similar to: Samba Configuration on Linux

is there anyone here who can help with: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111853 nouveau kernel module won't load (not available) on Sony laptop with NVIDIA G86M [GeForce 8400M GT] ID: 10de:0426 ??? -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69083 Priority: medium Bug ID: 69083 Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Summary: using DVI to VGA adapter for CRT and specifying supported "PreferredMode" >EDID preferred mode, screen output is compressed into small fraction of top scan

Video and input drivers Subgroups and projects on gitlab does not list modesetting DDX, presumably because it's not packaged separately from the server. Where's the right place to report a modesetting DDX bug that manifests only on an NVidia GPU? Directly against the server https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver? Here are some particulars: How can I tell whether this should be

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111853 Bug ID: 111853 Summary: nouveau kernel module won't load (not available) on Sony laptop with NVIDIA G86M [GeForce 8400M GT] ID: 10de:0426 Product: xorg Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All)

Hi, What is the latest version of Samba for SuSE 9.0, and where can I find it. Shame support was dropped for this one... still being used a lot... -- Rory Vieira rory dot vieira at gmail dot com

Hallo, Im trying to get the support for smbfs back in FC6_x86_64. I've been told (correct me if I'm wrong) that the newest version of samba has suppoort for smbs I download the samba-3.0.23d from http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/Fedora/RPMS/i386/core/5/ But these are the files for FC 5 (besides they are for th i386 system) Installing samba-3.0.23d-1.i386.rpm results in an

Hello, I have the following Samba RPMs installed... samba-client-3.0.26a-0.5 samba-3.0.26a-0.5 samba-pdb-3.0.26a-0.5 yast2-samba-server-2.9.33-0.3 kdebase3-samba-3.2.1-68.62 samba-winbind-3.0.26a-0.5 yast2-samba-client-2.9.18-0.3 samba-python-3.0.26a-0.5 I used to be able to do a mount with -t smbfs, but not I get this message whenever I try it. Version

Hello, I've got a FreeBSD 5.5 box running Samba 3.0.21 and every-time I try to do a "mount -t smbfs -o username=username,password=password // server/share /mnt/folder" I get the error "smbfs: -o username=: option not supported". I've google'd this with no luck... any help in the right direction is appreciated. --- Jason Zondor

Sometime not too long ago, I installed a new security release of samba on my debian box. Shortly after, I realized that my OS/2 Warp 4 box was no longer able to access the shares on my debian box. The OS/2 system is still able to access shares on other (Win9x) machines. I asked around about this issue on an OS/2 list. Although no one there was sure what might have caused it to quit working,

I installed samba on a PC running SuSE 10.2, using the version from the SuSE 10.2 repository (3.0.23). All very nice, except smbmount is missing. As I understand it, this would seem to be because the version offered had not been compiled with the --with-smbmount option. Is my interpretation correct? And if so, how can I fix things? Do I have to download the source and do my own compilation

First: this is my first post on this list so any suggestions, let me know. I recently had to make the move from SMBFS to CIFS when I upgraded from Fedora 4 to 5. Changing settings in my /etc/fstab was easy and no errors come up but now I'm having an issue very similar to post I found on your list that got no response back in April: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2006-April/119813.html

> Felix Miata wrote in https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/2020-February/035583.html: OS Kernel State /boot/vmlinuz timestamp >> openSUSE 15.1/kernel 4.12.14 OK 2019-12-06 Fedora 31/5.3.16 kernel OK 2019-12-13 openSUSE 15.2/5.3.16 kernel OK 2019-12-31 Tumbleweed/5.4.7 kernel OK 2020-01-08 Mageia 7/5.4.10 kernel OK 2020-01-09 Mageia 8/5.4.11 kernel OK 2020-01-13

This is from mount <mountpoint> on openSUSE 13.1m3 running 3.10.1 desktop kernel. The mountpoint and fstab entries are identical and working in openSUSE 12.3 on same system. I just spent several hours on IRC and elsewhere trying to figure this out before thinking to try booting something other than 13.1. :-( Fstab entry (redacted): //HOST/share /mountpoint cifs

Items in dmesg when FAT share's are accessed from web browser: CIFS VFS: bogus file nlink value 0 When accessed from FC/L (OFM (orthodox filemanager)): CIFS VFS: illegal date, month 0 day: 0 When the share is initially mounted: CIFS: Attempting to mount //hostname/E Use of the less secure dialect vers=1.0 is not recommended unless required for access to very old servers CIFS VFS: Send error

Jeremy Allison via samba composed on 2020-04-23 09:24 (UTC-0700): > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:59:18AM -0400, Felix Miata via samba wrote: >> Items in dmesg when FAT share's are accessed from web browser: >> CIFS VFS: bogus file nlink value 0 > nlink should never be zero. If an SMB server > returns that, then the CIFSFS client will have > to fake it to 1 at least.

Jeremy Allison via samba composed on 2020-04-24 11:13 (UTC-0700): > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:31:53AM -0400, Felix Miata via samba wrote: >> Jeremy Allison via samba composed on 2020-04-23 09:24 (UTC-0700): >> >> CIFS: Attempting to mount //hostname/E >> >> Use of the less secure dialect vers=1.0 is not recommended unless required for >> >> access

Now that Samba 4.0 has been released - a very proud moment for the whole Samba Team - I want to emphasise something that most of the team has been trying to do over the past few months, but that we haven't really announced: That is, gong forward, we are generally avoiding using the term Samba4 (and Samba3 for that matter). The reason is that while these terms were useful for a time before

Hi Nick I am not quite sure what you meant by verifier. I checked online documents and found that there is a function verifyAnalysis() in Pass but it is empty. So do you suggest implementing that function? If it is the case, what should I look while implementing that function? Or something else altogether? Thanks, Nehal. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca]

Nehal Gandhi wrote: > Hi Nick > > I am not quite sure what you meant by verifier. I checked online documents > and found that there is a function verifyAnalysis() in Pass but it is empty. > So do you suggest implementing that function? If it is the case, what should > I look while implementing that function? Or something else altogether? I'm assuming you have a PassManager

Hi Eli, I have attached a tar file containing Pass (ConditionPass.cpp), External function (PrintRes.cpp) and test program (try.c). I use command chain as describe in previous mail. Thanks, Nehal. -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 3:39 AM To: Nehal Gandhi Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inserting a