Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:49:50PM +, Bruno Girin wrote:
> Following the last meeting [1], I was left with the action to look for a
> venue to do some Ubuntu desktop app hacking evenings. As suggested by
> Jorvik during the meeting, I went tonight to have a look at the London
>
Hi all,
Following the last meeting [1], I was left with the action to look for a
venue to do some Ubuntu desktop app hacking evenings. As suggested by
Jorvik during the meeting, I went tonight to have a look at the London
Hackspace in Hoxton [2] to see if it would be a good place to do that.
Coming out of standby is a major issue on a lot of machines. Usually a
problem with the video drivers (but not always). What video card do you
have? My machine will not come out of standby 90% of the time running
FGLRX radeon drivers, but does on the open source drivers, works as good as
gold on
I have a problem that I am pretty sure is nothing to do with Ubuntu
but I hope somebody here may be able to help. On one of my desktop
PCs (running Ubuntu 11.10), about 50% of the time when I shutdown it
does a normal power down but then the standby light flashes as if it
were in standby. It is n
Thanks to those who expressed an interest in the Christmas meal, I have
now made a reservation for 9 people on the 9th of December (yes, the day
after the happy hour in Surbiton)
From the reservation confirmation:
In case you would need to cancel your booking or if the number of guests
needs
Thanks for that Liam. I've not had the pleasure(?) of drinking in most
of those so very useful. Having talking to the locals that I work with
in Surbiton, for the best mix of price/friendliness/space, the Victoria
might be best
REgards
Dan
On 13 November 2011 10:04, Alan Bell wrote:
Hi
On 13 November 2011 10:04, Alan Bell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the next Happy Hour will be on the 8th of December in Surbiton. A well
> connected part of West London with good train access to everywhere. The
> exact venue is yet to be determined, but the intrepid explorer Dan Fish has
> volunteered to
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 11:54 +, Colin Law wrote:
> [...]
> Agreed, plus possibly a few words pointing out the significance of
> this. I maintain there *is* a problem as people have been confused by
> the documentation (including myself), therefore it would benefit from
> clarification, so we do
On 15 November 2011 11:29, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Colin Law wrote:
>> On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>> > Juan J. wrote:
>> >
>> >> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem
>> >> to be coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit
>> >> system
Colin Law wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> > Juan J. wrote:
> >
> >> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem
> >> to be coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit
> >> system running a 32 bit kernel.
> >
> > It depends why you are i
On 15 November 2011 09:41, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:44AM +, Colin Law wrote:
>> So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
>> -i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
>> the installed OS?
>
> This won't change - u
On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Juan J. wrote:
>
>> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem to be
>> coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit system
>> running a 32 bit kernel.
>
> It depends why you are interested.
>
> When a 686 kernel
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:44AM +, Colin Law wrote:
> So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
> -i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
> the installed OS?
This won't change - uname is used in scripts that need to know
specifically a
Juan J. wrote:
> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem to be
> coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit system
> running a 32 bit kernel.
It depends why you are interested.
When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on 686
hardware
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:57 +, Colin Law wrote:
> 2011/11/15 Juan J. :
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
> >> software is running on.
> >
> > Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in t
2011/11/15 Juan J. :
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
>> [...]
>> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
>> software is running on.
>
> Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in the man page?
>
> info coreutils 'uname invocation'
>
> It's way mo
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
> [...]
> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
> software is running on.
Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in the man page?
info coreutils 'uname invocation'
It's way more complete.
I looks like the prob
2011/11/14 Juan J. :
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:22 +, Colin Law wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> > TL;DR: it doesn't matter what is your hardware, the important it's which
>> > kernel are your running.
>>
>> It does matter what the hardware is if you want to know whether you
>> *could* run the 64 bit ke
18 matches
Mail list logo
