Also you want to know if it is an IDE drive or a SATA. It's most likely
a 2.5 inch drive.
Usually these are no hassle to replace. First time round put the screws
on the table exactly in the place of where you took them from.
Some of these laptops have different length screws. And if you put the
And what does this have to do with Linux?
I really hate people attempting to bash Microsoft their products on OSS
lists. IMHO It really makes everyone look like zealots.
Cheers,
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21/02/2007 05:01:19 PM:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
slug-chat is the best place for this thread
Dean
Scott Ragen wrote:
And what does this have to do with Linux?
I really hate people attempting to bash Microsoft their products on OSS
lists. IMHO It really makes everyone look like zealots.
Cheers,
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:05:31 +1100
Scott Ragen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what does this have to do with Linux?
I really hate people attempting to bash Microsoft their products on
OSS lists. IMHO It really makes everyone look like zealots.
In Howard's defence, I don't see the article as MS
G'day guys,
I don't think Howard's actually in the wrong. It sort of belongs in a
list somewhere between slug and slug-chat. You've got the MS Bashing
aspect that some people will see that makes it appear in the slug-chat
area, while you have the administrative IBM think 4GB?! viewpoint that
On Thu, February 22, 2007 9:46 am, Alexander Stanley wrote:
Granted, we're a group of individuals who discuss Linux, an OS that,
despite previous statements I've received, will more than happily run on
100mhz and 64mb of RAM (last tested on the 2.6.16-r3 kernel before I
tossed that piece of
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 11:45 +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
Scott Ragen wrote:
And what does this have to do with Linux?
I really hate people attempting to bash Microsoft their products
on OSS
lists. IMHO It really makes everyone look like zealots.
Au contraire. Perhaps those who
Hi,
Since moving to my AMD64 based machine I have changed my Ubuntu to the
64 bit version. My problem is that I can no longer see flash in web pages.
There appears to be no way to get a 64 bit flash 9 player or plugin and
using nspluginwrapper -i (directory)/libflashplayer.so with either Flash
This leads me to ask about the equivalent for most Linux desktop setups.
What is the sweet spot for RAM in a typical, say, Ubuntu desktop box?
The point at which diminishing returns from improved functionality
intersects with the increase in cost.
Adam K
Howard Lowndes wrote:
Adobe/Macromedia Flash doesn't have 64Bit support. As for Gnash (never
used it) but you mentioned it has an external player. With an extension
can you play embedded flash to the player of you choice.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/446/
After installing flash remains to be embedded, you have
quote who=Adam Kennedy
This leads me to ask about the equivalent for most Linux desktop setups.
What is the sweet spot for RAM in a typical, say, Ubuntu desktop box?
The point at which diminishing returns from improved functionality
intersects with the increase in cost.
128-256MB if you
I've been using Gnash on Fedora 6 x86_64 for a while now. It's not perfect, but
it's coming along. Nothing's been released since 0.7.1, so you're pretty much
going to have to install from cvs to get the recent stuff, as you probably know.
I've been configuring with the following options
On Thursday 22 February 2007 07:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am about to have an adsl2+ broadband service connected. I have a
Belkin Wireless G Router. Is there a suitable wireless card for a
desktop that is sure to be OK for all or most flavours of Linux?
I've a huge pile of paperweights,
G'day all!
We're running low on volunteers - anyone else want to represent their
favourite distro?
Lindsay
- Forwarded message from Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: SLUG Activities [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:10:22 +1100
On 2/22/07, Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all!
We're running low on volunteers - anyone else want to represent their
favourite distro?
I've switched from Gentoo to Arch on my main desktop about two weeks ago, I
could do either.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing
Do you need Debian reps or was this spot filled out the quickest? :-)
I'm NOT a Debian Developer but I use it for many years so might be able to
fill in.
--Amos
On 22/02/07, Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all!
We're running low on volunteers - anyone else want to represent
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 14:34 +1100, Lindsay Holmwood wrote:
G'day all!
We're running low on volunteers - anyone else want to represent their
favourite distro?
What ones do you have?
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Thursday 22 February 2007 13:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since moving to my AMD64 based machine I have changed my Ubuntu to the
64 bit version. My problem is that I can no longer see flash in web pages.
There appears to be no way to get a 64 bit flash 9 player or plugin and
using
What distro's are currently being represented?
James
On 2/22/07, Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all!
We're running low on volunteers - anyone else want to represent their
favourite distro?
Lindsay
- Forwarded message from Lindsay Holmwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
From:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 10526161052616 0
Is this sort of usage normal?
On Thursday 22 February 2007 13:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This leads me to ask about the equivalent for most Linux desktop setups.
What is the sweet spot for RAM in a typical, say, Ubuntu desktop box?
The point at which diminishing returns from improved functionality
intersects with the
This one time, at band camp, Peter Hardy wrote:
Is this sort of usage normal? Filling a gigabyte of swap space while
just under 1.5GB of memory is going towards buffers seems odd to me. And
vmstat reports no usage of this swap space over a 15 minute period.
Just trust it. It knows what it's
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 1052616
On 22/02/07 12:27, Heracles wrote:
Since moving to my AMD64 based machine I have changed my Ubuntu to the
64 bit version. My problem is that I can no longer see flash in web
pages.
Not the easiest solution, but you could always set up a 32 bit chroot
for firefox and other apps that rely on 32
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 05:22 +, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Peter Hardy wrote:
Is this sort of usage normal? Filling a gigabyte of swap space while
just under 1.5GB of memory is going towards buffers seems odd to me. And
vmstat reports no usage of this swap
On Thursday 22 February 2007 14:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 5005084 4816352 188732 0 156644 3165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 1494168 3510916
Swap:
On 22/02/07, Howard Lowndes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Blanket statement != useful.
On a desktop, where I'm putting OOo in the background and letting
firefox chew all my ram for a while - yes, I'll take lots of
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Peter Hardy wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+ buffers/cache: 14941683510916
Swap: 1052616
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:55:47PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
What ones do you have?
Right now, Fedora and Slackware.
Lindsay
--
http://slug.org.au/ (the Sydney Linux Users Group)
http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ (me)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List -
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:12:52PM +1100, Michael Kedzierski wrote:
I've switched from Gentoo to Arch on my main desktop about two weeks ago, I
could do either.
Either would be perfect. You can choose on the night. :-)
Lindsay
--
http://slug.org.au/ (the Sydney Linux Users Group)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 03:28:10PM +1100, Amos Shapira wrote:
Do you need Debian reps or was this spot filled out the quickest? :-)
I'm NOT a Debian Developer but I use it for many years so might be able to
fill in.
Nobody has put their hand up yet, so look like you're it. :-)
If other
On Thursday 22 February 2007 14:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since moving to my AMD64 based machine I have changed my Ubuntu to the
64 bit version. My problem is that I can no longer see flash in web
pages.
Not the easiest solution, but you could always set up a 32 bit chroot
for firefox
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Zhasper wrote:
On 22/02/07, Peter Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem:50050844816352 188732 0 1566443165540
-/+
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:24 +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
It's recommended that your swap space should be 2x your RAM. In your
case it's .2x
Has anybody seriously made such a recommendation this millenium?
In my experience, the formula doesn't really scale at all. I suppose, in
certain
On Thu, February 22, 2007 11:48 am, Howard Lowndes wrote:
Granted, we're a group of individuals who discuss Linux, an OS that,
despite previous statements I've received, will more than happily run
on 100mhz and 64mb of RAM (last tested on the 2.6.16-r3 kernel before
with a GUI desktop ?
On Thu, February 22, 2007 12:46 pm, Jeff Waugh wrote:
This leads me to ask about the equivalent for most Linux desktop
setups.
What is the sweet spot for RAM in a typical, say, Ubuntu desktop box?
The point at which diminishing returns from improved functionality
intersects with the
36 matches
Mail list logo
