Full of sympathy, I still feel you might as well relax a bit. It is the XkbVariant that starts X without any chance to return. But look at the many "boot stops after the third line", and from my side, the not working network settings, even without nwam. The worst part was a so-called engineer stating that one simply can't expect a host to connect to the same gateway through 2 different paths properly.
But it would be wrong to admonish the individuals, and my excuses to those I treated with contempt. The problem cannot be solved in this forum. The issue needs to be addressed elsewhere. When adoption (migration) is the objective, in the first place the kernel needs to boot, whatever the hardware, even if graceful degradation is unavoidable. Second, a network setting must be possible, and not simply doing nothing, or requiring a dead NIC to be added just to boot. As much as I was grateful to be helped, of course an X server needs to fall back to sane behaviour at all times. And sendmail loses mail. All this is sick. But priorities need to come from managers, or the community, not from the coders. In OpenSolaris SUN insists on calling the shots, so it will be managers in this case. I myself am very unhappy with ZFS; not because it had failed me, but for a third party, cold-eyes review, the man page and the concept and (arcane) commands by now surpasses by far the sequence of logical steps to partition (fdisk) and format (newfs) a drive. Pools, tanks, scrubs, imports, exports and whatnot; I don't think this was the original intention. And - as bad as the network engineer further up - is the statement on 'USB hard disk not suitable for ZFS' or similar. Do not get me wrong, OpenSolaris is still my preferred Desktop, I love its stability, and - laugh at me - it is the only one that always allows to kill an application gone sour (Ubuntu usually fails here). I consider it elegant and helpful with my daily work. *If* it is up, *if* it boots. Alas, this is by far the more difficult part. And here I agree with you: USB hard disks need a proper, clear, way to be attached and removed, without even exceeding the old way of mount-umount. Try to run a hard disk test. Let us also compare here: I never lost an ext3-drive that would pass the hardware test. On the contrary, at times I could recover data from one that failed. But let us introduce as measure the former one: As long as the drive is not flagged 'corrupt' by the disk test utility, it surely must not lose any data (aside from 'rm'). My honest and curious question: Does ZFS pass this test? Uwe -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
