On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:53:19AM -0500, Charles Turner, Ph.D. wrote:
[snip]
> I was terribly wrong. This Red Hat version is irrevocably defective.
[snip]
> (3) It "sort of" worked. However, network daemons kept
> dropping core. X would eventually crash, leaving the
> terminal in an unusable state, etc.
>
> (4) It is impossible to build a known working kernel on the
> machine because the linker, `ld` crashes:
[snip]
> This shows that the problems are not because of a
> defective machine.
[snip]
> I speak only for myself, which is enough of a problem.
The only thing defective I can see here is you:
1. You posted this to a totally inappropriate mailing list.
2. You posted with a tone that shows you are totally uninterested in getting
help with your problems.
3. You have failed to use the proper support channels.
3. You trouble shooting skills are defective:
If you think that a Linux distribution that works just fine for test of
thousands of people fails to a buggy linker then you are a fool.
Just because it works with other software doesn't mean that the
memory is good. If you have a single bad bit, then you are very
sensitive on alignment a different piece of software may have no
issues.
But why should I expect anything reasonable from a poster at
analogic.com? (apologies to those there who have improved!) :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
