Jürgen Keil wrote:
> Sriram Natarajan wrote:
>
>
>> I was successfully working with OpenSolaris 2008.11 (upgraded from
>> 008.05) on my Ultra-40 workstation for quite some time now. Not sure,
>> what caused it - but my system is unable to boot successfully since last
>> week end. Long story
Hi,
Not sure really if this is the right list to ask this but i just
upgraded to snv_106 and everything seemed at first to work just fine.
For example the wireless that I had such problems with before.
However i noticed a rather severe degradation in what seems to be Java
IO performance. I have t
* W. Wayne Liauh (w...@hawaiilinux.us) wrote:
> > some of this is the impact we've had internally with
> > resourcing which
> > Vincent mentioned
> >
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-anno
> > unce/2009-February/002031.html
> >
>
> ". . . be assured that we are fully commit
> some of this is the impact we've had internally with
> resourcing which
> Vincent mentioned
>
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-anno
> unce/2009-February/002031.html
>
". . . be assured that we are fully committed to
the success of the OpenSolaris program. . ."
Wow, "assur
>Hi,
>
>i'm not sure if it is really necessary to have all the GNU tools
>preferred over Solaris tools. The most user expect GNU behaviour of tar
>(-z, -j), grep (-r), find (-iname, . as default path) and may be some
>other tools. But for ls, chmod and df (zfs) i assume the most GNU
>familiar user
Arne:
In Nevada 104, there was a problem with e1000g.
6779610 - e1000g fails to attach post-6713032 due to memory allocation
failures on some chipsets
Fix was integrated into snv_106. I am not sure whether the fix is in
Opensolaris 105 or 106.
Arne Schwabe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in Opensolaris
>
> Detlef:
>
> I ran into the same problem a while back. I
> understand that is a known
> problem with Thunderbird, caused by a bug introduced
> by the upgrade to
> the new Sun Studio 12 comnpiler. I believe this was
> fixed in build 106.
I ran into the same issue with build 105, and just did
On 9/02/2009, at 11:32 PM, Luca Morettoni wrote:
> On 02/09/09 11:23, Glynn Foster wrote:
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/2009-February/003882.html
>
> thanks Glynn, I'll missed it :)
>
>> (btw, 6 months from .11 brings us to .5, which is when I'm hopeful
>> we'll have
On 02/09/09 11:23, Glynn Foster wrote:
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/2009-February/003882.html
>
thanks Glynn, I'll missed it :)
> (btw, 6 months from .11 brings us to .5, which is when I'm hopeful we'll
> have the ISO on the download servers :)
but .04 is correct i
On 9/02/2009, at 10:46 PM, Luca Morettoni wrote:
> Few month ago we talk about OpenSolaris next release, called 2009.04
> (adding 6 month to 2008.11) but now I see the ISO names and post
> talking
> about 2009.06... I missend some thread or post about new name?
Dan mentioned it earlier this mo
Few month ago we talk about OpenSolaris next release, called 2009.04
(adding 6 month to 2008.11) but now I see the ISO names and post talking
about 2009.06... I missend some thread or post about new name?
--
Luca Morettoni
Web and BLOG @ http://www.morettoni.net/ | OpenSolaris SCA #OS0344
jugUm
Hi Vinz,
vinz meier wrote:
> hello Shawn
>
> i did not write the reason why i do need to do this:
> as we need to install alot of workstations using AI each week for education
> purposes, it is alot more efficient to have a local mirror including the
> metadata.
> installing a workstation with
12 matches
Mail list logo
