On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 12:24 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2013 6:13 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
It looks like we will have more framebuffers beside TCX in the near future.
One way
On 3/26/2013 12:24 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bob Breuer wrote:
>> On 3/26/2013 6:13 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>>> It looks like we will have more framebuffers beside TCX in the near future.
>>> One way to use them would be to make new machines combining a bas
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bob Breuer wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 6:13 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> It looks like we will have more framebuffers beside TCX in the near future.
>> One way to use them would be to make new machines combining a base
>> machine name with a framebuffer name, like ss5t
On 3/26/2013 6:13 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> It looks like we will have more framebuffers beside TCX in the near future.
> One way to use them would be to make new machines combining a base
> machine name with a framebuffer name, like ss5tcx and ss5cg3, but I
> guess this would produce too many
It looks like we will have more framebuffers beside TCX in the near future.
One way to use them would be to make new machines combining a base
machine name with a framebuffer name, like ss5tcx and ss5cg3, but I
guess this would produce too many machines if we have more than 2
framebuffers.
Should
