Hi,
> > I recommend that hugin is added to weak-no-auto for machines with less than
> > 128 MB of RAM at least. That's currently just spice and zeus.
> > It uses lots of swap, which is basically ok, but it does a lot of swapping,
> > i.e. it permanently swaps in and out instead of swapping some da
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 3 02:53:38 2008
Newsgroups:
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 02:53:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Petr Stehlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: aranym vs atafb
Fcc: sent-mail
I
Hi,
> It's been a long time since we lost out access to incoming.d.o. Are there
> any news to this yet? Is there a plan B already? Do we need to escalate this
> issue finally?
> Not that I'm a big fan of escalations, but it seems that nobody cares at the
> moment about giving us access back.
Whic
Argh. Forgot to mention two important bits:
- the allocator is unfinished (no way to free statically allocated bits,
and code allocating chunks off the freed list is dodgy)
- this patch is not meant to be merged yet.
Another thing I noticed while testing the patch: ataflop and atari_scsi
now
Hi,
> > > Maybe uucp or bsmtp from gluck? Christian does something like that, I
> > > think.
> >
> > uucp I had thought above before, but that's so sixties :-) bsmtp I need to
> > ask Christian about when he resurfaces.
>
> Blub, I'm back from the snow;-)
Glad you made it back :-)
> No uucp or b
Hi,
> As to your question regarding the most generic fix: if there really is not
> enough ST-RAM (i.e. the available space is taken by the kernel and the
> ramdisk, after 'unpacking' the ramdisk to the buffer cache) we'd need to
> either make the ramdisk unpack go to non-DMA memory (no idea here;
> > Sure, that's why we need to make sure the frame buffer is addressable by
> > these 23 bits.
>
> Sure. I just didn't want to say that Fast RAM doesn't support DMA
> generally - it might, for some chips, who knows :-)
IIRC the ST-DMA only has 22 or 23 address lines, either.
> > > > it should be
Please see this site in Subject
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> No uucp or bsmtp (what's that?) here. My friendly provider does not block
> any ports (except 80), can I convince anybody to switch? My server can
> receive email directly (cts-aahz and co redirect mail directly to the
> dyndns
> address of my server) and delivers fo
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:45:43AM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
> > > Re: access to hobbes: I'll set that up as soon as I have port forwarding
> > > on the firewall set up. hobbes still has one major drawback for external
> > > use: I can neither send nor receive mail via SMTP. Stupid Telecom
Please see this site in Subject
Hi!
It's been a long time since we lost out access to incoming.d.o. Are there
any news to this yet? Is there a plan B already? Do we need to escalate this
issue finally?
Not that I'm a big fan of escalations, but it seems that nobody cares at the
moment about giving us access back.
http://lists
12 matches
Mail list logo
