RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
I am trying to get RedHat's Kernel RPM 2.2.16 installed, however, the rpm program does unpack the files, but does not run any script to install them into the source tree (kernel-2.2.16-3.i386.src.rpm). Is there a trick to making it work? - 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/
Re: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
I appreciate your comments, but the SOURCE is exactly what I am needing in
order to compile in PCTel modem support. FYI, I'm not a newbie, so I do
not uninstall a kernel from a running system (no offense on your
assumption :-P). Besides if I did, I would just simply spend 5 minutes
creating a rescue floppy and away I go. No problem. Anyway, I have
already installed the binary form of the 2.2.16 kernel, I am needing the
sources so I can kludge together a module for the PCTel support.
FWIW, the rpm -i did unpack the kernel to the /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES
directory, however, I had to manually untar the sources to /usr/src to get
my kernel, move over the appropriate .config file, and manually run the
patches to patch the sources. Forcing RPM to be very talkative (via -vv)
gave me a bunch of "action unknown" errors, and the rpm's install scripts
did not execute. This occurs on an RH7 system as well. Seems to be
something wrong with RH's kernel rpm?
JR
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, J. Dow wrote:
> RTFM - it is writ large on the RedHat site. You have probably rendered your
> machine unbootable at this point if you tried first with the regular kernel
> RPM. Recovery is awkward. You *NEVER* *EVER* -U a kernel RPM. You *ALWAYS* -i
> it instead. Then your old kernel is still present in case the new one shows
> problems, like 2.2.16 will.
>
> Furthermore installing the source RPMs does not install a new kernel. You have
> to proceed from there with building the kernel. That means you have to have
> kgcc installed and all the other proper materials.
>
> I saw your email on the RedHat list but it was at the beginning of 80 some
> messages so I didn't reply figuring someone else would have. I guess nobody
> felt like typing "RTFM". As I say, RedHat has kernel compilation and kernel
> installation information on their website in a fairly easy to find place.
> A little digging would be good for your soul and education. There is other
> stuff there associated with the kernel compile and install instructions
> that can be a great help.
>
> {^_^}
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 21:03
> Subject: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
>
>
> > I am trying to get RedHat's Kernel RPM 2.2.16 installed, however, the rpm
> > program does unpack the files, but does not run any script to install them
> > into the source tree (kernel-2.2.16-3.i386.src.rpm). Is there a trick to
> > making it work?
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
-
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/
Re: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
AH HA! Thanks! - Original Message - From: "David Woodhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "J. Dow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:37 AM Subject: Re: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > FWIW, the rpm -i did unpack the kernel to the /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES > > directory, however, I had to manually untar the sources to /usr/src to > > get my kernel, move over the appropriate .config file, and manually > > run the patches to patch the sources. Forcing RPM to be very > > talkative (via -vv) gave me a bunch of "action unknown" errors, and > > the rpm's install scripts did not execute. This occurs on an RH7 > > system as well. Seems to be something wrong with RH's kernel rpm? > > Install the kernel-source binary RPM, which contains the build tree already > extracted and set up as you desire, instead of the master SRPM which > contains build instructions for all the kernel versions. > > i.e. kernel-source-2.2.16-3.i386.rpm, not kernel-2.2.16-3.src.rpm > > -- > dwmw2 > > - 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/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux Kernel?!?! Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't litter up the kernel listserver with this. - Original Message - From: "Rick Hohensee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > > The two branches of the USA that pertain have now confirmed that Microsoft > is a problem requiring an externally asserted solution, but the judicial > branch has rejected the specific solution proposed by the executive > branch. Three other proposed remedies are mentioned in the Washington Post > today. One involves allowing developers access to Microsoft sourcecode > equally. One involves allowing computer vendors to configure the Microsoft > software as they see fit. The third involves unbundling software from the > OS. Gates had stated, correctly, that the split of the company proposed by > DOJ did not reflect any understanding of the software business. Looking at > the three subsequent proposals, it appears to me that this problem is > still searching for a solution. These three recent superficialities also > do not appear to be the ideas of people who know how these things work. > Meanwhile, Microsoft whole-heartedly engages in a depraved attack on the > copyright rights of individuals, making it delightfully clear that the > problem remains unsolved, and that Microsoft's general degradation of the > computer world continues unabated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HELLO??? > > ANY GEEKS IN HERE? > > > ANY OF YOU TURKEYS GOOD WITH PROBLEM-SOLVING? > > > > My hastily concocted proposed solution remains at... > > ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/install/clienux/interim/amicus_curae > > > > WHERE'S YOURS? > > Rick Hohensee > www.cLIeNUX.com Who do you want to piss off today? > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! [snip] > >In that case, I have the following options: > >1) Start my own ISP > > Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows. > > >2) Use Windows XP > >3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP > >4) Go to a different ISP > > You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I was > fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use > the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support. > > >I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed > >for using a different OS, I still have a choice. > > No, but you might be forced out of a job. In one of the large metro areas in which I live, there are a LOT of ISPs that do not require you to use Windows, but will not support you beyond the IP layer if you don't. Use linux, install PPP with MS-CHAPv2 (with or without MPPE) for your dialup connection and it works just fine on a Winblows-only ISP. DSL or Cable, just acquire your actual IP settings program a Linksys router/hub box and be done with it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LKML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > Kurt Maxwell Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not > > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and > > Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home). > Frankly, > > I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their > product, I'm > > free to choose not to use it. > > So as a user you are free to not use M$ products. > What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice. > > I have been working as a Computer Tech for approx 5 years. > When I first started (before that period actually, I speak of my Jr high > years) > I liked MS, if only b/c it was better than the other Intel solutions > (This is approx 1993 or 1994). When OS/2 came out, I thought it was > a joke (My father had it on his computer, I couldn't even get the calculator > to run). > > When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux > and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products. > > I appreciate that as a user you may have a choice. As a tech or MIS/IT, > I don't have > a choice. As such I believe that I have been "damaged" by M$. > You do have a choice over what you use. In any real-world scenario, you will have to support a lot of what you don't like--that's why it's called a JOB. Either support what's out there, or go into business for yourself where you can choose what you support or not support. I have been in IT for 15 years, and quite frankly, most computer users today who do not use a Wyse or VT100 terminal, are too dumb to use anything advanced, so they use something like Windows. Why not just let someone come up with a window manager that looks & acts like Windows 9x, perfect Wine, then put linux on their systems. Instead of blaming someone, we need to fight Microslut at their own game and not blame someone else, but come up with solutions that are better than what they have out there. We know Linux is technically superior, but we need now is something that is user-superior. Microsoft is already scared of Linux, let's give them something to be really scared of. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
[snip] > >Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions do. > >Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as compensation > >for your troubles? > > > >This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux. > > > Why would that make MS afraid of Linux. It should simply make them > ignore them (b/c presumably this would make Linux harmless) > Actually if you would read the tech-news articles closely, you will see they are attacking Open Source including the GPL license, not specifically Linux. Linux is a threat by default because it's very heavy in GPL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Tony Hoyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > Paul Mundt wrote: > > > > > You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're > > working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so. > > MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish. > > Nobody chooses to work with MS, they merely take the job that's offered. > > I didn't choose to use MS, I merely chose to be able to pay the rent. > The choice is basically use MS or don't work in the computer industry. > > Hell, I'd even take a pay cut if someone had a Linux job on offer. > Never seen one... never likely to either in the near future. MS > completely owns the business world (and it's not like I've not looked > either, I'd give anything to get out of the job I'm in now but there's > very few people hiring at the moment). Actually, I work a Linux Network Manager job, and I support Solaris, Linux, and MS. MS only because some of the office folk would require more of my time if Linux is on their system (they can't deal with it). I do have the choice to put Linux on everyone's workstation and tell them that's what they must have. Don't tell me I don't have a choice. I make a lot more money because I support Linux and Unix. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Marius Nita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're > > working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so. > > MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish. > > _I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes, but > is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as Look at it from the other side. If you were in an all AIX or HPUX environment and you wanted to support Microsoft products, it could be said that it's not fair that you have to change jobs. Oh please. > much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your > computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you > _want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word > whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the computer store > your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have to make sure What a load of crap. You *CAN* order a system with Linux on it, just go to some computer manufacturer and ask for it. If it's not available, install it yourself or buy a workstation from Penguin Computing, or any other Linux hardware mfg. Retail choices are where the sales are. That's not someone after you, it's business. The way to beat someone at business is either break up a monopoly or beat them at their own game. Stop blaming and do what they do better. Period. > that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like winmodems-and that > it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all computers out > there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is that a choice? > You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses > Windows doesn't? Choice is with you, not with the manufacturer. Winmodems are software driven, so instead of down-talking the manufacturer, get a driver from a Winmodem supplier. I have a Lucent Winmodem in my system right now, it came with a Compaq PC and it works just fine in Linux. PCTel makes a large chunk of winmodems and are willing to work to get a linux driver out there if we just work with them. Fact remains--be open minded, and you will find that there are lots of people who want to have their products on Linux (means more money for them in sales) if we just work with them instead of blaming them as M$ clones. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote: > > Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to > > deal with microsoftisms. > > This depends on your definition of dealing with MSisms. If you mean having a > copy of an MS product physically present at a business location, that's > pretty much unavoidable. > > If you mean working at a place where you yourself don't have to deal with it, > it all depends what line of work you're in. If you're some form of management > person, you might choose to work with Word because everyone else does, but > that goes back to it being your decision. > > I can think of a lot of companies, such as WindRiver, QSSL, etc. where there > may be some level of involvement, but not everyone working in the company is > forced into things. What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long time ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-) [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Marius Nita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > > > > > >It's hard to understand the point of such arguments. Surely you shouldn't > >be upset at someone for providing you the best option you have, should you? > > > > The point is they aren't offering the best solution! They are taking > away all others! That is why people dislike the company. > I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away from me! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:56 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > Jim Roland wrote: > [snip] > Good for business. bad for customers. Sometimes I think that M$ could > sell us programs made by monkeys and still make money, as long as the > programs work w/ Windows (presumably the OS couldn't be by monkeys, > there has to be something of quality to sell). I thought that's who wrote their software now (monkeys). :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "William T Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 8:09 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote: > > > This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all that unlikely. > > > > I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control > > rooms for this reason. > > It's not just MS. Aircraft control rooms (as well as nuclear power > plants, spacecraft mission control, etc.) require special certified > software to be used - it's not simply that they avoid MS, they avoid all > software that hasn't been blessed. > > My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns > bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available > to them. The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it > is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is > certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their > "personal effects" allowance to get real work done :} >From what I've heard, NASA relies heavily on modified Linux. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > Jim Roland wrote: > > > I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away from me! > > I see your point, but in a very real sense they > are taking red hat or slackware from you - > > They have been pushing the industry frantically > to make ms windows the standard and deprecate > everything else - many people have discovered > the frustration of "microsoft-only" web sites and > software which exists for windows only. > > For those who find that they can no longer > connect to their isp unless they are running > ms windows, it's a rude awakening. > > Sure, you can keep using slackware, but > you won't be able to connect to the internet > if they have their way - won't that be lovely? Sorry, I can't disagree more. Nobody is stopping me from purchasing RedHat or any other Linux Distro at Frys Electronics, online, or downloading a free (legal) copy of it. Nobody is stopping me from installing it on a PC, and nobody stops me from connecting to the internet with it. In fact, my windows machine connects to the same internet connection (cablemodem) as my linux systems, all behind a firewall appliance which actually touches the interface. Fact remains, TCP/IP and IPv6 are RFC STANDARDS not Microsoft standards. Even so, there are ways around the MS-CHAP issues preventing connections to the internet to allow Linux systems that speak STRAIGHT TCP/IP. See also, GTE. GTE about 3 years ago had their network fixed so that Microsoft systems could only connect, their modem pools literally hung up the line if you were using anything non-Microsoft. Currently, as long as you authenticate with them properly, they don't care what you use. How would you expain the Cisc's, Linksys's, etc? They aren't Microsoft, besides they pass IP over the wire, any IP-compatible machine will connect to it. Simply put, where I live (a top 10 metro area) there are plenty of ISPs that accept dial-ins from any system that authenticates PAP or CHAP/MS-CHAP. Like I've been saying before...stop blaming the "Dark Empire" and let's all come up with solutions to beat them at their own game. I'm done with this subject, it's aleady older that the science experiment leftovers in my refrigerator. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Of course, being an OS/2 person myself before Slackware 1.2, I am still (to this day) disappointed that OS/2 was abandoned by their own creators, IBM. I'm waiting for IBM to abandon Linux in favor of their on Mainframe systems again. - Original Message - From: "Graham Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long time > > ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-) > > And they annoyed not just a few application vendors when just a few > months after giving the message "Go with OS/2, it is the way forward", > they abandoned it in favour of NT. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
@Home tells you the same thing. Although they portscanned me frequently, they were checking for specific servers and actually deny traffic on ports 135-139 (Winblows traffic). Unless they change over to non-routables (which would kill things like ICQ, etc) they will not be able to stop me from using ssh or others for remote access. @Home and other providers get around the "server" issue by capping your maximum outbound bandwidth. This is something I have had to live with when upload FTP files to some off-site game servers I own. - Original Message - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote: > > > > > Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL > > > and Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you > > > run ANY unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No > > > > This would take a lot of watching on their part. > > > > My cable company occasionally portscans me, so I blackholed the > > portscanning machine. Even before I had done that, though, they never > > complained about my remote logins. They only complain if you use > > excessive bandwidth or if you do anything commercial. > > > > The DSL provider here, when it was still US West, explicitly stated to me > > (over the phone) that they absolutely did not care what I did with it as > > long as it was not illegal. However they would still not give you a > > static IP address unless you paid them extra money. :} > > > > When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a > relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not > allowed to run a server... but who'd know?" > > -hpa > > -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private! > "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." > http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
I confronted @Home's tech support, and they're programmed to say "server" but even tier-2 had no idea what it actually meant that I could and could not do. Go figure. - Original Message - From: "Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > -> From "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a > > relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not > > allowed to run a server... but who'd know?" > > ..and please define "server". Does it mean that you can not run any programs > listening on a port and accepting incoming connections or datagrams? :-) > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
- Original Message - From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:09 AM Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM > > Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU! > > > > > > [snip] > > > >In that case, I have the following options: > > > >1) Start my own ISP > > > > > > Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows. > > > > > > >2) Use Windows XP > > > >3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP > > > >4) Go to a different ISP > > > > > > You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I was > > > fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use > > > the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support. > > > > > > >I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be > > killed > > > >for using a different OS, I still have a choice. > > > > > > No, but you might be forced out of a job. > > > > In one of the large metro areas in which I live, there are a LOT of ISPs > > that do not require you to use Windows, but will not support you beyond the > > IP layer if you don't. Use linux, install PPP with MS-CHAPv2 (with or > > without MPPE) for your dialup connection and it works just fine on a > > Winblows-only ISP. DSL or Cable, just acquire your actual IP settings > > program a Linksys router/hub box and be done with it. > > Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL and > Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you run ANY > unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No daemon services. > No routing/NAT (unless they do it). No remote login. No mail. DHCP reconfig > between 4 and 8 hours (or whenever they choose to). > > They will let you plug in, but will not provide any support (even TCP/IP is > not assured). > TCP/IP is assured, in the case of my @Home service, they provide me with the transport layer and settings (IP, subnet, etc) but no software support. That is a provider choice, and I have no problem with it. Microsoft does not (and will never) control the transport layer. Doing so will kill Cisco routers, etc. Being an ISP myself, there is absolutely nothing Microsoft can say or do to force me to support only them. If XP clients don't work with my service, give someone a little while and there will be a plug-in or patch that allows XP to run with standard service. As I said, they can do nothing for force me to move over to only Microsoft support. I am Linux, and I'm only a small-guy. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
PPP/MPPE Problem
I have successfully (finally) installed MPPE and PPP with PPP 2.40 and Linux Kernel 2.4.2. However, anytime I allow and use MPPE-40 packets will not forward into a VPN. If I comment it out and use MPPE-STATELESS or MPPE-128 it works fine. As soon as MPPE-40 is uncommented, it fails to operate. What can I do to fix this? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Suitable Athlon Motherboard for Linux
Unfortunately, some distros will have some configurations, patches, and customizations that may cause problems with some systems. I am using an EPoX 8KTA3+ (with IDE ATA100 RAID controller) and have absolutely no problems with RedHat 6.1, or my current RedHat 7.1, and I am using the RAID controller in a non-RAID configuration. Using Mandrake for critical applications such as servers and firewalls, I have always had "strange" unexplained lock-ups, etc (that was on Mandrake 7.0). What will really matter is what hardware you're plugging into the motherboard and it's interaction with those cards. My system (which runs without any problems whatsoever): EPoX 8KTA3+ Mainboard Athlon K7 1.2GHz 512MB RAM 1 CDROM on IDE0 (standard 52x) 1 CDRW on IDE1 (Plextor Plexwriter 16/10/40A) 1 30 GB Seagate HD on IDE2 (Highpoint RAID Controller part of mainboard) 1 6GB Western Digital on IDE3 (Highpoint RAID Controller part of mainboard) GeForce2 MX (32MB RAM) Netgear FA311 NIC - Original Message - From: "Stephen M. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Suitable Athlon Motherboard for Linux > Seems to run fine here. I'm using a Tyan S2380 (600MHz pre-Thunderbird) > with the VIA KX-133 chipset, running Kernel 2.4.5 > > On 04 Jul 2001 19:49:50 +0100, Joseph Mathewson wrote: > > Having heard the various horror stories about the VIA PCI data corruption > > bugs, and watching one Via based machine destroy itself with a Mandrake 8.0 > > 2.4.3, I was just wondering if anyone had a suggestion for an Athlon > > motherboard that works reliably under Linux (I don't think all the issues > > have been cleared up in the kernel yet?). There must be quite a few Linux > > Athlon users out there - what boards are you using and with what success? > > > > I can't see much alternative to Via chipsets in the Ahtlon market, other > > than all-in-one-graphics-sound-network jobbies that, from previous > > experience (namely the i810), are also best avoided. > > > > Joe. > > Stephen Williams > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * I've tried killing time, but it keeps making a comeback. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS errors?
Activating an IDE drive in an older BIOS (newer ones have a SCSI option in
the "A/C/CDROM" options) will always force an IDE drive boot with older
BIOSes. Older BIOSes are written to stop looking for a boot device once it
has found one, and it's own IDE is where it says "Ok, I have boot
capability", otherwise no IDE drive, means it passes boot control to other
system BIOSes (like your SCSI or NIC cards). This is by default with older
systems.
I expect someone will rebut my comments about the kernel (which is fine, I'm
not a Kernel hacker--PROPERLY USED TERM HERE (not the media's term) ),
but it is my understanding that the kernel uses your system BIOS for actual
reads/writes at the hardware level, this way it does not have to account for
EVERY possible BIOS out there. (Other OSes use BIOS system calls for this
purpose as well) When you turn BIOS to the OS does what it can, but
the BIOS in your system *SHOULD* refuse to process the call, instead it's
doing the read/writes, but not the same way as if IDE was turned on.
My suggestion is that you install the OS onto the IDE drive, let it boot,
and use it for a boot only drive. Mount user data from your SCSI drive onto
the IDE's mount points. Otherwise, since your reason for doing this is that
you're out of space, add another SCSI drive.
Are you getting IDE corruption with the BIOS set to for your IDE
drive?
Regards,
Jim Roland, RHCE
- Original Message -
From: "M.H.VanLeeuwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS errors?
> Hi,
>
> I have a SMP P166 system that has been running for years with an AIC7xxx
SCSI card as
> opposed to the native IDE interface. The BIOS has the IDE 0,1,2,3 set to
.
> Running out of disk space I installed one of the original IDE drives. The
kernel
> booted and ID'd the drive correctly. Kernel version 2.4.5/6 behave the
same.
>
> Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 6.31
> ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with
idebus=xx
> CMD646: IDE controller on PCI bus 00 dev 10
> CMD646: chipset revision 1
> CMD646: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
> CMD646: chipset revision 0x01, MultiWord DMA Limited, IRQ workaround
enabled
> CMD646: simplex device: DMA disabled
> ide0: CMD646 Bus-Master DMA disabled (BIOS)
> CMD646: simplex device: DMA disabled
> ide1: CMD646 Bus-Master DMA disabled (BIOS)
> hdb: CD-ROM CDU76E, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
> ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with
idebus=xx
> hdc: WDC AC2850F, ATA DISK drive
> ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
> ide1 at 0x170-0x177,0x376 on irq 15
> hdc: 1667232 sectors (854 MB) w/64KiB Cache, CHS=1654/16/63
> hdb: packet command error: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
> hdb: packet command error: error=0x44
> hdb: ATAPI 4X CD-ROM drive, 256kB Cache
> Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.12
> Partition check:
> hdc: [PTBL] [827/32/63] hdc1
>
> However I can't boot from the SCSI drives if the IDE HD is enabled due to
deficiencies
> in the BIOS... boot "A: then C:" or "C: then A:" are the only choices, if
neither are
> present the system boots from the SCSI card, otherwise it fails to boot.
>
> PROBLEM: cannot reliably R/W to the HD unless the BIOS is set to
recognize.
> I consistently see MD5SUM errors and FS corruption and other strange FS
symptoms
> when the BIOS is set to for the drive and _never_ see any errors
with the
> setting set to . There are no messages emitted by the kernel that
there
> were any system errors encountered leading one to believe that all is
well, when
> it isn't.
>
> What is interesting, is that the I/O writes increase from once every 14
seconds to
> once every 2-3 seconds and the FS corruption diminishes but don't
disappear
> if a background "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null" is running.
>
> Is this expected kernel behavior?
>
> VMSTAT follow... when copying files from SCSI drives to IDE drive.
>
> More info available if needed...
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> The waiting processes are kupdated and bdflush. (I have Alt-SysRq- trace
of them)
>
> VMSTAT 1 for the case w/ BIOS set to looks like (w/o dd running):
>
>procs memoryswap io system
cpu
> r b w swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us
sy id
> 0 0 0 0 83180 1056 39800 0 0 261 3 8343 5
8 87
> 0 0 0 0 83176 1056 39800 0 0 0 0 11920 3
2 95
> 0 0 0 0 83176 1056 39800 0 0 0 0 11620 2
2 96
> 0 1 0 0 83012 1096 39812 0 0 32
Re: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS errors?
- Original Message - From: "M.H.VanLeeuwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS errors? > Jim, > > Thanks for the info, comments interleaved below > [snip] > > But, that's kind of the point I'm driving at if the OS can't correctly access the > IDE interface it shouldn't do it at all. Right. It's possible that your BIOS may be letting the kernel write. While I don't write the kernel, it's probably best for Linus to answer this one, but it's possible that the kernel is making a BIOS call, and the BIOS does not refuse to write data (which it should just say "no IDE drives are on the system right now") with the IDE setting to in your BIOS. OTOH, the kernel may be making calls of it's own or as you say, there may be a broken driver. I seem to remember there was a "bug workaround" option in the kernel for the CMD640 chipset. > > Are you getting IDE corruption with the BIOS set to for your IDE > > drive? > > None whatsoever. Then AFAIK, it's definitely a BIOS issue. There might be (if not there already) a kernel option to check to see what the BIOS setting is for number of IDE drives (of course set to would mean 0 drives), and refuse to write it. This workaround (if any) would be required for buggy BIOSes (I'm sure yours isn't the only one ). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
