On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:04:33 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> They don't just dumps out potential readers that don't use "the only
> right" OS and browser.
>
> They too - dumps out all disabled people, most importantly blind.
>
> It's not a problem for a blind to read plain text on comput
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:23:31 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all
> without flash most often doesn't have any usable information.
There are web pages that, without "Flash", won't even let you know
if you're on the correct page
do stupid things
I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one
to view many sites ISN'T within the moral
stupid things
I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like
the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the
tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this
propretary product / format.
Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD,
foun
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
> >> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
> >> Solaris?
> >>
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
They DO NOT DICTATE ANYTHING. It's quite free market here, you can use
they product or not. I don't use, mostly because it doesn't run on an OS
that i use.
___
freebsd-q
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
>> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
>> Solaris?
>>
>> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, a
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
>
> If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product.
> They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:12 +0100, Andreas Xanke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
> > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> > don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
> >
> > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe
> don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
>
> If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product.
> They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried
i
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:46:17 +1000
Da Rock wrote:
> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and
> I'm wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types.
> I tried running it straight out, but I'm getting errors of a missing
> libsocket.so library.
Presumabl
--- White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, the lack of documentation is a shame.
> >
> > In Windows, yes. In FreeBSD I can't see a lack.
>
> You are kidding right. I can find vastly more
> documentation available for a win32 machine than for
> FBSD. In fact, the lact of documentat
White Hat wrote:
> --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> I have
>>> tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
>> is
>>> just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
>> even
>>> close.
>>
>> True, but also compare the c
--- White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have
> > > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says,
> it
> > is
> > > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is
> not
> > eve
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is a totally unqualified evaluation.
No it's not. It's in response to YOUR comment that "A very large majority of
users simply want to use their PCs for email, occasional word processing and
possible game playing". And OpenOffice fits th
On 06 Sep P.U.Kruppa wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> >I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
> >studying this OS.
> >Hope to get some advice and reading points. I have years of experience
> >with linux and FreeBSD and like to explore new (OS) challen
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Freminlin
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 06/
"P.U.Kruppa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
>> I have a 3-part disk:
>> (a) XP for games
>> (b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
>> (c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
>>
>> I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
>> studying this OS. I burned t
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will it install solaris on this
third partition without
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature
> is
> > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
> > work, what good is it?
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have
> > >
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature
> is
> > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
> > work, what good is it?
>
> It depends what you are using it for. You made a
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Immaterial. the singularly most important feature is
suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
work, what good is it?
It depends what you are using it for. You made a comment about "occaisonal
word processing" (pasted below). For suc
--- Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/09/06, White Hat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have
> > > > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says,
> it
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have
> > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
> is
> > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
> even
> > close.
>
On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:41 AM, White Hat wrote:
Most of these can be far more easily done on a WinXP
machine then anything now available in the *nix
family.
OS X will do it as easily or more easily for the average person than
WinXP. OS X is a unix based OS.
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have
> > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it
> is
> > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not
> even
> > close.
>
>
> True, but also compare the cost. Not even close
On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have
tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says, it is
just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is not even
close.
True, but also compare the cost. Not even close...
He/she does
not want to read tons of manuals and spend hours in a
f
--- backyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I think the important thing to remember in all this
> is
> every system using one version of UNIX over another
> is
> one more machine not running NT. And since NT is
> single handedly stealing code, and destroying
> internationally set standards I
--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 2006-09-05 22:50, Bill-Schoolcraft
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If just a "relatively" small handful of dedicated
> FreeBSD coders can
> > produce an OS that will install on damm near
> "ANYTHING" I always found
> > it troubling that SUN
Just a point, I'm the proud owner of _at least_ 2 different current types
of Sun hardware, that FreeBSD does not work on, at least not wekk enoygh to
deploy production machines that is. Blade 1500's don't work _at all_ and
U40's are too unstable to deploy.
It's shame,as for the applications I boug
On 2006-09-05 22:50, Bill-Schoolcraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If just a "relatively" small handful of dedicated FreeBSD coders can
> produce an OS that will install on damm near "ANYTHING" I always found
> it troubling that SUN Microsystems, with all it's resources, could
> not, at the least,
At Tue, 5 Sep 2006 it looks like backyard composed:
>
> don't get me wrong I don't doubt it is a great system
> to use, which is why I kept on trying to get it
> installed on many different machines; from laptops to
> desktops, to servers, and my commodore... and I will
> admit I installed withou
--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 2006-09-04 15:52, backyard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would recommend the second drive option.
>
> Me too. Not for the same reasons though.
>
> > I have attempted installing Solaris 10 on multiple
> computers and all
> > if ever se
On 2006-09-04 15:52, backyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would recommend the second drive option.
Me too. Not for the same reasons though.
> I have attempted installing Solaris 10 on multiple computers and all
> if ever seems to do is corrupt the drive on me. Once I got it to boot
> up and g
On 2006-09-04 08:41, Bill-S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Matthew Seaman composed:
>> Back in the Solaris 8 days, the trick was to use fdisk to create a primary
>> partition and mark it as type 'Linux Swap' after which Solaris would happily
>> recognise it as a locati
On 2006-09-04 16:57, dick hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
> > I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
>
> I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
> table. That's the reason I ask. I kn
--- Bill-S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Chad Leigh --
> Shire.Net LLC composed:
>
> >
> > On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> >
> > > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not sure about installing Solaris into an
>
At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC composed:
>
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
> > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
> >
> > I remember one of the FBSD's (a
On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
table. That's the reason I ask. I know that I don't have
At Mon, 4 Sep 2006 it looks like Matthew Seaman composed:
> dick hoogendijk wrote:
> > On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> >
> >> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
> >
> > I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
> > table
dick hoogendijk wrote:
> On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>
>> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
>
> I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
> table. That's the reason I ask. I know that I don't have to use the main
> opt
On 03 Sep Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> I am not sure about installing Solaris into an existing partition.
I remember one of the FBSD's (a RC, but still) destroying my partition
table. That's the reason I ask. I know that I don't have to use the main
option (that's for the whole disk). But
On Sep 3, 2006, at 9:20 PM, P.U.Kruppa wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will i
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, dick hoogendijk wrote:
I have a 3-part disk:
(a) XP for games
(b) FreeBSD-6.1 (my main OS)
(c) FreeBSD-6.1 (a backup)
I want to replace the third partition with solaris 10, mainly for
studying this OS. I burned the DVD. Will it install solaris on this
third partition without
>-Original Message-
>From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:56 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Free BSD Questions list; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
>
>
>On
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Indeed. But this is not Solaris 10 - thats when all of this
changed.
I never understood why anyone would go to Solaris 10 unless they
had a
64 bit processor and compiled all their
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad
>Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
>Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:01 AM
>To: Free BSD Questions list
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
&g
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of P.U.Kruppa
>Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:13 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Victor Watkins; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; J.D. Bronson
>Subject: RE: Sol
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Indeed. But this is not Solaris 10 - thats when all of this changed.
I never understood why anyone would go to Solaris 10 unless they had a
64 bit processor and compiled all their apps under a 64 bit compiler.
Sun
didn't either, which is w
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: J.D. Bronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:00 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Victor Watkins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Solaris patches and Solaris
>-Original Message-
>From: J.D. Bronson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:00 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Victor Watkins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: RE: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
>
>
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 AM, J.D. Bronson wrote:
At 03:52 AM 11/17/2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hmmm,
We run a lot of Solaris 8 and FreeBSD. I find Solaris 8 pretty
much the same speed as FreeBSD for what we do. However, one thing
is that we do not run X-windows on either our Solaris 8
At 03:52 AM 11/17/2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hmmm,
We run a lot of Solaris 8 and FreeBSD. I find Solaris 8 pretty
much the same speed as FreeBSD for what we do. However, one thing
is that we do not run X-windows on either our Solaris 8 or FreeBSD
systems, because they are servers and the
gt;Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 7:33 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: Solaris patches and Solaris Express
>
>
>
>> Do community member find these additional features worth the cost?
>
>No.
>
>We just want to get our p
At 11:29 AM 11/16/2005, Lee Capps wrote:
At 18:46 Tue 15 Nov 2005, J.D. Bronson wrote:
> I still run 1 solaris machine and thats a sparc running 9.0 ...as
> soon as the machine dies or the OS is no longer supported, the
> machine will find a nice resting spot in some city dump (or recycler)
>
N
At 18:46 Tue 15 Nov 2005, J.D. Bronson wrote:
> I still run 1 solaris machine and thats a sparc running 9.0 ...as
> soon as the machine dies or the OS is no longer supported, the
> machine will find a nice resting spot in some city dump (or recycler)
>
Not to start a holy war or anything, but
At 09:32 PM 11/15/2005, Victor Watkins wrote:
> Do community member find these additional features worth the cost?
No.
We just want to get our patches without jumping through any hoops, or
worrying about if the check made it through the mail, or if Sun FUBAR'ed
our support account info rather
> Do community member find these additional features worth the cost?
No.
We just want to get our patches without jumping through any hoops, or
worrying about if the check made it through the mail, or if Sun FUBAR'ed
our support account info rather than there being a problem with the
Update Manag
OTECTED]>; "Chris
Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: solaris firewall?
> Use ipf on solaris; it's what I do at work at least.
>
> But yeah, this is a FreeBSD list; it offended me that you posted here for
that
> t
Use ipf on solaris; it's what I do at work at least.
But yeah, this is a FreeBSD list; it offended me that you posted here for that
type of info.
Another good place to try is irc.freenode.net (I think that's right), in
#solaris. Don't try #solaris on efnet unless you're a Sun god, because they
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 07:41, Shawn Henderson wrote:
> how well of a firwall can be created with Solaris 8
> I am playing with a couple different *nix flavors and wanted to test out
> setting up a Solaris firewall
> is it possible and how would I do it..any Ideas.
>
1/ This is nothing to do with F
On Thursday, Jan 9, 2003, at 23:41 US/Pacific, Shawn Henderson wrote:
how well of a firwall can be created with Solaris 8
I am playing with a couple different *nix flavors and wanted to test
out
setting up a Solaris firewall
is it possible and how would I do it..any Ideas.
Posting to a Solaris
65 matches
Mail list logo
