there is no diff at all moving from an imac to macbook (mind you i have only
tried this on a 15"). So far I have succeeded on a 20" iMac and a MacBook Pro
15". Has anyone tried the 17" yet?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-di
Hi,
A little later than usual, here's OpenSolaris Weekly News #11. As always
feedback, or content [from the missing represented communities] welcome.
Glynn
==
Derek Cicero announced [1] that build 38 of Solaris Express Community Release
was available. Steve Lau posted [2] that build 39 of ON
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> The underlying issue is this; imagine if Solaris was ported to POWER - throw
> the 'hardware support' out the window for a moment - who on earth would then
There is currently a project to port OpenSOlaris to the PPC. I'm not sure
how far they've got
I have the same question for the Core Duo Mac Mini.
-Moazam
On May 7, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Boyd Adamson wrote:
Out of interest, do we know how much of this translates to the
Macbook Pro?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opens
On 02/05/2006, at 10:58 PM, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Would someone be willing to help me understand what I
need to download and to do to get Solaris installed
on a Mac Intel ?
I've installed it like this:
I prepared an USB 2.0 Solaris x86 boot HDD for the intel imac:
- I got an empty USB 2.0 HDD, a
> So my question is:
>
> Is Sun still interested in a OpenSolaris PPC port?
Good question, no body knows; wasn't it almost a year ago, we heard a big wig
at SUN exclaim that IBM should work with SUN to port Solaris to POWER? then
was much chest beating about porting OpenSolaris to PowerPC.
On Monday 08 May 2006 09:45, Anze Vidmar wrote:
> > Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big
> > on desktops (until the recent
> > push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server
> > use a Windows share is
> > like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and
> > that's probably a
On Monday 08 May 2006 06:39, Shawn Walker wrote:
> I think the problem is not the criticism, but rather, the way in which it
> is presented. The blog entry doesn't really qualify as "constructive
> criticism" because it fails to offer "valid and well-reasoned opinions
> about the work of others, us
On Monday 08 May 2006 06:07, Anze Vidmar wrote:
> Thank you for the info. However, I'm still wondering why smb/cifs support
> was never included in the solaris kernel? Is it a legal issue?
>
> The reason why I'm asking you this is because I need to explain to the
> costumer why I can't mount shares
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big
> on desktops (until the recent
> push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server
> use a Windows share is
> like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and
> that's probably an insult to
> the Yugo. OTOH, it certainly would be handy o
Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big on desktops (until the
recent
push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server use a Windows share is
like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and that's probably an insult to
the Yugo. OTOH, it certainly would be handy on a Solaris d
I think the problem is not the criticism, but rather, the way in which it is
presented. The blog entry doesn't really qualify as "constructive criticism"
because it fails to offer "valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of
others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, i
Thank you for the info. However, I'm still wondering why smb/cifs support was
never included in the solaris kernel? Is it a legal issue?
The reason why I'm asking you this is because I need to explain to the costumer
why I can't mount shares from w2k3 storage on a solaris box (I've also tryed
Thanks for this proposal, Rick. You have seconds. Eric will get you set up.
Jim
> I would like to propose the creation of a new project
> page for the iSCSI Target work. This would enable the
> community to gain early access to this project before
> integration into Solaris Nevada is complete.
>
Chris Quenelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My initial thoughts are:
>
> 1. add an escape character of some kind to insert a literal ':'
> 2. please make all pathnames use a consistent syntax
> 3. don't implement any special work arounds unless you know there are
> users of the feature
> 4.
Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Joerg, Sun is still interested. Tom Riddle and his direct report,
> Roger Meike, are very interested in moving this ahead and so is
It seemed that Roger Meike was interested intil CeBIT.
Since then, we did not her from him even tho
Hi Joerg, Sun is still interested. Tom Riddle and his direct report,
Roger Meike, are very interested in moving this ahead and so is
Genesi. We are all waiting for the first code. We know Tom and a
small but active and dedicated Sun Labs team have been working on
this for months. Sven L
Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am not sure wht you like to achieve here...
> >
> >
>
> I'm trying to advocate expanding the meaning of "appliances",
> with respect to OpenSolaris, so that as a community or forum
> it has a better chance of matching up with more projects.
If we like
Rod Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presently, no. But it seems like a mechanism to allow ':' within
> a path is now desirable.
>
> I've a couple of thoughts. First, if you wish to allow ':' within
> a dlopen() path, would you also want to allow this character in
> a RUNPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:18:17PM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> I mean, total lockdown is fine for an embedded device or kiosk, but it's
> fascist for
> a truly general purpose system, at least if the owner of the system can't
> usefully disable
> it.
Plus a signed binary can still fail i
21 matches
Mail list logo
