Harry Putnam wrote:
Emmanuel De Paepe
writes:
Idem over here.
I paid it only 28.5 Euro, which is an excellent price if you see the '50 US
dollar' on the back of the cover.
The only issue is the quality of the book. I was surprised that Wiley uses such
low quality phone book paper. This
Luke L wrote:
This isn't spam, this is a legitimate recommendation from a real user.
Same here, if I'd had this when I start up it would have saved me a lot
of pain. I spent a lot more time digging up and reading the resources
for each area instead of getting all the basic information bundl
Harry Putnam wrote:
But, shouldn't that information be made obvious... at least in the
supplied `getting started' documents?
It is in the release notes...
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Rob McMahon wrote:
I did an image-update from 106 to 107, opened thunderbird and tried to
detach a (fairly large, 3MB) attachment. The entire machine ground to
a halt. I killed the X session with CTL-ALT-DEL, and tried the same
thing again, and it's completely reproduceable. I've had to back
ken mays wrote:
They reported the apps they used were 'out-of-the-box' with no tweaking
on their (i.e. Phoronix) part. Whatever was on the CD is what they used.
A few of the 'optimized libraries and apps' are over at Blastwave.org
so we can easily retest the benchmarks to see if GCC optimizat
ken mays wrote:
Hi Jörg,
The performance differences might be 100% due to the
version of the compiler and optimizations used. My point
would be in what way is this significant to a user who sees
their audio files take 50% longer to encode on one product
versus the other? Do you think the averag
Martin Bochnig wrote:
wrote:
Hi Jörg,
The bottom line is it doesn't matter who made the mistakes or why, in the
end the user sees them as negative marks on OpenSolaris. If incorrect
optimizations on OpenSolaris are causing a negative perception of
OpenSolaris then we need to change that
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Greg Palmer wrote:
The performance differences might be 100% due to the version of the
compiler and optimizations used. My point would be in what way is this
significant to a user who sees their audio files take 50% longer to
encode on one product versus the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Hello Greg, no: I cannot agree. Because I only could if a few Linux
distros would have been compared to one another, or a few OpenSolaris
distros to one another. Not an arbitrary mix of it. How do you compare
apples to potatoes to strawberries? T
Martin Bochnig wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Rich Reynolds wrote:
Martin -
I firmly beg to differ...
the tests were done with out of the box released versions in that there is
no mention of doing ubuntu package upgrades. this is just an artifact of
Sun's release engineering sched
Harry Putnam wrote:
Harry Putnam writes:
My problem seems pretty severe since after installing from the
osol-11.iso and on reboot, I get a big mess of several different ascii
char with each keystroke. And that is trying to boot from what I
guess is the gui kernel.
Problem not solved
Anil Gulecha wrote:
> Greg: have you seen the response at
> http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_mojo&Itemid=153&p=7
>
Nope, that was what I was hoping for. If there's an issue, bring it out
in the open and get both sides input on it. Thanks for the link Anil!
Regards,
Greg
_
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Greg Palmer wrote:
>
>
>>> http://www.nexenta.com/blog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The quote below is rather interesting, though it would have been nice if
>> he included the specifics of his charge rather than ju
Erast Benson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> you might be interested in what Evan Powell (Nexenta Systems CEO)
> blogging about plans on 2009, OpenSolaris and Open Storage movement:
>
> http://www.nexenta.com/blog
>
>
The quote below is rather interesting, though it would have been nice if
he included t
14 matches
Mail list logo
