Re: [LUAU] Fedora Core 3 Test 1
Hawaii Linux Institute wrote: FC3T1 probably should be more appropriately named FC2-SP1. But as long as there are improvements, names don't really matter. (As we all know, FC2 made so many major changes from FC1, and did not go through a commensurately long testing period, resulting in a half-baked system. FC3T1 couldn't have come soon enough.) FC3T1 is indeed FC2 + tons and tons of fixes, except for two things... * gcc-3.4.1 is now used instead of gcc-3.3.x. This may complicate things if you use 3rd party drivers, although old gcc-3.3.x compiled software works easily with the compat-* libraries. * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128154 This problem happens... just close all terminals and open it again to recover, and don't rely on ssh into your local workstation. We're working on figuring out what causes this. http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ While FC3T1 is pretty stable aside from the one problem mentioned above, T2 and T3 may be less stable from a desktop perspective because of the upheaval coming with GNOME 2.7.x betas. Warren Togami [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [LUAU] Fedora Core 3 Test 1
Warren Togami wrote: FC3T1 is indeed FC2 + tons and tons of fixes, except for two things... * gcc-3.4.1 is now used instead of gcc-3.3.x. This may complicate things if you use 3rd party drivers, although old gcc-3.3.x compiled software works easily with the compat-* libraries. * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128154 This problem happens... just close all terminals and open it again to recover, and don't rely on ssh into your local workstation. We're working on figuring out what causes this. http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ While FC3T1 is pretty stable aside from the one problem mentioned above, T2 and T3 may be less stable from a desktop perspective because of the upheaval coming with GNOME 2.7.x betas. Warren Togami [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Warren- Haven't seen you for a while, I thought you moved to the NeverNeverLand (mainland). (OK, take that back, I now remember seeing you at Brian Chee's lab only about 1.5 months ago.) For ordinary desktop use, a fully updated and augmented FC1 is probably the best distro. Period. It's snappy and does everything I want (including compatibility with Win4Lin, etc). However, for laptops, FC3T1 is a better choice. I have a blue-collar run-of-the-mill laptop, HP Pavilion ze4500 (Athlon XP-M 2500, 15 LCD, 512 MB DDR with 64 MB dedicated VRAM, and I think I paid $899 for it). With FC1, after several painful experimentations, I was finally able to install it--but had to use a NOUSB option. After installation, I have to turn PCMCIA off. FC3T1, OTHO, installs and works perfectly on this machine. If anyone is interested in buying a laptop, this is the one that I strongly recommend. Everything works except my Netgear WA111A USB wireless card (no driver yet, but I think a lot of people are working on it). I am thinking about getting the same Belkin USB wireless card that is being used in Makiki library. As I mentioned in a separate thread, I will be very interested in Bugzilla-ing Fedora. But I believe it will be much more productive if we could have a local situs that can provide more than cybernetic interactions. wayne
[LUAU] Trying to disable UDP checksum using Debian Testing
Aloha,
I am using Debian testing version and am trying to disable udp checksum.
I have tried
optval=1;
if (setsockopt(sock_info - socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_NO_CHECK, (void*)optval,
sizeof(optval)) ==-1)
{
LOG(L_ERR, ERROR: udp_init: no checksum setsockopt: %s\n,
strerror(errno));
}
Even with the code, I continue to get an EAGAIN error when there is a
checksum error.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Aloha,
Matt
Re: [LUAU] Trying to disable UDP checksum using Debian Testing
I am using Debian testing version and am trying to disable udp checksum.
I have tried
optval=1;
if (setsockopt(sock_info - socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_NO_CHECK,
(void*)optval,
sizeof(optval)) ==-1)
{
LOG(L_ERR, ERROR: udp_init: no checksum setsockopt: %s\n,
strerror(errno));
}
Even with the code, I continue to get an EAGAIN error when there is a
checksum error.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
I guess I am not alone with this issue. Here is a post describing the exact
problem.
http://oldfaq.phoneboy.com/gurus/200107/msg00418.html
Thinking even more about it, most layer 2 technology is quite reliable and
real udp checksum error rarely happens in most networks. I doubt that it is
going to be a big negative impact on the system. Actually it would speed up
the system a little bit.
-Matt
[LUAU] Gentoo
Two questions, 1. Has anyone had any luck with installing gentoo 2004.2 yet? I really want to take advantage of gentoo's power. I have heard so many good things about it, but I have yet to get any version of it to install correctly. 2. I am running Slackware 10 and I want to run Ximian Desktop 2. Their old site before novell used to say that there was a way to get XD2 working with slackware, but they did not officially support it. I have yet to find any articles on it. Nathan
