On 12/21/06, Ignacio Marambio Catán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/21/06, Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> huy vu wrote:
> > Thank to you both, Nacho and Joerg. However I would love to hear why
> > the call to exec would fail right after a call to fork(). From
> > reading things ab
Rich Teer wrote:
At the moment, yes. But I think it would be a desirable long term
goal to have OpenSolaris becoame a separate legal entity, much like
the Apache Foundation.
This would make financial contributions from other entities much easier.
It would additionally help to clear the conce
[i]We've talked about this many times before, but I never
really had the sense that there was a strong consensus to do more than
we are doing currently (aside from the obvious things such as docs, mail
list activity, blogs, evangelism, presentations, etc).[/i]
When I said said non-programmers I
huy vu wrote:
Could someone tell me why one must use vfork() if one is to call exec right
after? I am seeing exec fails right after doing a fork() and would like to
under stand why before trying vfork()
It's not that one must use vfork(2); it's that vfork may
succeed where fork(2) fails. Th
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:01:18PM -0800, huy vu wrote:
> Thank to you both, Nacho and Joerg. However I would love to hear why
> the call to exec would fail right after a call to fork(). From
> reading things about vfork() it sounds like its sole purpose is to
> allow people to call exec right afte
Hi
Please go through
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/subprocess/subprocess.html
The document discusses the issue in detail and lists some failure modes that
you can come across.
Nothing is wrong in scheduler per se ;)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think of a situation where the memory footprint of the parent is large
> and you want execute something with a small footprint, eg execing
> something from a java process.
>
> The fact that you are execing means you don't need to access the address
On 12/21/06, Peter Buckingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
huy vu wrote:
> Thank to you both, Nacho and Joerg. However I would love to hear why
> the call to exec would fail right after a call to fork(). From
> reading things about vfork() it sounds like its sole purpose is to
> allow people to cal
huy vu wrote:
Thank to you both, Nacho and Joerg. However I would love to hear why
the call to exec would fail right after a call to fork(). From
reading things about vfork() it sounds like its sole purpose is to
allow people to call exec right after a fork. I just like to
understand why exec doe
On 12/21/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cyril Plisko writes:
> On 12/21/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > __PACK is pretty evil, in my opinion. It papers over alignment issues
> > that are rather significant in otherwise portable applications.
> >
>
> Agree with you
Thank to you both, Nacho and Joerg. However I would love to hear why the call
to exec would fail right after a call to fork(). From reading things about
vfork() it sounds like its sole purpose is to allow people to call exec right
after a fork. I just like to understand why exec doesn't work wel
Hi Brian,
Comments inlined in the config file below.
On 12/21/06, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure where the problem lies exactly. I've now got it somewhat working.
Just as a datapoint, I put 6.8 onto svn_38 and it worked great.
The MergedFB stuff is working, but I ha
"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/21/06, huy vu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could someone tell me why one must use vfork() if one is to call exec right
> > after? I am seeing exec fails right after doing a fork() and would like to
> > under stand why before trying vf
On 12/21/06, huy vu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could someone tell me why one must use vfork() if one is to call exec right
after? I am seeing exec fails right after doing a fork() and would like to
under stand why before trying vfork()
Thanks,
Huy
vfork() is not thread safe and you should not
Could someone tell me why one must use vfork() if one is to call exec right
after? I am seeing exec fails right after doing a fork() and would like to
under stand why before trying vfork()
Thanks,
Huy
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
op
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
>
> Ché Kristo wrote On 12/17/06 21:38,:
>
>> I think it would be a great idea for non-programmers (Such as myself)
>> to be able to contribute to specific projects within the OpenSolaris
>> community which we deem to be valuable. Surrently sites like
>> Sourceforge offer th
I'm not sure where the problem lies exactly. I've now got it somewhat working.
Just as a datapoint, I put 6.8 onto svn_38 and it worked great.
The MergedFB stuff is working, but I have this issue:
The secondary monitor (CRT2) gets setup at the correct resolution (1280x1024)
and the primary mo
Cyril Plisko writes:
> On 12/21/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > __PACK is pretty evil, in my opinion. It papers over alignment issues
> > that are rather significant in otherwise portable applications.
> >
>
> Agree with you 100% here. However, sometimes your choices
> are very l
Peter Lees wrote:
>hi folks,
>
>i just did a live upgrade from sxce snv_52 to sxce snv_54, and am having
>trouble with the bundled firefox (new version is version 2.0)
>
>on first startup, firefox works fine.
>on second startup, firefox segfaults
>
>
>
I've just been through the same upgrade an
Brian Hechinger wrote:
Everything I find online points to Xorg 6.9 having broken dual-head working
properly on Radeon cards. It also points to 7.0 having fixed it.
That would be really strange since 6.9 & 7.0 shipped the exact same Radeon
driver.
I was hoping B50 would have gotten this reso
Update:
In the process of working through this, this is what I ran into.
I munged the config, so I commented out the Monitor line from the Screen
section.
This made it work, somewhat. It would then ignore the resolution settings and
ran it in 1024x768 on each head instead of 1280x1024.
I fix
Everything I find online points to Xorg 6.9 having broken dual-head working
properly on Radeon cards. It also points to 7.0 having fixed it. I've tried
building Xorg (that was a while back however) myself to get the latest going
here, but failed miserably. The way I fixed this last time was t
REMINDER *** REMINDER *** REMINDER *** REMINDER
This week is the SVOSUG meeting which was moved due to the holidays.
Ok, lots of folks away and on vacation already, and folks are starting to get
into the holiday season by fighting at the strip malls and such, so this
month we're offer
Thanks, Sowmini. Your project proposal has seconds. I'll contact you
offline to get you set up.
Eric
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cross-posting to opensolaris-discuss as requested by Eric Boutilier;
--Sowmini
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 19 11:38:49 2006
Date: Tue, 19 D
Oh yeah? Have you seen e-ink? :-)
http://www.eink.com/technology/flexible.html
Stephen Potter wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
In my opiion they serve no purpose at all. Unless something legally
needs a
signature on it then why print anything? Maybe for the sight
impaired but
really, why re
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Stephen Potter wrote:
> Is OpenSolaris a separate legal entity from Sun? Is it a registered
> not-for-profit or charity? Or, irregardless of the charter and
At the moment, no.
> upcoming constitution, is it legally entangled with Sun?
At the moment, yes. But I think it w
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Ghee Teo wrote:
> Bug 6487898 lpadmin doesn't add remote access
> is fixed in b 54.
Excellent; I'll download and install it today!
Thanks Ghee,
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
. * * . * .* .
Hello Gurus;
I have setup a DNS server behind a firewall.
The server runs Solaris 6/06 and runs BIND 9.2.4 that comes with the
Solaris 10 6/06 distribution.
I am experiencing a very strange name resolution problem;
The server is set to allow recursion from internals clients only.
An interna
I am not sure if you are running your interfaces at 100 vs 1000, I searched the
bug database and found a related bug's of 6365376 and older ones in 6358827
(both are closed), both of you and any one else should submit new BUG on this
nge with driver on ether i86pc or Sparc. My nge is on a MSI
Bob Palowoda wrote:
For $US50K you get a free phone call from the IRS no matter
if it's Sun contributing or any other entity.
Depending on many things. A valid charitable organization can
get very large donations from wealthy private citizens or corporations
without getting hassled by the IR
Dennis Clarke wrote:
In my opiion they serve no purpose at all. Unless something legally needs a
signature on it then why print anything? Maybe for the sight impaired but
really, why re we still killing trees? What happened to the dream of the
paperless office ?
I never had such a dream; I l
Nauman Rafique wrote:
Is it possible that I compile opensolaris on a single core machine, and copy
the binaries and run them on a multi-core/multi-processor machine?
Compiling certainly.
However the much more important issue is making sure that your code does
correct locking if it is multith
> * Finanical responsibility
> * Taxation laws
> * Ensuring that the money actually gets used for an
> "approved" purpose
> I'm relatively certain that if you said to Sun,
> "Look, here's a $US50K
> cheque to develop Solaris" they'd probably work out a
> way to accept the
> money for that purp
Ché Kristo wrote On 12/17/06 21:38,:
So far a lot of effort has gone into allowing members of the OpenSolaris
Community contribute code to OpenSolaris, this has been great and a lot of
progress has been made on this front.
Indeed it has. We blew away all our pre-launch expectations for cod
Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
. /..'\ I think that you will need to .
. /'.'\ download it and then see. It.
. /.''.'\must be documented in a change .
. /.'.'.\list somewhere. Maybe. .
I had a quick look and saw lp ment
> What would the money be for? Volunteers don't get
> paid for their time.
>
I'd be willing to donate money for a real bug database.
---Bob
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensola
Peter,
On which platform did you see the problem x86 or sparc?
And can you send me the call stack after segfault?
Thanks
Brian
Zhao-Zhou Li wrote:
FYI.
ZZ
Subject:
[osol-discuss] live upgrade sxce 52 -> sxce 54 = brok
37 matches
Mail list logo
