
Solaris 5.10 x86, the speed difference alone is breathtaking.
Ironically, I
e
Update Manager connecting, etc.
No longer personally worried about it though..I nuked my Solaris install
and have a nice, shiny new FreeBSD 6.0 kit now, and I gotta say, after
Solaris 5.10 x86, the speed difference alone is breathtaking.
___
freebsd-q
Hi!
I would like to print from a Solaris 10 workstation
(192.168.10.3) to my FreeBSD server (192.168.10.1). My idea
was to use Cups and ipp protocol on both
machines since I have already got Cups up and running on my
FreeBSD machine.
Cups on Solaris seems to be up to (I can access
http
work flawlessly on
FreeBSD/i386 6.0-BETA5.
My roadmap is to build world and kernel
on both Linuxes (with other gcc versions)
and then to try and do it all on Solaris 10,
sparc64.
Wish me luck :-)
Cheerz,
Andrew P.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Micah wrote:
Andrew P. wrote:
We've got some mostly idle, but powerful sparc64
servers running Solaris 9/10, as well as a host of
Linux servers (x86 and x86_64). Of course, all the
real work is done on a pack of FreeBSD boxes :-)
Some days ago I started
In the last episode (Oct 10), Garrett Cooper said:
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Andrew P. wrote:
> > We've got some mostly idle, but powerful sparc64 servers running
> > Solaris 9/10, as well as a host of Linux servers (x86 and x86_64).
> > Of course, all the real
Andrew P. wrote:
We've got some mostly idle, but powerful sparc64
servers running Solaris 9/10, as well as a host of
Linux servers (x86 and x86_64). Of course, all the
real work is done on a pack of FreeBSD boxes :-)
Some days ago I started using ccache and distcc,
and I really love these
On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Andrew P. wrote:
We've got some mostly idle, but powerful sparc64
servers running Solaris 9/10, as well as a host of
Linux servers (x86 and x86_64). Of course, all the
real work is done on a pack of FreeBSD boxes :-)
Some days ago I started using ccache and d
We've got some mostly idle, but powerful sparc64
servers running Solaris 9/10, as well as a host of
Linux servers (x86 and x86_64). Of course, all the
real work is done on a pack of FreeBSD boxes :-)
Some days ago I started using ccache and distcc,
and I really love these tools. Now I want t
On 07/13/05 02:34 PM, Lowell Gilbert sat at the `puter and typed:
> Louis LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 07/13/05 12:34 PM, Kelly D. Grills sat at the `puter and typed:
>
> > > See FAQ 12.12 and section 23.3.5 of the handbook.
> > > The -r=1024 parameter solved my problems.
> >
> >
Louis LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 07/13/05 12:34 PM, Kelly D. Grills sat at the `puter and typed:
> > See FAQ 12.12 and section 23.3.5 of the handbook.
> > The -r=1024 parameter solved my problems.
>
> The FAQ. Darnit, I knew I was forgetting something.
>
> That seems to have fixe
On 07/13/05 12:34 PM, Kelly D. Grills sat at the `puter and typed:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:33:15AM -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> >
> > I know this has been asked before, but I can't find the answer through
> > searches. I don't remember if this was a FreeBSD
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:33:15AM -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
>
> I know this has been asked before, but I can't find the answer through
> searches. I don't remember if this was a FreeBSD or a Solaris related
> issue, either, so I'm sorry of I'm getting too far
I know this has been asked before, but I can't find the answer through
searches. I don't remember if this was a FreeBSD or a Solaris related
issue, either, so I'm sorry of I'm getting too far OT.
I'm trying to mount an NFS share from a Solaris 10 (x86) system to a
FreeBS
called slices in FreeBSD terminology) on Sparc systems
(which the Ultra 10 is). And, as Lowell mentioned, there is the endian issue.
> > All the ones I tried wouldn't work. FreeBSD does recognize there is a
> > disk there.
Good the disk works.
> > Of course, I can't
e Sun).
>
> Is there an fstype to mount the disk? Or even a way to see the
> partition table?
>
> All the ones I tried wouldn't work. FreeBSD does recognize there is a
> disk there.
>
> Of course, I can't be sure it's Solaris---previous owner might have
&g
All the ones I tried wouldn't work. FreeBSD does recognize there is a
disk there.
Of course, I can't be sure it's Solaris---previous owner might have
been into Linux/BSD/whatever.
--
Wes Groleau[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EDI TechnicianPhone: 260-3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
By going email reading, I just tripped over the add of Sun-Solaris mail:
Dose it means that we may can expect that the Linux and all the BSD
community together with SUN, will grow far more together to build an
even saver and bigger competition
Thanks Julien.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mike Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Apr 28, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD NIS client and Solaris NIS server problem...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cool, those additional nis_client_flags did the trick, much appreciated :)
Mike
Hello,
> I'm having a bit of trouble getting my FreeBSD workstation ( 5.4
> PRERELEASE ) binding to our Solaris 8 NIS server. I do not get any
> warnings or errors when ypbind starts up, but if I do a 'rpcinfo
> localhost', it takes a very long time to come back with an
Hello,
I'm having a bit of trouble getting my FreeBSD workstation ( 5.4
PRERELEASE ) binding to our Solaris 8 NIS server. I do not get any
warnings or errors when ypbind starts up, but if I do a 'rpcinfo
localhost', it takes a very long time to come back with anything(stays
in a
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041015 12:11] wrote:
> > In the meantime, I came up with the following bit of awk to translate
> > the table syntax, for my fairly simple case:
> >
> > match($2,"/[^/]*$") {
> > print substr($2, RSTART+
* Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041015 12:11] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041014 08:55] wrote:
> > > Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, there is this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
