Brian Nitz wrote:
Was this recently ported from Linux?
your best chance to find this out would be to check the PSARC archives, I
think.
btw: it's interesting to note that in the Solaris 7 days there was a period
where top used to be a CPU pig (IIRC) ... it's somehow amusing to see
history
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Thank you, I just found that the BIOS did have SATA set to "IRR" (Intel Rapid
> Restore" whatever this is. No SATA devices have been detected. I'll retry
> with SATA set to AHCI.
Nothing to thank. Interesting, what BIOS vendor is it?
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
> > #1.) Otherwise, in general: To restart the install process manually
> > just enter "suninstall"
>
> Thank you, I just found that the BIOS did have SATA set to "IRR" (Intel Rapid
> Restore" whatever this is.
Martin Bochnig wrote:
> >
> > Any idea how to fix this?
> >
> > BTW: the DVD-ROM is not mounted at this state.
> >
> > It is possible that the DVD-ROM drive is too slow after a reset and
> > the system thus does not mount the install media?
> >
> >
> > Can I mount the medium by hand and restart t
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to install SXCE on a Dell Latitude and after
> I selected 3 -> Solaris interactive text (Desktop session),
> I get:
>
>ERROR: Cannot find Java software, Exiting to shell
>
> Any idea how to fix this?
>
> BTW: the
Hi,
I am trying to install SXCE on a Dell Latitude and after
I selected 3 -> Solaris interactive text (Desktop session),
I get:
ERROR: Cannot find Java software, Exiting to shell
Any idea how to fix this?
BTW: the DVD-ROM is not mounted at this state.
It is possible that the DVD-ROM dr
On Thu, February 12, 2009 03:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
>
>> > Inflammatory, maybe. Incorrect, I don't think so. Joerg has made a
>> > fairly convincing, and consistent, point of showing where the
>> > reliability problems with GNU tar lie - in bugs that were filed 16
On 02/12/09 03:47, Michael Schuster wrote:
Martin Bochnig wrote:
I mean, ok: I got used to it, that small daemons like the
network-auto-magic manager can consume 86MB. Also, that small almost
useless little Gnome-applets can consume hundreds of MB's (wnck-applet
104MB, clock-applet 80MB, mixer-
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> > Inflammatory, maybe. Incorrect, I don't think so. Joerg has made a
> > fairly convincing, and consistent, point of showing where the
> > reliability problems with GNU tar lie - in bugs that were filed 16
> > years ago. You even acknowledged them in your response. Ou
>Does this explain why a wget process grew to 2.2GB (where I killed it) ??
>Then wget must have exactly the same bug, which is unlikely. Therefore
>the bug must be in a shared lib which both use. This suggests (but is
>not limited to) libc.
Run them with libumem and start them with UMEM_DEBUG set
10 matches
Mail list logo
