James Carlson wrote:
> Looking through the truss output on /usr/bin/network-admin, it appears
> that it invokes '/usr/sbin/dladm show-link -p'. I think that means it
> may have been broken by the integration of CR 6722523 in snv_96. I
> don't know why that hasn't been addressed in GNOME.
>
> (Th
Bill Shannon writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Is there still a problem here in the networking component itself
> > (other than the GUI)? If so, I'd like to help solve it.
>
> No, after configuring it all by hand, networking is working fine.
> The question is, why didn't the GUI find the interfa
James Carlson wrote:
>> I am *so* sorry I upgrade to snv_98...
>
> I don't see how that relates to the previous poster's note about
> snv_100.
I had snv_86 working quite well on two machines and I was very happy
with it. Since upgrading those machines and installing snv_98 on
another machine (th
James Carlson wrote:
> Is there still a problem here in the networking component itself
> (other than the GUI)? If so, I'd like to help solve it.
No, after configuring it all by hand, networking is working fine.
The question is, why didn't the GUI find the interface? Is it
something about this i
Bill Shannon writes:
> Ghee Teo wrote:
> > The new network admin GUI is all integrated to work to its full
> > functionality in snv 100
> > as far as I heard.
>
> What exactly does that mean? The perfectly functional version in
> older releases was replaced with a new partially functional versio
Bill Shannon writes:
> This was a problem 15 years ago when I left the OS group and I see
> it's still a problem today. You OS guys need to understand that
> most people experience desktop systems through the GUI. If the
> GUI for *your* feature doesn't work, it's the same as your feature
> not w
Ghee Teo wrote:
> The new network admin GUI is all integrated to work to its full
> functionality in snv 100
> as far as I heard.
What exactly does that mean? The perfectly functional version in
older releases was replaced with a new partially functional version?
I am *so* sorry I upgrade to sn
James Carlson wrote:
> Bill Shannon writes:
>> I disabled svc:/network/physical:nwam and enabled
>> svc:/network/physical:default. I went to System > Administration >
>> Network. It doesn't show *any* interfaces.
>
> I'd recommend contacting the Desktop community. They're the ones who
> support
Bill Shannon writes:
> I disabled svc:/network/physical:nwam and enabled
> svc:/network/physical:default. I went to System > Administration >
> Network. It doesn't show *any* interfaces.
I'd recommend contacting the Desktop community. They're the ones who
support the GUI bits.
I can't say I us
Bill Shannon escribió:
> I installed 2008.05 on a new machine, upgraded to snv_98.
> Now I'm trying to convert to static IP.
>
> I disabled svc:/network/physical:nwam and enabled
> svc:/network/physical:default. I went to System > Administration >
> Network. It doesn't show *any* interfaces.
>
The new network admin GUI is all integrated to work to its full
functionality in snv 100
as far as I heard.
-Ghee
Bill Shannon wrote:
> I installed 2008.05 on a new machine, upgraded to snv_98.
> Now I'm trying to convert to static IP.
>
> I disabled svc:/network/physical:nwam and enabled
> svc:
I installed 2008.05 on a new machine, upgraded to snv_98.
Now I'm trying to convert to static IP.
I disabled svc:/network/physical:nwam and enabled
svc:/network/physical:default. I went to System > Administration >
Network. It doesn't show *any* interfaces.
Sigh.
I rebooted. No help.
I creat
Vincenzo Sciarra wrote:
I have a problem with my network.
I'll paste below :
**
# host google.com
google.com has address 64.233.167.99
# ping 64.233.167.99
64.233.167.99 is alive
# ping google.com
ping: unkno
I have a problem with my network.
I'll paste below :
**
# host google.com
google.com has address 64.233.167.99
# ping 64.233.167.99
64.233.167.99 is alive
# ping google.com
ping: unknown host google.com
**
14 matches
Mail list logo