Re: games user and group
Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Thanks. I'm going to do a bit more research on making a torrent file. Rich. http://www.createtorrent.com/ Frank -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: other annoyances before fc5
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 06:19:45PM -0500, Tambet Ingo wrote:
> Mar 4 18:05:51 localhost kernel: hda: dma_intr: status=0x51
> { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
> Mar 4 18:05:51 localhost kernel: hda: dma_intr: error=0x10
> { SectorIdNotFound }, LBAsect=75563541, sector=75563541
This is a known problem with the suspend support. The Linux kernel removes
the HPA clipping, the resume code doesn't re-do this when the BIOS puts it
back on resume.
Upstream work is in progress on ACPI restore support for ata
Re: Recommended laptop for FC5, was: glxgears
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:53:38PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > Apropos this, what is the situation with VIA Unichrome? Mike? > IIRC, they had an open driver as a plug-in for old X, and it was > poorly written, so someone started a rewrite. Did anything come > out of it? You know, those Averatecs really look attractive... My VIA unichrome 3D seems to worry pretty well now. The never open sourced their mpeg engine because of patent concerns but Ivor Hewitt figured that out and fixed the problem 8) The slice engine is a great help for TV and the 3D works but the 3D performance is not stunning. Its fine for tuxracer/bzflag but isnt going to make a gamer happy
Re: No more selinux-policy-*-sources
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:24:45PM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > complex solutions. AppArmor looks more attractive to me because while it > may not be perfect at least it's usable and easily understandable compared > to selinuxes black wizardry. Lots of things can look pretty but it doesn't mean they actually solve the fundamental problems. SELinux uses more complex ideas like roles because in the 1960s people working on this stuff realised the simple model actually doesn't work.
Re: No more selinux-policy-*-sources
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:52:54PM +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > I understand that but if this system that "solves the fundamental problems" > is so complex that most people just turn it off then the gain in security > you get is pretty much theoretical. Security isn't an all-or-nothing thing > and right now there seems to be chasm between the very basic traditional It becomes a packaging problem. For most users SELinux just works and they take the defaults. The argument you are making is not new btw, the same was said about firewalling by default years ago and today would be regarded as deeply silly. In part the risk model changed, in part the tools improved > Unix model and the very secure but extremely complex SELinux. It looks like > AppArmor fits in quite well between these two extremes. Looks pretty, does little ? Thats not a good combination. I agree entirely about the lack of easy tool configuration for SELinux. Anyway if AppArmor wats to become anything serious it needs to get upstream and I see no evidence of them even trying to do that. If it gets upstream dropping the tools for it into extras is easy
Re: Wild and crazy times for the development tree
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:27:26PM -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote: > Mike A. Harris wrote: > > All proprietary drivers? ;o) > > I can't help wondering... > What do you guys do when you want decent 3D performance? I walk out of the front door, the resolution is excellent, the shadows are superbly computed and you get exercise too 8) On the more serious side there is a lack of DRI capability for very high end gaming. R2xx will do all that I need however because highly detailed simulations of killing people really don't appeal. Alan
Re: Wild and crazy times for the development tree
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:02:03AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > How or where did you get those number? > > http://torrent.fedoraproject.org:6969/ So its torrent stats only - thats fairly biased if so
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
> on a 5 years old hardware with raid1 system and boot partition anaconda > crash with dmraid error while i don't use dmraid just mdraid:-( and since > preupgrade also crash with the same error there is no way to properly > upgrade from the latest release to the next release! not even with nodmraid > kernel option. md /boot is definitely broken, has been for ages and the bugs don't seem to have been touched. It's also obvious nobody bothered to actually test that case because the error paths in the install code don't actually work for that case either ! Fortunately the usual updating fedora-release, yum upgrade approach worked on my boxes. I'd avoid preupgrade anyway it seems to like breaking systems and leaving them half upgraded so you have to rescue the mess by hand. "all of my system has a wrong openssl version" all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. "i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059" In other words your box didn't update to F11 in the first place, it just updated a few things and exploded, which is what it tends to do. You were basically running FC10 and a few random bits of FC11. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
