On May 30, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Given SUN's payment of $200million to SCO (for not alot of stuff
IMHO), the reliability of SUN as a Linux partner comes into
question - slam Linux, then provide middleware for it.
Do you mind not spreading absolute FUD? Do you have any
On May 30, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Feel the love.
-Shawn
And with that fine message from Shawn, I'd like to propose an end
of thread. This conversation isn't productive, scares the living
crap out of me each time I start writing the OpenSolaris weekly
On 5/31/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: Feel the love. -Shawn And with that fine message from Shawn, I'd like to propose an end
of thread. This conversation isn't productive, scares the living crap out of me each
Karyn Ritter wrote:
Steve just delivered the nightly onnv source and SXCR Build 40 was made
available on Friday of last week. There currently aren't any issues with
next week's deliveries of onnv or SXCR Build 41.
I'm thinking that I will move these to status reports every two weeks
unless
On May 30, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we
aren't bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's, but
instead complaining about how we're *TOO* productive with Solaris,
and how there are too many software and
Nicolas Linkert wrote:
I have installed GNOME 2.14 and would like to switch from dtlogin to gdm.
Sorry, I have found no instructions how to do this. The instructions I found
did not work:
svcadm enable svc:application/graphical-login/gdm:default (before login)
svcadm disable
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Hence the reason I don't believe Sun has EVER talked to Adobe over this
You have no proof of that what so ever. Quite frankly you are being
troll, please go away and troll elsewhere instead of winding us all up
and filling up our mailboxes.
Some of us follow this
David J. Orman wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Feel the love.
-Shawn
And with that fine message from Shawn, I'd like to propose an end of
thread. This conversation isn't productive, scares the living crap out
of me each time I start writing
On 5/31/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we aren't bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's, but instead complaining about how we're *TOO* productive with Solaris,
On 5/31/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karyn Ritter wrote: Steve just delivered the nightly onnv source and SXCR Build 40 was made available on Friday of last week. There currently aren't any issues with next week's deliveries of onnv or SXCR Build 41.
I'm thinking that I will move
On 5/31/06, gheet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David J. Orman wrote: On May 30, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: Feel the love. -Shawn
And with that fine message from Shawn, I'd like to propose an end of thread. This conversation isn't productive, scares the living crap out
It would be nice to hear a 'this is what we're working on in the
way of hardware support - then atleast whiners like me can say,
hey, it'll be around soon, they're working on it now .
It's been said a dozen times, use the search function of your email
client (or the forums..)
The
On 5/31/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Hence the reason I don't believe Sun has EVER talked to Adobe over thisYou have no proof of that what so ever.Quite frankly you are beingtroll, please go away and troll elsewhere instead of winding us all up
and filling up
On May 30, 2006, at 11:43 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Well, lets assume we go free software and free love - someone has
to create this software - and with 5000 employees given the sack at
Sun, wouldn't of it been bettter to direct those 5000 (lets assume
1,000 were programmers) or so to
A nice little 'this is what the band of Sun's merry people did on
the week end' journal would be good - so then people can track
Solaris progressing, and see what is being developed.
This week, we payed particular attention to improving the SATA I/
O, specifically decreasing the CPU
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Well, lets assume we go free software and free love - someone has to
create this software - and with 5000 employees given the sack at Sun,
wouldn't of it been bettter to direct those 5000 (lets assume 1,000 were
programmers) or so to put together a decent Adobe
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
honestly, how many companies would turn down free money?
Pretty much every responsibly run company will, if they feel
they can get a better return for investing their time resources
elsewhere.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
The first thing Sun could do is this; get rid of Xsun - blam, first
Working on it, but if we dropped it today, there'd be useless black
screens on all our SPARC workstations and Sun Rays.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Well, I started compiling things, all nice, started to compile Xorg 7.1
and it failed to compile;
Strange - it's always compiled for me with Studio compilers. I test
with gcc occasionally, but there's enough other people testing that works
on Linux that I don't do it
James Carlson wrote:
The problem with that idea is that forcing reconfiguration every time
kills the boot-time metric, which is an important part of computing
overall availability of the system. Such a project would fail on
boot-time regression.
It would require a very quick way to discover
Bruce Riddle wrote:
Acrobat should be as uqbiquitous as power for a desktop computer.
It is just plain bullshit that a contemporary version of reader is
not available for Solaris x86.
I don't think there's any disagreement that everyone here wants Acrobat
ported to X86.
Sun needs to drive
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
What Sun wants are millions of developers to port to Solaris x86 out of
the goodness of their own heart - newsflash, the world doens't work that
way, people port when either they see the possibility of cash rolling
in, or when the CEO pays a visit to pay for the porting.
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
It would be nice to hear a 'this is what we're working on in the way of
hardware support - then atleast whiners like me can say, hey, it'll be
around soon, they're working on it now .
A quick look at the x86 HCL (and how much it has been growing)
Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Solaris/OpenSolaris - OpenSolaris "as an official distribution" hasn't been
released yet; it'll be interesting to actually see if OpenSolaris turns into
Solaris is, to all intents and purposes, Sun's distro
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:19:16AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The requirement is not that inodes and data are separate; the requirement
is a specific upperbound to disk transactions. The question therefor
is not when will ZFS be able to separate inods and data; the question
is when ZFS
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Glenn Weinberg wrote:
Sorry to contradict, but Solaris *Express* is Sun's distro of the OpenSolaris
code.
Solaris 10 and its Updates are *not* direct distributions of OpenSolaris, but
rather are essentially backports of selected OpenSolaris code.
You are correct, of
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 wouldn't be so
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/73711
12000 PCs running Solaris soince 1993 are now migrating to Linux.
It is a pitty to see that this important costomer got lost
because of wrong information from the Linux camp.
They wanted OpenSource kde and claimed that they need to move away from
If I'm reading the articles correctly, when they made the decision two
years ago the information was, unfortunately, valid.
Regards,
Glenn
Joerg Schilling wrote:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/73711
12000 PCs running Solaris soince 1993 are now migrating to Linux.
It is a
Stephen Lau wrote:
Starting with yesterday's nightly delivery, we will be delivery
Mercurial (Hg) changeset bundles [1] in addition to the raw source
tarball. You should be able to unpack these bundles and have a
Mercurial repository of ON dating back to OpenSolaris Launch (2006/06/14).
To
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:43:01PM -0700, Luo Kai wrote:
See the following code:
test.c
#include sys/types.h
#include unistd.h
#include pthread.h
#include stdio.h
#include sys/resource.h
pthread_cond_t cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
pthread_mutex_t mutex =
Glenn Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the articles correctly, when they made the decision two
years ago the information was, unfortunately, valid.
They did make the final decision last year.
The process did start in autumn 2000 when the Linux Verband Deutschland
did aproach
They did make the final decision last year.
The process did start in autumn 2000 when the Linux Verband
Deutschlanddid aproach the OFD Niedersachsen and did tell them
that Sun will shut down
Solaris x86 support. The final convincing work did start in autumn
2004.This is wy I did aproach
David J. Orman wrote:
They did make the final decision last year.
The process did start in autumn 2000 when the Linux Verband
Deutschland"did aproach the OFD Niedersachsen and did tell them
that Sun will shut down
Solaris x86 support. The final convincing work did start in autumn
On 5/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the articles correctly, when they made the decision two
years ago the information was, unfortunately, valid.
They did make the final decision last year.
The process did start in
We need to be fair here. Sun did defer Solaris for x86 in 2002. We
didn't really get it fully back on track until Solaris 10 in 2005.
So
even in
late 2004 all a customer had from us was statements of intent, not an
actual product.
Good point. I wasn't involved with Sun at all during
Hi,
You might want to take a look at JET, which resolves these kinds of issues.
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/jet/
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Systems Engineer
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/
Nicolas Linkert wrote:
I have installed GNOME 2.14 and would like to
switch from dtlogin to gdm. Sorry, I have found no
instructions how to do this. The instructions I found
did not work:
svcadm enable
svc:application/graphical-login/gdm:default (before
login)
svcadm disable
I agree that some consolidation and reorganization is required for the /dev
tree. However, I do believe it's important to maintain compatibility. Many
sysadmin's depend on knowing which device is on which pci bus, pci slot, or IB
cage , etc. It would be nice if that trace-ability is not lost.
To a new Solaris user that comes from other OS, (s)he
may
find it bothersome not to find the device after a
normal system
reboot has performed. Then they will ask, what is
the problem
with Solaris?
Are you telling us that you're trying to actually dumb Solaris down for some
Joe User who
On 5/31/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Starting with yesterday's nightly delivery, we will be delivery
Mercurial (Hg) changeset bundles [1] in addition to the raw source
tarball. You should be able to unpack these bundles and have a
Mercurial repository of ON dating back to
Here is a real life example of the inconvenience
without a generic
root device name. In a sparc farm, a script is
written for jumpstart
100 systems. It needs 100 copies of the jumpstart
scripts because
each system has it own WWN for the root device.
However, only one copy
is needed if
Let's be even more realistic then -- those people should not be
programming then, period.
Those people could be students who may be writing their first program...
Or scientists who cares about the result and not the process...
At any rate, I woudn't blame them, instead I would greatly
Maybe Sun should better advertize the fact that the Sun Studio Compilers
are available for Linux also and produce better code than GCC.
Given the fact that the Intel compiler is no longer available, it may be
the
right time to do it now.
Agreed. Very good idea. We can only do so much
Studio 11 seems to implement enough GCC bugs to allow to compile most free
software that is not just rubbish.
The more important problems arise from the fact that there are many
Makefiles
that have hidden dependencies on GNUmake.
I could even live with having to use GNU utilities like gmake
If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compiler
of choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSS
community - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the
participation?
Actually Sun's been quite friendly to and supportive of the
I still want `inst`, `swmgr` and `swpkg` from IRIX on Solaris...
Is this perhaps Godwin's law for opensolaris-discuss?
(If a discussion on OpenSolaris lasts long enough, someone will mention
package tools)
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
So if you're going to be going that route, can we
just have the rest of the IRIX 6.5 brought over into
Solaris as well?
I think I've mentioned before that SGI can probably be bought for slightly more
than a song. There's a couple of technologies that might be worth the cost to
Sun.
-spp
I think I've mentioned before that SGI can probably be bought for slightly
more than a song. Ther
e's a couple of technologies that might be worth the cost to Sun.
Well, it's not slightly more than a song; there's the balance sheet
to consider and that isn't looking rosy. (You'll have to buy
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:49:26PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
To a new Solaris user that comes from other OS, (s)he
may
find it bothersome not to find the device after a
normal system
reboot has performed. Then they will ask, what is
the problem
with Solaris?
Are you telling us that
To expand on Casper's post:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bicid=655720
I hope this makes it clear it's a *bit* more than slightly more than a song.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:33 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project
To a new Solaris user that comes from other OS,
(s)he
may
find it bothersome not to find the device after a
normal system
reboot has performed. Then they will ask, what is
the problem
with Solaris?
Are you telling us that you're trying to actually
dumb Solaris down for some Joe
Hi,
You might want to take a look at JET, which resolves
these kinds of issues.
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/jet/
Thanks for the info.
lucy
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Octa
ve J. Orgeron
Solaris Systems Engineer
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:31:17PM -0700, Octave Orgeron wrote:
I agree that some consolidation and reorganization is required for the /dev
tree. However, I do believe it's important to maintain compatibility. Many
sysadmin's depend on knowing which device is on which pci bus, pci slot, or
Here is a real life example of the inconvenience
without a generic
root device name. In a sparc farm, a script is
written for jumpstart
100 systems. It needs 100 copies of the jumpstart
scripts because
each system has it own WWN for the root device.
However, only one copy
is
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 5/31/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Starting with yesterday's nightly delivery, we will be delivery
Mercurial (Hg) changeset bundles [1] in addition to the raw source
tarball. You should be able to unpack these bundles and have a
Mercurial repository of ON
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 11:49 am, Glenn Weinberg wrote:
We need to be fair here. Sun did defer Solaris for x86 in 2002. We
didn't really get it fully back on track until Solaris 10 in 2005. So
even in
late 2004 all a customer had from us was statements of intent, not an
actual product.
I
quote who=David J. Orman
To expand on Casper's post:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bicid=655720
I hope this makes it clear it's a *bit* more than slightly more than a
song.
I think I remember seeing that the shares were voided when they went into
bankruptcy. Now, they're pretty
Hi all
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On 5/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the articles correctly, when they made the decision two
years ago the information was, unfortunately, valid.
They did make the
Hi,
prtdiag and cfgadm only help out so far. For example, prtdiag will tell you
what's on a pci slot, but it does not tell you what instance that card matches
up to. So you still have to look at /etc/path_to_inst or the links /dev to
figure that out. Cfgadm is definitely handy, but again, it
I'm not talking servers but desktop clients. This means that they most
likely for most of the time end up with big vendors such as Dell, IBM,
Fujitsu Siemens, HP and so on. If you look closer up till recenty ALL of
those business boxes came with the latest Intel chipset and CPU. 95%
still do
On 6/1/06, Stefan Teleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the articles correctly, when they made the decision two years ago the information was, unfortunately, valid. They did make the final
On 6/1/06, Artem Kachitchkine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not talking servers but desktop clients. This means that they most likely for most of the time end up with big vendors such as Dell, IBM, Fujitsu Siemens, HP and so on. If you look closer up till recenty ALL of
those business boxes came
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 07:26:13AM -0700, Tom Smith wrote:
Hi. I've been thinking about building a SOHO NAS project using ZFS as
some others have suggested doing but I'm curious how lightweight I can make
Solaris (from a processor, memory, and install disk space) perspective and
still have
On 6/1/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: The first thing Sun could do is this; get rid of Xsun - blam, firstWorking on it, but if we dropped it today, there'd be useless blackscreens on all our SPARC workstations and Sun Rays.
Wouldn't be simply a matter of
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
On 6/1/06, *Alan Coopersmith* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
The first thing Sun could do is this; get rid of Xsun - blam, first
Working on it, but if we dropped it today, there'd be useless black
screens on
On 6/1/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Well, I started compiling things, all nice, started to compile Xorg 7.1 and it failed to compile;Strange - it's always compiled for me with Studio compilers. I testwith gcc occasionally, but there's enough other people
On 6/1/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: On 6/1/06, *Alan Coopersmith* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: The first thing Sun could do is this; get rid of Xsun - blam, first Working on it, but if we dropped it today, there'd
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
I built it off the cvsweb tree, damn, I should have remembered which
module it stuffed up in, anyway, it stopped compiling, and basically I
was at the end of my teather - unfortunately I have very limited
patience when things like that occur; if it doesn't work, I simply
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Oh well, any word on when Xorg will be updated in Solaris x86?
To 7.1? It's been out a week so far - give us some time to test the new
release. We should have it in Solaris Express/Nevada in a couple of months.
I doubt most users will notice any real difference
On 6/1/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: I built it off the cvsweb tree, damn, I should have remembered which module it stuffed up in, anyway, it stopped compiling, and basically I was at the end of my teather - unfortunately I have very limited
patience when
On 6/1/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Oh well, any word on when Xorg will be updated in Solaris x86?To 7.1? It's been out a week so far - give us some time to test the newrelease. We should have it in Solaris Express/Nevada in a couple of months.
I doubt most
On 5/31/06, gheet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Well, lets assume we go free software and free love - someone has to create this software - and with 5000 employees given the sack at Sun, wouldn't of it been bettter to direct those 5000 (lets assume 1,000 were
programmers) or so
Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
I'm not talking servers but desktop clients. This means that they
most likely for most of the time end up with big vendors such as
Dell, IBM, Fujitsu Siemens, HP and so on. If you look closer up till
recenty ALL of those business boxes came with the latest Intel
On 6/1/06, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If SUN wishes to get the OSS world to start using Studio 11 as the compilerof choice for Linux, then SUN needs to mend ALOT of bridges with the OSScommunity - how about offering a version for FreeBSD, have double the
participation?Actually Sun's been quite
On 6/1/06, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's be even more realistic then -- those people should not beprogramming then, period.Those people could be students who may be writing their first program...Or scientists who cares about the result and not the process...
At any rate, I woudn't blame
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX admin wrote:
There's still an opening in the shared filesystem
space (multi-reader
and multi-writer). Fix QFS, or extend ZFS?
That one's a no-brainer, innit? Extend ZFS and plough on.
Uhm... I think this is not that easy. Based on IRC feedback I think
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 06:38 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no
'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have a
'community working on it' but companies like the warm fuzzy feeling knowing
that there are people they
On Sunday 28 May 2006 06:53 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A company that does not create new versions of their software in more than
6 years _is_ dead.
The thing is that Adobe does create new versions of their software in less
time than you state, just that they don't do it for Solaris on x86.
On Sunday 28 May 2006 09:08 am, Rich Teer wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Cheers. (from the patio at my parent's house using VPN over wifi;-)
Which is nice, but the fact is, thats server software - I'm refering
to workstation software.
Exactly how is wifi server
Philip Brown wrote:
you can also get the in-memory footprint down to about 64megs of RAM.
this should be way under your requirements. It should be trivial to get a
cheap small machine that has a 1ghz cpu with 128megs RAM, and that should
be more than plenty for your needs.
Given the cost of
Hi!
Is there a way to overlay single files using lofs like /lib/libc.so.1
is a lofs-mount to a hardware-optimizsed version version ? I tried the
same using mount but it refuses to operate on single files... ;-(
How does the boot process get this working ?
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . .
On Sunday 28 May 2006 07:58 pm, James Carlson wrote:
Would there be an adventage of removing gcc from /usr/sfw and replacing
it with the Sun Studio compilers?
(and thus moving gcc to the companion CD)
Note that this question is really a Solaris question, and not an Open
Solaris question.
On May 31, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Xorg 6.9 performs nicely on my FreeBSD box, besides the DRI issue
(which hopefully get corrected), I expect a delay due to the nature
of this new, more modular approach.
Same for me.
We already ship 6.9.0 which was released at the
On 6/1/06, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 06:38 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no 'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have a 'community working on it' but companies like the warm
On May 31, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no
'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have a
'community working on it' but companies like the warm fuzzy feeling
knowing that there are people they
On 6/1/06, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 28 May 2006 09:08 am, Rich Teer wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Cheers. (from the patio at my parent's house using VPN over wifi;-) Which is nice, but the fact is, thats server software - I'm refering
to workstation
On 6/1/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no 'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have a 'community working on it' but companies like the warm fuzzy
Trolltech
Hey, that's not a bad name ;)
-Artem.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 6/1/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Xorg 6.9 performs nicely on my FreeBSD box, besides the DRI issue (which hopefully get corrected), I expect a delay due to the nature
of this new, more modular approach.Same for me. We already
On May 31, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system?
come on, admit it, you're just burning to say, Matty, its a server
OS!
Don't make the mistake again of putting words in my mouth. Solaris is
both, and it is improving
On 6/1/06, Artem Kachitchkine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TrolltechHey, that's not a bad name ;)Well, it wasn't started by me, my company would have been, Bitter and Twisted Technology Limited.Matty
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On May 31, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
The funny part, when running CDE; there doesn't seem to be that
issue to the same extent as it is with GNOME running. I thought
that maybe upgrading to Xorg 7.1 would correct the issue, but it
seems to be more to do with how Solaris
On 6/1/06, Kaiwai Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/1/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
One assumes that when Sun is solely backing GNOME, that there is no
'officiallly supported' KDE for Solaris - all very nice to have
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 12:47 am, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we aren't
bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's
Even if we got the point that *YOU* weren't [EMAIL PROTECTED] about it, we'd
all be
better off.
--
Alan DuBoff
On 6/1/06, David J. Orman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system? come on, admit it, you're just burning to say, Matty, its a server
OS!Don't make the mistake again of putting words in my
On May 31, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 12:47 am, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Personally, I'd love for Solaris x86 to get to the point where we
aren't
bitching about hardware support or lack of ISV's
Even if we got the point that *YOU* weren't [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
...
So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system? come
on, admit it, you're just burning to say, Matty, its a server OS!
I don't understand why you are under the impression that Sun can't have an
OS that runs just fine on a desktop and also runs
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:45 am, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
And you know sweetcheeks, this is a GENERAL discussion; if you wish to
fufil your inner desires of wishing to know the internals of the kernel,
may I suggest subscribing to such lists.
Yes, and let's remind ourselves that this is not a
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 08:50 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
So, what is it? is Solaris a desktop or a server operating system? come on,
admit it, you're just burning to say, Matty, its a server OS!
No, most folks at this point are just burning to ask, what the [EMAIL
PROTECTED] does this
have
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
