similar to: ogg segmentation

Hi, Samba 2.2.3a release notes say that utmp is fixed in this version. But doesn't seem to be working with me. I have few of my shares enables with this option and 'utmp directory' is set globally. Am I missing something here ? or this still remains a bug ? regards Amit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amit Deshmukh Graduate Student

Hi, We have Samba 2.2.6(+2.2.7 security patch) installed on solaris. Samba is used as PDC for WinNT and Win2K clients. The WinNT machines have no problems geting into the domain as machine trust accounts exist in /etc/passwd and smbpasswd file. However, Win2k clients are not able to join the domain. I did go through the documentation, and hence created root account in 'smbpasswd'

Hi, I am using samba with NT 4.0 and Solaris. I got LPRng working with Samba. But, downloading of drivers from the server still deosn't work. Do I *need* to user rpcclient to install drivers on server ? I have already copied drivers to $print/W32X86 directory. I tried using rpcclient with adddriver command. But it gave following errors. rpcclient $> adddriver "Windows NT x86"

Hi, My network has samba 2.2.2 installed on Sun with lprng and NT 4.0 workstations. Samba acts as PDC for these workstations. I am using priting through samba. I am using 'disable spoolss = yes' option which means the drivers are on installed on client side and are not downloaded from the server. So all these printers (on Samba) act as Local printers on NT machines. As I am

Full_Name: H Deshmukh Version: 2.0 OS: 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (129.174.206.239) Can somebody tell me what is it that i am doing wrong,i was not sure whether to post BioConductor error here or not. Thanks >source("http://www.bioconductor.org/getBioC.R") > getBioC(libName = "all") Running getBioC version 1.2.65.... If you encounter problems, first make sure that

Post the entire output of: ls -al /usr/local/lprng/current/bin/lpr Is this in the path of a regular user? Try: which lpr with a regular user. Joel On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:39:38PM -0400, amit deshmukh wrote: > > Can u help with this ? > > thanks in adavance > amit > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:36:32 -0400 (EDT) > From: amit

Hi, Ambarish here from India, New (beginner) to asterisk here, Wanted to know how can I install asterisk on Windows XP SP2, with AMD Athlon 64 processor 2.20 Ghz, 512 RAM Can anybody help / guide me in this? Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive

Hello all. I have a question about setting up samba to serve windows printing. I have been trying to research this but keep coming up with conflicting howto's. Can someone give me directions to an up-to-date print howto? It would be greatly appreciated as I am stuck on this. Cheers, Tony -- ------------------------------- Tony Ricker Technology Coordinator SLUCare - P.M.O. St. Louis

Has anyone seen this? When we print using Samba, the printjob stays in the queue after prints Also in the LPD.conf is set to : save_when_done@ done_jobs=0 done_jobs_max_age=1 We're using Redhat 7.3. Samba 2.2.4-1 Any help would great, Gene Wise

I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except for `:`), but lower than the other unary operators. Even if we gave unary specials their own precedence I think it would end up in the same place. `%l%` <- function(x) tail(x, n =

R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y) %chr% 100 #> [1] "100" %chr% 100 %identical% "100" #> [1] TRUE

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply again. > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >> have the following test results to share. >> Summary below, full log at: >>

Can somebody help with this ? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:32:40 -0500 (EST) From: amit deshmukh <adeshmuk@smtp.eng.utoledo.edu> To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: smbd processes hanging around Hi All, I am using Samba 2.2.3a as PDC to Windows NT 4.0 workstations. The PDC works fine except for the fact that the user processes (smbd) that are

>After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with >Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, >and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. For those of us who are not CS/Lisp mavens, what is an "unquote" operator? Can you expression quoting and unquoting in R syntax and show a few examples where is is useful, intuitive, and fits in to

Your example x = 5 exp = parse(text="f(uq(x)) + y +z") # expression: f(uq(x)) +y + z do_unquote(expr) # -> the language object f(5) + y + z could be done with the following wrapper for bquote my_do_unquote <- function(language, envir = parent.frame()) { if (is.expression(language)) { # bquote does not go into expressions, only calls

The unquoting discussion is IMHO separate from this proposal and as you noted probably better served by a native operator with different precedence. I think the main benefit to providing user defined prefix operators is it allows package authors to experiment with operator ideas and gauge community interest. The current situation means any novel unary semantics either need to co-opt existing

I guess this would establish a separate "namespace" of symbolic prefix operators, %*% being an example in the infix case. So you could have stuff like %?%, but for non-symbolic (spelled out stuff like %foo%), it's hard to see the advantage vs. foo(x). Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the core language, and it looks like people are already able

Gabe, The unary functions have the same precedence as normal SPECIALS (although the new unary forms take precedence over binary SPECIALS). So they are lower precedence than unary + and -. Yes, both of your examples are valid with this patch, here are the results and quoted forms to see the precedence. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y)

Hello, Is there a way to define a custom unary operator in R (other than making a class and 'overloading' the normal unary operators in R)? The documentation seems to suggest that only custom binary operators are possible with the ``%abc%``construct but I was wondering whether any one has done so. None of the RSiteSearch or RSeek queries I posed suggested that this question had

Martin, Jim can speak directly to his motivations; I don't claim to be able to do so. That said, I suspect this is related to a conversation on twitter about wanting an infix "unquote" operator in the context of the non-standard evaluation framework Hadley Wickham and Lionel Henry (and possibly others) are working on. They're currently using !!! and !! for things related to