gs 8-8.71 under FreeBSD 8.1-R seems missing x11 device.
When use ghostview, it complains "/unknown device x11"
/By tracing around, I found it was caused by gs 8-8.71. As typing "gs
--help", it shows much less
devices supported than gs 8-8.62 under FreeSBD 6.4-R.
By searching on the Internet, o
issue.
-Jin
Saifi Khan wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
When installed FreeBSD 7.2 release with xorg-7.4.1, the X server does not work
on
HP Pavilion dv5210us laptop due to the key board and mouse are disabled
somehow.
Some Hot keys (Ctrl-Altr-F#) are working but mouse is
When installed FreeBSD 7.2 release with xorg-7.4.1, the X server does
not work on
HP Pavilion dv5210us laptop due to the key board and mouse are disabled
somehow.
Some Hot keys (Ctrl-Altr-F#) are working but mouse is not movable and
cannot type in a Xterm.
(**) ModulePath set to "/usr/local/li
Has this problem been resolved?
I have the same problem for a similar laptop (HP Pavilion dv5120us).
The X Server 1.4.0 (FreeBSD 6.3-R) works fine, but 1.4.2 (From both 6.4 and 7.1) produce this problem.
My screen is 13.25 inch x 8.25 inch in resolution 1280x800.
The DPI shown in Xorg.0.log is
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> >
> > >I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
> > >problem persists:
> &
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
>I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
>problem persists:
>0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.199.36 to any
>65330 2018 983473 allow tcp from any to any
:47:42.466055 IP 221.192.199.36.4469 > 192.168.2.14.80: . ack 1 win
65535
15:47:54.466599 IP 221.192.199.36.4469 > 192.168.2.14.80: P 1:206(205)
ack 1 win 65535
15:47:59.703272 IP 221.192.199.36.4469 > 192.168.2.14.80: R 206:206(0)
ack 1 win 0
Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
But t
But the rule 330 should only allow established TCP pass through. In
other words, Sync should NOT
allowed by rule 330, or I missed something for this rule?
Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:38:02PM -0800, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
Below is set of ipfw rules, but it
Below is set of ipfw rules, but it seems that not all rules are
functioning properly.
From rule 361 to first two of rule 567 are not blocking any traffic and
not measuring any traffic.
Is this bacuse tcp rule )330) can overwrite the ip rule? or this is a
known issue in R-6.3?
The second and th
