On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 09:16 -0700, Christopher A Williams wrote:
> O
> n Mon, 2013-01-14 at 09:20 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ...And because of the way Workstation 9.0.1 is trying to deal with it, I
> > > believe this now falls squarely
O
n Mon, 2013-01-14 at 09:20 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>
> >
> > ...And because of the way Workstation 9.0.1 is trying to deal with it, I
> > believe this now falls squarely back on the Fedora team to look at and
> > resolve. You can't blame Workstation or its licensing model - don't even
>
On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 07:49 -0800, Tom London wrote:
--
Christopher A Williams
> > found in:
> >
> > /usr/src/kernels/3.6.11-3.fc18.x86_64/include/linux
> >
> > Put that all together and I suspect that the actual issue isn't so much
> > the differen
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 19:32 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> ...Looked again at this. It's actually not quite what's needed. It says
> to make a symbolic link from:
>
> /usr/src/linux-3.7/include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h
>
> to
>
> /usr/src
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 09:23 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:56:40 -0700
> > "Christopher A. Williams" wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://slackblogs.blogspot.ie/2012/12/
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:56:40 -0700
> "Christopher A. Williams" wrote:
>
>
> http://slackblogs.blogspot.ie/2012/12/linux-kernel-37-vmware-workstation-and.html
> thank the great God Google,
> now why did
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:26 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/12/2013 02:56 PM, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 07:26 -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 05:09:41AM -0700, Lawrence Graves wrote:
>
>
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 10:29 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 07:56:40AM -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 07:26 -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > VMware Workstation for my work (some things needed for my job require
> > Windo
ext chance.
In my case, I'm running the 64-bit kernel, so there's no PAE stuff to
worry about.
I know that's not all of the information people are asking for, but
hopefully it does shed some additional light on the situation...
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher A. Williams
-
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 08:18 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
> Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> > > The two mockups that I'm looking at right now (identical other than
> > > the table column ordering) are:
> > > http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/blockerbugs/reskin-draft3/bloc
dvocate taking
away function that others are using, especially when positioning it as
an upgrade or enhancement, you will always get push-back. That will be
true no matter how strongly (right or wrong) you believe that function
needs to be taken away.
Again, if that is a short-term sacrif
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:49 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:23 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:52 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > > > Exactly what is so bad with "that practice" (of installing both
> &g
e): We need to save the novice users from
themselves, while letting "geniuses" hack kickstart files. This is
pitting one extreme vs. another in a situation where neither is
realistically encountered. Just because I might be a genius doesn't mean
I should be required to hack kickst
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 23:59 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 11:43 PM, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 07:49 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> >> Agreed. And I fear the universe, in this case, may be winning by
> >> producing "bigg
y.
> This is once again an imaginary, or made-up user, so that you can support
> your arguments and ignore
> real Fedora users. How is it that this practice of making up users to support
> cases for writing
> software for idiots has spread so much lately? Write software for you
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 14:06 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:29:06AM -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > Before I go ahead and submit a BZ on this, has anyone else noticed that
> > the Java plugin is not listed in Firefox on F15? If you do
&g
Before I go ahead and submit a BZ on this, has anyone else noticed that
the Java plugin is not listed in Firefox on F15? If you do
about:plugins, everything else you would expect to be there is. The Java
plugin is visibly absent.
I've even tried adding the latest Java (Update 25) from Sun/Oracle.
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 17:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> You can run whatever you what, but when you are talking about fixing issues
> with nVidia on Fedora then you bring in the expectations of the people who
> work on Fedora not run it. For the most part the people who work on the
> kernel hav
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:49 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > But the two camps can - and should - at least be expected to "play
> > nicely" with each other. The rules of engagement between the two could
> > be similar to when two
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:08 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "CAW" == Christopher A Williams writes:
>
> CAW> Actually, this is an oversimplified view based on pure ideology -
> CAW> and exactly the one which causes issues between the Open
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:33 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:59:35 -0600,
> "Christopher A. Williams" wrote:
> >
> > The pragmatic reality is that we will all be dealing with a mix of
> > OpenSource and proprietary software for the
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 12:33 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "SR" == Scott Robbins writes:
>
> SR> I've never quite understood this logic. If it's working, there is a
> SR> change in Fedora, and it doesn't work, this is NVidia's job to fix?
>
> Yes, precisely.
>
> Their code is not o
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:43 -0600, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
> > The issue with nspluginwrapper and the 64-bit plugin remains, however.
> > But since Adobe has pulled the 64-bit plugin for now, we'll have to wait
> > and see if the new version still has the problem. Based on the behavior
> > I'm seeing,
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 17:02 +, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> I wasn't being snarky, I was being pragmatic.
>
> You're absolutely right that a triager should have looked at the bug
> in bugzilla, tried to reproduce it, and comment on the results. I
> can't comment on why that didn't happen. What I w
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:04 -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 10:44 AM, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > Not true. Just because YOU can't reproduce it doesn't mean it isn't
> > happening. Others have reproduced the problem and also commented as such
>
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:01 -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 9:55 AM, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer. Your install method works just great.
> >
> > ...Unfortunately, it also still means that certain sites still do not
> > play vi
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 16:38 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> > > Greetings:
> > >
> > > Is there anything that can be used as a substitute for the flash
> > > player since Adobe
27 matches
Mail list logo
