I need to install and check.
On Jun 12, 2015 4:20 PM, "Michael Butash" wrote:
> Stephen, out of curiosity, what does your xrandr show as a max
> framebuffer size on your quadro?
>
> mb@host:~$ xrandr | grep maximum
> Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 11520 x 1200, maximum 16384 x 16384
>
> Th
Stephen, out of curiosity, what does
your xrandr show as a max framebuffer size on your quadro?
mb@host:~$ xrandr | grep maximum
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 11520 x 1200, maximum 16384 x
16384
This was a big limiter for me, in the past
Next time I have an absolute need to
upgrade hardware, I plan on avoiding ati/amd at all costs. After
dealing with them for a good 5 years as the only real viable
option to run my displays, only to be wrought with constant
disappointment, problems, and frustratio
I have almost given up on ATI, if i want just multiple screens i would look
into the Quadro NVS cards. Such as the NVS 510 or the K1200. They may be
very proprietary to get running, but my success with Nvidia cards in both
linux and windows really makes it worthwhile. These cards will only do a
sin
Looking at those results after responding, I noticed I only have 5
okular instances open, the pdf reader (sadly I stay mired in pdf
documentation often), when it's spawning 13 xclient sessions. I wonder
if this is just being stupid is what's blowing it out somehow.
PDF's, another bit lf legac
I've been somewhat waiting for some
sign from above that Wayland is actually a real, usable piece of
software, as it's been hyped as "xorg, but doesn't suck". My
limiters are fglrx support (again, my damn 6-head ati card), and
decent support for window environmen
Thanks for the comments Matt - in line.
On 06/12/2015 02:18 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
On 2015-06-11 17:20, Michael Butash wrote:
[X reaching a maximum number of clients is a problem] in that it
simply refuses to open new [X clients], and [I] find this happens
more and more these days. Am I like th
On 2015-06-11 17:20, Michael Butash wrote:
[X reaching a maximum number of clients is a problem] in that it
simply refuses to open new [X clients], and [I] find this happens
more and more these days. Am I like the only actual person to use
linux these days that this occurs with?
I've never seen
On 06/12/2015 11:12 AM, Keith Smith wrote:
On 2015-06-12 10:43, der.hans wrote:
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry
(PCI) scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have
to submit for a review since the s
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
On 2015-06-12 10:43, der.hans wrote:
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry (PCI)
scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to submit for
a review since the
On 2015-06-12 10:43, der.hans wrote:
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry
(PCI) scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to
submit for a review since the server is not really vulnerable.
Your audit
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry (PCI)
scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to submit for a
review since the server is not really vulnerable.
Your auditors should understand that and be able
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry (PCI)
scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to submit for a
review since the server is not really vulnerable.
Your auditors should understand that and be able
Am 12. Jun, 2015 schwätzte Keith Smith so:
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry (PCI)
scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to submit for a
review since the server is not really vulnerable.
Your auditors should understand that and be able
I do some work on a couple CentOS 6.6 servers. Payment Card Industry
(PCI) scans seem to always see the server as vulnerable. I've have to
submit for a review since the server is not really vulnerable.
I don't think a lot of people understand how RHEL maintains it's
packages. I know I did n
15 matches
Mail list logo
