I need to configure my ATI X700 to be able to have a dual monitor since i
really need it for representations, I have not have any luck in the last
year searching around to make it work, I am asking any one that has an a
machine like mine and has resolved this issue to kindly send me any
I need to configure my ATI X700 to be able to have a dual monitor since i
really need it for representations, I have not have any luck in the last
year searching around to make it work, I am asking any one that has an a
machine like mine and has resolved this issue to kindly send me any
Dne Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:41:38 +0300
Maher Mohamed [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
I need to configure my ATI X700 to be able to have a dual monitor
since i really need it for representations, I have not have any luck
in the last year searching around to make it work, I am asking any
one that has
My guess is that you forgot to include options SMP in
your kernel config. Otherwise, what's the output from
sysctl kern.smp on that machine?
Best regards
Oliver
Sorry, my bad, everything works like a charm.
I forgot that SMP config is just include GENERIC + options SMP
and I copied
Bob Johnson wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, an additional confusion is that .. and ../
are handled differently. Specifying .. always leads to
this message:
rm: . and .. may not be removed
and nothing is actually removed. It is confusing that
adding a slash
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Well, problem with top is that on dual 3GHZ box it alsway s
shows 0% load when not loaded with real traffic (web traffic) no matter
if it is polling of int handling.
Great, so your machine doesn't have any significant overhead
for the timer interrupt. That was your
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, LI Xin wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, an additional confusion is that .. and ../
are handled differently. Specifying .. always leads to
this message:
rm: . and .. may not be
In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
Bob Johnson wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, an additional confusion is that .. and ../
are handled differently. Specifying .. always leads to
this message:
rm: . and .. may not be removed
and nothing is
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
Bob Johnson wrote:
Maybe. But I expect that the behavior for rm -rf .. is there so
that things don't get REALLY astonishing when you do rm -rf *.
The expansion of * does not include . or ...
Under /bin/sh, .*
Dan Nelson wrote:
Oliver Fromme said:
The expansion of * does not include . or ...
Under /bin/sh, .* does match . and .., so be careful :)
For that reason I got used to type .??* instead of .*
since I started with UNIX almost 20 years ago. ;-)
Apart from that, zsh is my shell of
Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
.??* is a standard workaround that works most of the time. Won't match
.a .b etc but such antisocial files are the exception, one might hope.
What? I name all my files that way!
Granted, that only allows under 30 files per directory, but so what?
--
Tuomo
... SROL
On 9/26/07, Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
Bob Johnson wrote:
Maybe. But I expect that the behavior for rm -rf .. is there so
that things don't get REALLY astonishing when you do rm -rf *.
The expansion of * does not include .
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, LI Xin wrote:
I think this is a bug, here is a fix obtained from NetBSD.
This bug, if any, cannot be fixed in rm.
The reasoning (from NetBSD's rm.c,v 1.16):
Bugs can easily be added to rm.
Strip trailing slashes of operands in checkdot().
POSIX.2 requires that if .
Hi I am concerned about the availabilities of these encryptions in
freebsd releases that are marked stable.
It seems gbde has a problem when the the data written goes over the
lba boundary around lba48.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom/2007-August/002524.html
I suffered this
Chris wrote:
Hi I am concerned about the availabilities of these encryptions in
freebsd releases that are marked stable.
It seems gbde has a problem when the the data written goes over the
lba boundary around lba48.
Could you please test the attached patch to /usr/src/sys/dev/ata/ata-all.c
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, LI Xin wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, an additional confusion is that .. and ../
are handled differently. Specifying .. always leads to
this message:
rm: . and .. may not
On 26/09/2007, Michael Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris wrote:
Hi I am concerned about the availabilities of these encryptions in
freebsd releases that are marked stable.
It seems gbde has a problem when the the data written goes over the
lba boundary around lba48.
Could you
17 matches
Mail list logo
