headers
dick hoogendijk | 1 Oct 12:02
Picon
Gravatar

eSATA card

Does anybody know of a good and supported eSATA card to build into my
SXCE_98 machine? Addonics has one for $85,- That does not sound cheap.
Is this prive OK?

--

-- 
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv95 ++

------------------------------------

Please check the Links page before posting:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/links
Post message: solarisx86 <at> yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE:  solarisx86-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Trevor Maggs | 1 Oct 12:27
Picon

Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE

Has anyone out there experienced this similar problem?

When running Firefox 3 on CDE over X windows on PC via Xdeep, the
colour and fonts look horrible when the browser gets focus, but looks
ok when it gets out of focus.

When using the browser, it looks ugly. I cannot understand most words
however, the CDE itself is fine. Is it something to do with colour and
font management problem in CDE for the applications?

I googled around and I cannot find anyone mentioning directly about
this issue. Any idea?

------------------------------------

Please check the Links page before posting:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/links
Post message: solarisx86 <at> yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE:  solarisx86-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Rodney Sparapani | 1 Oct 15:40
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE

Trevor Maggs wrote:
> Has anyone out there experienced this similar problem?
> 
> When running Firefox 3 on CDE over X windows on PC via Xdeep, the
> colour and fonts look horrible when the browser gets focus, but looks
> ok when it gets out of focus.
> 
> When using the browser, it looks ugly. I cannot understand most words
> however, the CDE itself is fine. Is it something to do with colour and
> font management problem in CDE for the applications?
> 
> I googled around and I cannot find anyone mentioning directly about
> this issue. Any idea?
> 

Firefox 3 comes with alot of packages that update the GNOME 
infrastructure.  I am surprised that this even works on CDE
(unless you are talking about Solaris 10 or Solaris 9 with
GNOME installed).  I am no expert, but Firefox 3.0 did not work
very well for me either in JDS.  So, I'm sticking with 2.x for
now until the dust settles as 2.x is pretty rock-solid.  I'd
love to try a newer Evolution however.  I wonder if the packages
updated for Firefox 3 are the same ones that would be necessary
to run a newer Evolution.  If so, then I'd be more tempted to
try 3 again.

--

-- 
Rodney Sparapani      Center for Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR)
Sr. Biostatistician              http://www.mcw.edu/pcor
4 wheels good, 2 wheels better!  Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Tim Evans | 1 Oct 15:43

Re: Re: Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE


> Firefox 3 comes with alot of packages that update the GNOME
> infrastructure.  I am surprised that this even works on CDE
> (unless you are talking about Solaris 10 or Solaris 9 with
> GNOME installed).

I can confirm the contributed build of 3.0.3 works with Solaris 10/CDE,
but the fonts are kinda ugly.
--

-- 
Tim Evans, TKEvans.com, Inc.    |   5 Chestnut Court
UNIX System Admin Consulting    |   Owings Mills, MD 21117
http://www.tkevans.com/         |   443-394-3864
http://www.come-here.com/News/  |   tkevans <at> tkevans.com

------------------------------------

Please check the Links page before posting:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/links
Post message: solarisx86 <at> yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE:  solarisx86-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laurent Blume | 1 Oct 16:10
Favicon

Re: Re: Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE

Rodney Sparapani a écrit :
> Firefox 3 comes with alot of packages that update the GNOME 
> infrastructure. 

They do not *update* it. They only install a separate set of more recent
libraries in /opt/sfw, that are not used by the system.

> I am surprised that this even works on CDE
> (unless you are talking about Solaris 10 or Solaris 9 with
> GNOME installed).  I am no expert, but Firefox 3.0 did not work
> very well for me either in JDS.  So, I'm sticking with 2.x for
> now until the dust settles as 2.x is pretty rock-solid.  I'd
> love to try a newer Evolution however.  I wonder if the packages
> updated for Firefox 3 are the same ones that would be necessary
> to run a newer Evolution.  If so, then I'd be more tempted to
> try 3 again.

Strange, as it works very nicely for me, more stable than FF2 (but that
might be the Flash plugin that was also updated recently).

The fonts show good, too. It might be because I've installed all the
font-related patches, fontconfig, new fonts, etc.

Laurent
--

-- 
/ Leader de Projet & Communauté    | I'm working, but not speaking for
\ G11N   http://fr.opensolaris.org | Bull Services http://www.bull.com
/ FOSUG  http://guses.org          |

------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Rodney Sparapani | 1 Oct 17:22
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE

Laurent Blume wrote:
> 
> They do not *update* it. They only install a separate set of more recent
> libraries in /opt/sfw, that are not used by the system.
> 

Right.  But, I wonder if these replacements would work with a newer
Evolution.  If so, then this would be a nice shortcut.  It would make
the jump very attractive.

> 
> Strange, as it works very nicely for me, more stable than FF2 (but that
> might be the Flash plugin that was also updated recently).
> 
> The fonts show good, too. It might be because I've installed all the
> font-related patches, fontconfig, new fonts, etc.
> 
> Laurent

Do you mean Solaris 10 patches?  I did *all* of them at one point and it
made no difference.  This is probably the reason that Firefox 3 needs a
completely separate set of libraries:  they not only have the fixes, but 
they also have new functionality it requires.  Probably the same reason 
that a newer version of Evolution is not available.

--

-- 
Rodney Sparapani      Center for Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR)
Sr. Biostatistician              http://www.mcw.edu/pcor
4 wheels good, 2 wheels better!  Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW)
WWLD?:  What Would Lombardi Do?  Milwaukee, WI, USA
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Laurent Blume | 1 Oct 18:00
Favicon

Re: Re: Firefox 3 look and feel problem in Solaris 10 CDE

Rodney Sparapani a écrit :
> Right.  But, I wonder if these replacements would work with a newer
> Evolution.  If so, then this would be a nice shortcut.  It would make
> the jump very attractive.

I wouldn't recommend it. They have localization issues, not important
for browsing, might matter somewhere else.

> Do you mean Solaris 10 patches?  I did *all* of them at one point and it
> made no difference.  This is probably the reason that Firefox 3 needs a
> completely separate set of libraries:  they not only have the fixes, but 
> they also have new functionality it requires.  Probably the same reason 
> that a newer version of Evolution is not available.

The set of libraries is different, but it still runs inside the Solaris
GNOME environment, and takes it into account. Fonts and font-related
settings come from X and GNOME. If you modify the font aliasing setting,
it will apply to FF3.

You might try starting GNOME in a different locale (C, en_US.UTF-8) and
see if it looks the same.

Laurent
--

-- 
/ Leader de Projet & Communauté    | I'm working, but not speaking for
\ G11N   http://fr.opensolaris.org | Bull Services http://www.bull.com
/ FOSUG  http://guses.org          |

------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
devmazumdar | 1 Oct 19:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: later (b9x) Nevada builds, USB and OSS


--- In solarisx86 <at> yahoogroups.com, Matt Banks <mattbanks@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone else had problems with OSS and later Nevada builds?
> 
> Long story short: My USB microphone combined with b94-97 and OSS 1016 
> has proved to be quite fatal for the OS.
> 
> Should OSS 1016 work with Nevada builds?
> 
> 
> Long story long:
> 
> My q6600/P35 system on a DVI/USB KVM has been very stable. However, I 
> started using it for more and more things. I installed OSS (initially 
> 1015, but then 1016) and really didn't see any problems. A few weeks 
> ago, the system was running b94. While I was out of town, the system
had 
> a problem. It's not a mission critical system, but it's important to
me. 
> After fixing the boot archive, it responded to pings and DNS requests, 
> but no httpd or sshd/telnetd/ftpd. So, I switched over to my backup box 
> (still running b84) until I could sit in front of the box. Walking my 
> wife through a ctrl-d or root password screen proved to be too much.
> 
> I found that I couldn't get the system running no matter what I did 
> booting from the hard drive. I then installed the then newly released 
> b95, and everything was fine again. I also (not thinking) installed
OSS, 
> and everything seemed fine again.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
dorman92093 | 1 Oct 22:15
Favicon

ZFS inter-architecture interoperability

If I format a USB drive as ZFS on a SOL10 X86 machine and then
transport it to a SOL10 Sparc machine, will the filesystem
be readable on the Sparc?
LeRoy Dorman

------------------------------------

Please check the Links page before posting:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/links
Post message: solarisx86 <at> yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE:  solarisx86-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Chris Kern | 1 Oct 22:38
Picon

Slow Solaris 10 NFS Client Write Performance

I'm experiencing abysmally slow NFS v. 3 over TCP write performance with 
Solaris 10/X86 5/08 running as an NFS client against a Linux-based 
filing appliance (an Adaptec-now-Overland SNAPServer 210, in case anyone 
thinks that's significant).

Before I invest a lot of time into gathering diagnostic information -- 
nfsstat(1M) hasn't been very helpful, so I guess my next step is to 
start snooping the connection between client and server -- I thought it 
might be a good idea to check whether there's a well-known fix for this 
that has simply escaped me.

NFS writes from a Solaris 9/X86 client to the filing appliance are 
acceptably fast.  That's also true for an Apple OS X 10.5.5 client. 
We're talking about quite a spread: writing a 6 MB file takes about 7 
seconds from the Solaris 9 client, 15 seconds from the OS X client, and 
well over a minute (how much over depends on the mount options) from the 
Solaris 10 client.  The tests were conducted with only a single active 
NFS session on the server.  I think all the relevant current patches are 
installed on the Sol 10 client.

Only the Solaris 10 client's write performance is poor.  The Sol 9, 10 
and OS X clients perform essentially the same during NFS reads from the 
filing appliance.

I've tried mucking with the wsize mount option without much success. 
Using forcediretio helps, but the performance is still awful -- just 
less awful.  The Ethernet interface on the Solaris 10 machine reports no 
errors.

Unless someone out there can tell me the magic incantation, I'm afraid
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane