On Wednesday 28 June 2006 16:10, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > [ Not need to cc, I joined the list ]
>
> I'll cc you anyway; because otherwise _other_ Ccs will get lost (and
> some people -- like me -- prefer to be cced even when they are
> subscribed).
>
> > > I guess that having s2ram and s2
Hi!
> [ Not need to cc, I joined the list ]
I'll cc you anyway; because otherwise _other_ Ccs will get lost (and
some people -- like me -- prefer to be cced even when they are
subscribed).
> > I guess that having s2ram and s2disk makes sense. Not sure about
> > s2both, I hate hardlink tricks...
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 10:11, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> [ Not need to cc, I joined the list ]
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:36:10 +0200
> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I guess that having s2ram and s2disk makes sense. Not sure about
> > s2both, I hate hardlink tricks... but I guess we
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:29:13 +0200
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I added my machines to the whitelist.c. One is a desktop system,
> > 's2ram -n' only identifies it with the bios version. Also the work
> > around is likely to be only necessary because of the video card
> > (n
[ Not need to cc, I joined the list ]
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:36:10 +0200
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess that having s2ram and s2disk makes sense. Not sure about
> s2both, I hate hardlink tricks... but I guess we can do that.
They're actually symlink, but I guess you hate those
