Sweet. I withdraw my complaint.
Ian Collins wrote:
> Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>
>> This is a community project, right? Therefore, I should want to reply
>> to the
>> list by default. Do I want to bother the original sender with two
>> copies, one
>> through the list, and one direct?
>>
>>
>>
Dan Mick wrote:
> Not gonna fight this. See the many web refs. The way it is now, you
> easily
This is a logical fallacy is it not? Informally, some people call it bandwagon.
I won't bother to dig the Latin up out of google :-p
___
opensolaris-code m
Robert W. Fuller wrote:
This is a community project, right? Therefore, I should want to reply to the
list by default. Do I want to bother the original sender with two copies, one
through the list, and one direct?
It doesn't work that way, as you can see, you only get one copy.
Ian
__
Robert W. Fuller wrote:
This is a community project, right? Therefore, I should want to reply to the
list by default. Do I want to bother the original sender with two copies, one
through the list, and one direct?
Not gonna fight this. See the many web refs. The way it is now, you easily
hav
This is a community project, right? Therefore, I should want to reply to the
list by default. Do I want to bother the original sender with two copies, one
through the list, and one direct?
Thank you for the clarification on all these build numbers floating around.
Dan Mick wrote:
> You want to
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 01:11:04PM -0700, Jonathan Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:34:09AM -0700, Jonathan Adams wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:18:36AM -0700, J?rgen Keil wrote:
> > > I'm not 100% sure if it's still important to mark shared libraries
> > > with the execute bit with
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:43:02PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
> > >
> > > Plea
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:43:02PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
>
> Please take time out and think about what you're suggesting.
Keith -- when Joerg says OpenSolaris here, I think he's
Shawn Walker wrote:
The question then is whether or not there is any continued point in
setting the executable bit? I mean, why bother setting it if it's
unnecessary? On the chance that some ancient ye olde customer software
will break?
Not that it really matters, just curious :)
I trawled
Peter Memishian wrote:
> I've always wondered...why are shared libraries installed under *NIX
> operating systems with the executable bit set? They seem to work
> regardless of whether the bit is set or not. I'm sure there's
> something I'm missing, but after a few hours of searching I can't
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:34:09AM -0700, Jonathan Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:18:36AM -0700, J?rgen Keil wrote:
> > I'm not 100% sure if it's still important to mark shared libraries
> > with the execute bit with current Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris. It
> > seems the kernel is now usin
> "RWF" == Robert W Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RWF> This should have gone to the list. I'm annoyed that the reply-to
RWF> address is NOT the list, rather the individual who e-mailed the list.
I think the current arrangement makes sense, as it is biased towards an
assumption o
You want to reply to all, use "reply all". You want to reply to the
sender, use "reply". Couldn't be easier.
The current build is 21 because build 20 just stopped accepting fixes last
night (for the ON consolidation). There is a 2-week internal delay for
integration, testing, etc, and a bit
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:43:02PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
> >
> > Please take time out and think about what you're suggesting.
>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:18:36AM -0700, J?rgen Keil wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure if it's still important to mark shared libraries
> with the execute bit with current Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris. It
> seems the kernel is now using a vnode flag VVMEXEC to mark executable
> content, and this flag appea
This should have gone to the list. I'm annoyed that the reply-to address is NOT
the list, rather the individual who e-mailed the list.
--- Begin Message ---
Further adding to the confusion is the fact that the Nevada community page at
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/onnv/states that the curren
It seems that with SunOS 5.6 & 5.7 it was important to mark the shared
libraries with
the executable bit, so that the "priority paging" feature wasn't confused.
See the section "How do I enable priority paging?" here:
http://www.sun.com/sun-on-net/performance/priority_paging.html#enable
Quote
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 7/26/05, Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Speaking of those patches, output of version shows that 117837-03 and
117831-02 have been installed, but how can I check if 117846-05 is
installed as well? /opt/SUNWspro/bin/version doesn't show ba
On 7/26/05, Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>
> > Mike Kupfer is off today, but build 18 is now available via SDLC.
> > Other download options will follow. Here are the release notes:
>
> Speaking of those patches, output of version sh
On 7/26/05, Rod Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > The question then is whether or not there is any continued point in
> > setting the executable bit? I mean, why bother setting it if it's
> > unnecessary? On the chance that some ancient ye olde customer software
> > will
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
Mike Kupfer is off today, but build 18 is now available via SDLC.
Other download options will follow. Here are the release notes:
[snip]
If you already have the Studio 10 compiler installed, you can use
it, provided you have the following p
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Albertson, Brett wrote:
> The release notes say that Solaris Express Community Release 16 or
> higher is needed, but the download page at opensolaris.org states
> that Release 18 is needed. Which one is correct?
16 is minimum, 18 is currently available.
The release notes say that Solaris Express Community Release 16 or higher is
needed, but the download page at opensolaris.org states that Release 18 is
needed. Which one is correct?
Brett Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strategic Technologies voice: 919-379-8449 FAX: 919-379-8100
S
23 matches
Mail list logo
