>On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:00:30PM -0800, Mark wrote:
>> Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
>> months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
>> recogniz
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:00:30PM -0800, Mark wrote:
> Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
> months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
> recognize the card. I removed/purged b43-fwcutter and wicd, and reinstalled
&g
On Friday 29 January 2010 02:47:09 you wrote:
> > Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
> >months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
> > recognize the card. I removed/purged b43-fwcutter and wicd, and
> > r
> Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
>months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
> recognize the card. I removed/purged b43-fwcutter and wicd, and reinstalled
>both. Nothing. I pasted some output below
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Mark wrote:
Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
recognize the card. I removed/purged b43-fwcutter and wicd, and reinstalled
both. Nothing. I pasted
Hello, any help is much appreciated. Wireless card has worked fine for
months on a Dell Mini 10v. After updates last night, Squeeze doesn't
recognize the card. I removed/purged b43-fwcutter and wicd, and reinstalled
both. Nothing. I pasted some output below, can anyone help?
Thank you!!
On Thu,24.Sep.09, 20:14:49, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > - because it's on a stick it has no swap
> > - this machine is good enough for the typical MPEG-4 movies (on my
> > hi-res TV), but I don't want to risk skips in the middle of the movie
> > just because postfix is running it's queue or wh
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Andrei Popescu
wrote:
> - because it's on a stick it has no swap
> - this machine is good enough for the typical MPEG-4 movies (on my
> hi-res TV), but I don't want to risk skips in the middle of the movie
> just because postfix is running it's queue or whateve
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:40:41PM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:06:34PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Wed,23.Sep.09, 10:52:09, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > All UNIX and Linux boxes should have an MTA. It doesn't always need to
> > > listen
> > > on
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:38:40AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed,23.Sep.09, 22:47:04, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > How about a PIII-500 machine with 384 MB RAM running from an 1GB USB
> > > stick?
> >
> > Machines with much smaller memory and slower processor were used as
> > departmental m
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:38:40AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed,23.Sep.09, 22:47:04, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > How about a PIII-500 machine with 384 MB RAM running from an 1GB USB
> > > stick?
> >
> > Machines with much smaller memory and slower processor were used as
> > departmental m
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:41:24PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > If so, why not configuring exim or postfix as non-resident. It can be
> > done. Why not?
>
> U, which is what I was telling the OP who posed the question. Dunno
> why you're telling me.
U... I do no
On Wed,23.Sep.09, 22:47:04, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > How about a PIII-500 machine with 384 MB RAM running from an 1GB USB
> > stick?
>
> Machines with much smaller memory and slower processor were used as
> departmental mail servers not that long ago. Believe me, it's a no
> brainer. I run post
> How about a PIII-500 machine with 384 MB RAM running from an 1GB USB
> stick?
Machines with much smaller memory and slower processor were used as
departmental mail servers not that long ago. Believe me, it's a no
brainer. I run postfix on my Neo Freerunner (128MB RAM) and haven't
noticed it be
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:06:34PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed,23.Sep.09, 10:52:09, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >
> > All UNIX and Linux boxes should have an MTA. It doesn't always need to
> > listen
> > on 25 or 587, but both postfix and exim4 support that.
>
> How about a PIII-
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:39:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>> Considering the class of machine this is (highly portable,
>>> personal machine) it is highly unlikely that it would ever needs a
>>> resident MTA.
> Odd. My highly portable, personal laptop runs an M
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> If so, why not configuring exim or postfix as non-resident. It can be
> done. Why not?
U, which is what I was telling the OP who posed the question. Dunno
why you're telling me.
> If resource is issue, reducing eye candies have real impact.
Just because somethi
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:52:09AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 September 2009 06:04:50 Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:39:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Considering the class of machine this is (highly portable,
> > > personal machine) it is highly u
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 11:06:34 Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed,23.Sep.09, 10:52:09, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > All UNIX and Linux boxes should have an MTA. It doesn't always need to
> > listen on 25 or 587, but both postfix and exim4 support that.
>
> How about a PIII-500 machine wi
On Wed,23.Sep.09, 10:52:09, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
> All UNIX and Linux boxes should have an MTA. It doesn't always need to
> listen
> on 25 or 587, but both postfix and exim4 support that.
How about a PIII-500 machine with 384 MB RAM running from an 1GB USB
stick? I prefer using th
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 06:04:50 Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:39:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Considering the class of machine this is (highly portable,
> > personal machine) it is highly unlikely that it would ever needs a
> > resident MTA.
>
> I agree with "it would
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:39:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > So now compare the overhead of those applets (CPU, memory, anything
> > else?) to the applets you have running.
>
> This is a flawed analogy. Each one of those applets are ones that serve
> some purpose to
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> So now compare the overhead of those applets (CPU, memory, anything
> else?) to the applets you have running.
This is a flawed analogy. Each one of those applets are ones that serve
some purpose to me at the moment. I use the menu dozens of times a night, the
workspace
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:32:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> What desktop are you running there?
>
> I bounce between Dell's 8.04 GNome and UNR 9.04 GNome. I'm not too
> keen on GNome but haven't had the bug to move to XFCE or KDE. I many
> bounce between the two be
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
What desktop are you running there?
I bounce between Dell's 8.04 GNome and UNR 9.04 GNome. I'm not too keen
on GNome but haven't had the bug to move to XFCE or KDE. I many bounce
between the two because Dell's 8.04 has better hardware support while UNR 9.04
has new
Mark wrote:
> A friend has a new Dell Inspiron Mini 10v, came with XP. I installed
> Debian
> via dvd .iso image (dual boot), everything's okay except for audio. lspci
> lists - Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio
> Controller - as the device. The
A friend has a new Dell Inspiron Mini 10v, came with XP. I installed Debian
via dvd .iso image (dual boot), everything's okay except for audio. lspci
lists - Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio
Controller - as the device. There is volume control, etc. All mutes ar
27 matches
Mail list logo
