>
> You have just lost all crdibility for me. Go ahead an run Helenos if that
> is what you want. Noone is forcing you to use Linux. Presumably you do so
> because you find the benefits outweigh the costs. Now you are saying that
> all other benefits should be sacrificed on the altar of your ease
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 21:41 -0700, Bill Unruh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
>>> enables you to override the "original" kernel modul
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:50:27 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 03:07 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>> One of really nice human features is the ability to understand other
>>> person's reason.
>>>
>>> I want to
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, John Haxby wrote:
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>> Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
>> enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
>> "newer" kernel modules somewhere in:
>>
>> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/updates/
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 21:41 -0700, Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> >
> > Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
> > enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
> > "newer" kernel modules somewhere
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:50:27 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "
> Many developers would get bored and move on to hack another OS
> with a faster development cycle.
> "
>
> - maybe.
>
> [...] Will I cry ? No.
>
I could right something much longer, b
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> >
> > Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
> > enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
> > "newer
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>
> Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
> enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
> "newer" kernel modules somewhere in:
>
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/updates/
>
> do a "depmod -a" an
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:15:49 -0700
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If your distribution supports it, upgrading alsa kernel modules - for
> example - should be as easy as upgrading any other package (using yum,
> apt-get or the package manager of your choice). I've been doin
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:43:42 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 02:39 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> > No, I don't.
> >
> > I realize that there were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT,
> > Windows 2000, Windows XP.
> >
> > Or Solaris 4..10.
> >
> > Or whateve
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:50:27 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 03:07 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> > One of really nice human features is the ability to understand other
> > person's reason.
> >
> > I want to be able to install updated (ALSA or any Linux for t
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 03:07 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> One of really nice human features is the ability to understand other
> person's reason.
>
> I want to be able to install updated (ALSA or any Linux for that matter)
> driver
> with no more clicks/keystrokes I need under Windows - howeve
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:08 +0100, John Haxby wrote:
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
> > enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
> > "newer" kernel modules somewhere in:
> >
> > /lib/modules/`
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 03:07 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:43:42 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 02:39 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> > > No, I don't.
> > >
> > > I realize that there were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT,
> > >
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 02:39 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> No, I don't.
>
> I realize that there were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT,
> Windows 2000, Windows XP.
>
> Or Solaris 4..10.
>
> Or whatever.
>
> That is, from time to time binary interface specs get updated as
> necessary.
>
> N
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:00:09 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do realize that freezing the ABI would amount to freezing kernel
> development, due to the commitment not to break old binary drivers?
>
> Your scheme would have made it impossible to implement suspend/resume or
> r
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 00:28 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
> Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Of course it can load that way. That is modules are. The problem is that
> > modules are so intimatley connected with the kernel that a module for
> >
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:05 +0100, John Haxby wrote:
> What I was suggesting was pulling out the alsa modules into a
> separate
> kernel-alsa binary RPM, compiled from the same sources as everything
> else. It would then be possible to produce, say, a
> kernel-alsa-1.0.11
> src.rpm that will pr
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> Not really necessary. The kernel module utilities have a provision that
> enables you to override the "original" kernel modules. Just put your
> "newer" kernel modules somewhere in:
>
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/updates/
>
> do a "depmod -a" and those modules should
Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, John Haxby wrote:
>
>>
>> On the other hand, perhaps someone would volunteer to de-couple the ALSA
>> modules from the rest of the kernel in the kernel build so that the ALSA
>> modules can be updated and then we'll get to be able to install newer
>> version
Bill Unruh wrote:
> The philosophy of Mandrake and Redhat has been that updates are for
> security concerns, not for upgrading the system. Upgrades are handled by
> new releases and that trying to make sure that a particular upgrade works
> together with 3 or 4 different distros would be a logistic
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course it can load that way. That is modules are. The problem is that
> modules are so intimatley connected with the kernel that a module for
> kernel A in general does not have the right entry points for Kernel B.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:05:40 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:49 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
You are "aiming too low".
The true answers are:
1) drivers running in user space;
Agreed. This would help many
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, John Haxby wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
>> I think it's a problem that FC5 does not have an RPM package containing
>> these modules.
>>
.
>
> On the other hand, perhaps someone would volunteer to de-couple the ALSA
> modules from the rest of the kernel in the kernel build so
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem as always id dependencies. Have the modules really beendesinged
> to work on their own, or do they suddenly have weird dependencies to say
> alsalib.
>
Again and again, fully self-contained binary driv
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:42:42 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not going to participate in another binary driver flamewar.
> Everything interesting that can be said about the issue has been said.
> You're entitled to your opinion.
>
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:40 +0300, Sergei Stes
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 10:07 -0700, Bill Unruh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:34 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Again, try a live-cd distribution first - it's much simpler than
compiling ALSA and pr
I'm not going to participate in another binary driver flamewar.
Everything interesting that can be said about the issue has been said.
You're entitled to your opinion.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:40 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:05:40 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:05:40 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:49 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> > You are "aiming too low".
> >
> > The true answers are:
> >
> > 1) drivers running in user space;
>
> Agreed. This would help many things. For example it w
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:49 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> You are "aiming too low".
>
> The true answers are:
>
> 1) drivers running in user space;
Agreed. This would help many things. For example it would solve the
binary only driver issue - vendors that feel the need to develop closed
dri
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 20:39 +0100, John Haxby wrote:
> On the other hand, perhaps someone would volunteer to de-couple the
> ALSA modules from the rest of the kernel in the kernel build so that
> the ALSA modules can be updated and then we'll get to be able to
> install newer versions of ALSA witho
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 20:39 +0100, John Haxby wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > I think it's a problem that FC5 does not have an RPM package containing
> > these modules.
> >
> I think it's a question of cost of maintenance. FC5 is currently on
> 2.6.12.20 (although you might be forgiven fo thin
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:39:08 +0100
John Haxby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > I think it's a problem that FC5 does not have an RPM package containing
> > these modules.
> >
> I think it's a question of cost of maintenance. FC5 is currently on
> 2.6.12.20 (although you migh
Lee Revell wrote:
> I think it's a problem that FC5 does not have an RPM package containing
> these modules.
>
I think it's a question of cost of maintenance. FC5 is currently on
2.6.12.20 (although you might be forgiven fo thinking is actually
2.6.16-1.2133_FC5). /proc/asound says that we
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:52:28 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sergei,
>
> Your mail server keep blocking me, can you fix it?
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 194.67.23.20 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 550 Access from ip address 216.158.38.3 blocked. Visit
> http://win.mail.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 10:07 -0700, Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:34 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> >> Again, try a live-cd distribution first - it's much simpler than
> >> compiling ALSA and probably kernel.
> >>
> >
> > I think the lat
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:34 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>> Again, try a live-cd distribution first - it's much simpler than
>> compiling ALSA and probably kernel.
>>
>
> I think the latest Knoppix should be good - apparently the Riptide
> driver is rathe
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:59:51 -0400
> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:09 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>>> ??? It is no snd-riptide driver in alsa. I don't know how mandrake can
>>> found a driver that doesn't exist
Sergei,
Your mail server keep blocking me, can you fix it?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
194.67.23.20 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 Access from ip address 216.158.38.3 blocked. Visit
http://win.mail.ru/cgi-bin/support_bl?ip=216.158.38.3
Giving up on 194.67.23.20.
Lee
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:34 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> Again, try a live-cd distribution first - it's much simpler than
> compiling ALSA and probably kernel.
>
I think the latest Knoppix should be good - apparently the Riptide
driver is rather new, and it will not be in the kernel until 2.6
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:59:51 -0400
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:09 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > ??? It is no snd-riptide driver in alsa. I don't know how mandrake can
> > found a driver that doesn't exist.
> >
> > I am affraid at the only thing you can do
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:09 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> ??? It is no snd-riptide driver in alsa. I don't know how mandrake can
> found a driver that doesn't exist.
>
> I am affraid at the only thing you can do is to buy a new soundcard if
> you want to have sound in linux with your box. Look
ed: alias sound-slot-0 snd-riptide
>
> #/sbin/lsmod
> returned: snd-riptide not loaded but only snd-0
>
>
> #chkconfig --list sound
> returned: sound service is configured to be run in init-level 3 sound 3:ON
>
> #chkconfig --list alsa
> returned: alsa 3:ON
>
>
dio
> Controller(Multimedia Audio)
>
> #grep sound-slot/etc/modprobe.conf
> returned: alias sound-slot-0 snd-riptide
>
> #/sbin/lsmod
> returned: snd-riptide not loaded but only snd-0
>
>
> #chkconfig --list sound
> returned: sound service is configured to be run
Lastly the bottom line is the system could not
detect a soundcard.--- it >> always showed no soundcard
found.>>>> Pls suggest ways of fixing this problem and
thanks in advance. >>>>
Best regards,
Claude YU
End of quot
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 20:21 -0700, Bill Unruh wrote:
> Since Windows runs the soundcard using drivers supplied by the
> manufacturer, write the manufacturer to ask why they did not write a
> module for Linux.
This is no solution. We need the vendors to test the ALSA code and
contribute patches.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Claude Yu wrote:
>
> > Hi Clemens,
> >
> >
> > After installing FC-5 distribtion and booting up in dual boot mode
> > gracefully. It is great. however,
> > something has made me feel so outrageo
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Claude Yu wrote:
> Hi Clemens,
>
>
> After installing FC-5 distribtion and booting up in dual boot mode
> gracefully. It is great. however,
> something has made me feel so outrageous similarly to the fate of installing
> Mandrake 2006 -- No sound!
I hope that you did not ch
Hi Clemens,
After installing FC-5
distribtion and booting up in dual boot mode gracefully. It is great.
however,
something has made me feel so
outrageous similarly to the fate of installing Mandrake 2006 --
No sound!
I found either kernel unable to load
sound modules to support its s
49 matches
Mail list logo
