On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:40 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Just had a look, its a nice player, would even be nice with portable
> player support, and a good music library facility.
Sure, and Mac OSX, Linux, Windows, *BSD, and a host of other sys
On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:27 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> The sad part, these people think from quarter to quarter, where as I
> prefer looking 5 years time; where are the products, where is the
> marketing heading, and are we going to meet thos
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:40 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Just had a look, its a nice player, would even be nice with portable
> player support, and a good music library facility.
Sure, and Mac OSX, Linux, Windows, *BSD, and a host of other systems would be
nice if they had DTrace, ZFS, Zones, S
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
>
>
> So unfortunately I've migrated back to FreeBSD (again) - I would
> really love to run Solaris x86, but when everything I try to compile
> turns to shyte, one really has to ask whether the maintainers of the
> source are deliberately making sure their software can't com
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:33 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Well, all things being considered, this mailing list is nothing more
> than a glorified parlour game of people throwing their 5 cents worth
> in, and venting their frustration.
Well, we can give you a few dollars back for the worth you've
On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:24 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Not to sound negative, but isn't the port of RealPlayer 10 to Solaris
> x86 and SPARC more a demonstration of Real opensourcing its client,
> and SUN picking up the ball and running with
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:27 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> The sad part, these people think from quarter to quarter, where as I
> prefer looking 5 years time; where are the products, where is the
> marketing heading, and are we going to meet those market changes?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you
On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:26 pm, Rich Teer wrote:
> Didn't Sun's Johnny Loiacino (sp?) recently join Adobe? Perhaps some
> Sun management types can persuade their old work collegue to do the
> right thing?
Do you give Sun that much credit? I mea
On Saturday 27 May 2006 11:24 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Not to sound negative, but isn't the port of RealPlayer 10 to Solaris
> x86 and SPARC more a demonstration of Real opensourcing its client,
> and SUN picking up the ball and running with it?
Not as far as I can tell, and this seems to impl
On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:47 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobe
> both. I don't understand their behavior.
Well, do you know that Mac almost lost support for AcroRead just prior t
On 5/28/06, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:27 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> We need to seriously go over to the doors of Adobe and get them to play
> ball. Heck, if we have to we simply tell them to hand over the code to an
> ISV and get it ported. Then we hand it
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:47 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobe
> both. I don't understand their behavior.
Well, do you know that Mac almost lost support for AcroRead just prior to
Apple's resurgance back to life? The beancounters
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:26 pm, Rich Teer wrote:
> Didn't Sun's Johnny Loiacino (sp?) recently join Adobe? Perhaps some
> Sun management types can persuade their old work collegue to do the
> right thing?
Do you give Sun that much credit? I mean, folks typically act as if they could
do better gi
On 5/28/06, Ché Kristo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"SUN releasing a stripped
down video card based on the Majc processor for PC's with PCI express
buses, throw 128-256MB on the card, and sell it at a reasonable price"
I do wish this was a possibility, we really havent been left with much of an
ot
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:27 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> We need to seriously go over to the doors of Adobe and get them to play
> ball. Heck, if we have to we simply tell them to hand over the code to an
> ISV and get it ported. Then we hand it back and life goes on. How tough
> can it be?!?
Thi
"SUN releasing a stripped
down video card based on the Majc processor for PC's with PCI express
buses, throw 128-256MB on the card, and sell it at a reasonable price"
I do wish this was a possibility, we really havent been left with much of an
otion in the graphics market. In reality all we can c
On 5/28/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then the alternative is for SUN to get 10 engineers, and get them to
> work on an existing opensource project to bring it up to standard or
> create an in house version based off licenci
On 5/28/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then the alternative is for SUN to get 10 engineers, and get them to
> work on an existing opensource project to bring it up to standard or
> create an in house version based off licenci
> On 5/28/06, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then the alternative is for SUN to get 10 engineers, and get them to
> work on an existing opensource project to bring it up to standard or
> create an in house version based off licencing specifications.
>
> Either that, or launch a spear c
> bahahaha
>
> Im reviewing changes to vgatext since my hacks, and was amused to find the
> following:
>
> if (happyface_boot == 0)
Man I gotta know ... what's with that ?!?!? :-)
boot - :-)
--
Dennis Clarke
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
On 5/28/06, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 28, 2006, at 02:45, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> >> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to
>> have more up
>> >> to
>> >> date softwar
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
On 5/27/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have
>> more up to date software options ?
> I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
> x86. I suggest
Easily solved; SUN gets off its fat chuff, heads over to Adobe, asks
how much it'll cost to get Adobe Acrobat running on Solaris x86, then
throw some money at the problem.
Matty
I don't believe this kind of response is appropriate. I think you've
also missed the part of this discussion where
On 5/27/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up
>> to
>> date software options ?
>>
>>
> I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
> x86. I suggest all interested p
bahahaha
Im reviewing changes to vgatext since my hacks, and was amused to find the
following:
if (happyface_boot == 0)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Propose the OPDF, or Open Portable Document Format and try to get the
> industry to move away from the proprietary and not at all portable
> document format.
What about using linux emul (whatever else it's being called these days)
for running the Acrobat binary unmodified?
I know the other BSD'
I. Szczesniak writes:
> > - Clearview needs the /dev/net namespace for the flexible interface
> > names and the zone-visible interfaces.
>
> The /dev/net name space just received it's first -1. The idea is a
> maintenance hazard and should not be implemented. Devices are hardware
> and /dev
>Hmm, if that fails, perhaps we (Solaris users) should take the hint from
>Adobe, and boycott the use of PDF? We should rename it to NVPDF (for Not
>Very Portable...). If {Star, Open} Office supports read-only docs, maybe
>that is the way for us to go?
Propose the OPDF, or Open Portable Docume
I take your point, but this is very much a chicken-and-egg
problem. Adobe's
monopoly didn't appear overnight. Acrobat became popular as more
people used
it to distribute documents. Perhaps the same trick would work for
ODF.
You are, of course, completely correct. The same trick *might*
On Sat, 27 May 2006, David J. Orman wrote:
> Unfortunately, that really isn't a good solution. The whole point of using
> PDFs is just about anybody can read them, and they look the same on whatever
> platform. Unfortunately, that leaves Solaris x86 out in the pasture. The
> problem with going wit
On May 27, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
Hmm, if that fails, perhaps we (Solaris users) should take the hint
from
Adobe, and boycott the use of PDF? We should rename it to NVPDF
(for Not
Very Portable...). If {Star, Open} Office supports read-only docs,
maybe
that is the way for us
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Wes Williams wrote:
> The entire situation is unfortunate since I [i]used [/i]to like the
> Acrobat format - that is, until I realize that it's no longer very
> cross platform compatible. I have a hard time imaging why Adobe is so
> reluctant to just recompile their Acrobat R
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Glenn Weinberg wrote:
> We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
> team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all know
> it's just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
>
> I do plan to try again with JohnnyL, a
> An older version (4?) of Acrobat Reader is available
> for SOlaris x86,
> but you need to get it via Adobe's FTP site IIRC. I
> have a copy here,
> but I doubt I'm allowed to redistribute it...
>
> Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
>
Likewise, I've also requested this recompile vi
> There are a lot more information on the Devname architecture
> that we have not discussed so far.
BACKGROUND
Solaris devices are represented in two name spaces: /dev and /devices. The
/devices namespace represents the physical path to a hardware device, a pseudo
device, or a bus nexus device.
> > - flexible network device names.
> > e.g. replacing /dev/bge0 with
> /dev/net/192.168.1.0 (ref. ClearView).
>
> That's bollocks. What do you want to archive here?
> Add another
> maintenance hazard? IP addresses can change. Think
> about mobile IP or
> DHCP. Or just drive our nice Thalys (a
>
> I didn't notice anyone saying that /dev/dsk/root
> couldn't exist, it
> just has to exist with the current solution.
Forgot to mention, Devname is adding flexibilities in
managing the logical device name, i.e. /dev names, while keeping
current devfsadm/link generator device naming mechanism
> Quoting P.Tribble:
>
> > I see no advantage whatsoever to hiding important
> > information. What benefit can possibly accrue from
> > this?
>
> Cluster ?
We were talking about the possibility to revisit
the implementation of /dev/global.
> Grid Engine ?
Do you get any thoughts here?
lucy
> >
> > A scenario for this problem is: In a shared SAN
> environment,
> > the same tape device needs to be named the same on
> all the hosts
> > so that the backup software can be configured
> consistently
> > across the enterprise.
> >
> > Current /dev/rmt name scheme can assign different
>
We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all
know it's
just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
I do plan to try again with JohnnyL, although it's worth noting that
Acrobat is not in h
40 matches
Mail list logo
