Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: > systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib > and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. And when did USL (whoever that is) decide that SVR4.2 doesn't care about being able to run on any ARM SoC? And how's that

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 12:42:50 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 >> Adam Borowski wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg

Re: [DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:25:31 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: > Of course - which is why I mentioned the x86-64 D8 and D16 - which > while slower than POWER 9 are still quite fast with a $40 16 core > CPU. You could build a complete setup for around $500 - at least I > did.

[DNG] mdevd-0.0.1.0 - a mdev-compatible uevent manager

Didier Kryn: sorry, I am new to MLs, and thought everything arriving from lists.dyne.org was in the same space. jacksprat ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

[DNG] Fwd: [announce] mdevd-0.0.1.0 - a mdev-compatible uevent manager

Le 13/11/2017 à 13:56, jacksprat a écrit : hello Didier Kryn: thanks for bringing this to my [and everyones] attention. My use of mdev "just seems to work", perhaps because I just use my computers for boring "desktop duties". I remember Devuan being very agressive when I tried to uninstall

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 13/11/17 13:09, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote: One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010, when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter? I'd bet all and

[DNG] mdevd-0.0.1.0 - a mdev-compatible uevent manager

hello Didier Kryn: thanks for bringing this to my [and everyones] attention. My use of mdev "just seems to work", perhaps because I just use my computers for boring "desktop duties". I remember Devuan being very agressive when I tried to uninstall udev* [dragging many other important packages

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote: > One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010, > when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate > directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter? I'd bet all and my butt on the latter ;-) It's just too

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon 13 November 2017 00:18:15 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > > > The "too much work" argument is a

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 04:09:21PM -0600, Patrick Meade wrote: > On 11/12/2017 12:45 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > At least microcode is mandatory on any modern x86 CPUs, or you risk severe > > data loss issues that differ by CPU sub-model. You may think that just > > because without microcode

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 > Adam Borowski wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > >> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the >

Re: [DNG] Documentation format philosophies

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:35:09PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:39:34 +0100 > Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > > > >  We use LaTEX in technical documents,  > > > > > > LaTeX is wonderful

Re: [DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

On 11/12/2017 09:06 PM, Steve Litt wrote: On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:03:32 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: In case you don't notice my reply (but please keep replies on the ML so everyone sees :D) OK, here it is... On 11/09/2017 12:32 PM, Steve Litt wrote: [snip] After

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:45:02 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the > > genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such > > stuff.

Re: [DNG] Documentation format philosophies

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:35:09PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:39:34 +0100 > Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > > > >  We use LaTEX in technical documents,  > > > > > > LaTeX is wonderful

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the genuine > > > duty of distro

Re: [DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:03:32 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: > In case you don't notice my reply (but please keep replies on the ML > so everyone sees :D) OK, here it is... > > On 11/09/2017 12:32 PM, Steve Litt wrote: [snip] > > After Rick's posted Minix on Intel article,

Re: [DNG] *ERROR* radeon kernel modesetting for R600 or later requires firmware-linux-nonfree.

On Sat 11 November 2017 09:28:23 Adam Borowski wrote: > > Does it really make the card more "free" if the binary blob is built-in > > instead of being loaded at runtime? > > Somehow, RMS believes so. No, actually RMS/FSF doesn't care about "more free" or "more secure" for that particular topic

Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

Am Montag, 13. November 2017 schrieb dan pridgeon: > > From: info at smallinnovations dot nl > To: dng@lists.dyne.org > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:42 AM > Subject: Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip > operating system > >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: >> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the >> genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such stuff. >>

Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

From: info at smallinnovations dot nl To: dng@lists.dyne.org Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip operating system On 09-11-17 02:24, Rick Moen wrote: > Vaughan-Nichols's article