> Hee... I may do the same. Assuming I leave my system at home
> that is. I found out today that the employee co-location room was
> upgraded two weeks ago; all the machines now live on a 100BaseTX switch,
which feeds into a VERY large Catalyst - also at 100BaseTX - and from there
feed into a ro
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Steven Peck wrote:
> My thanks,
Quite welcome. The names behind Progeny are definitely notable - Bruce
Perens for one, Ian Murdock (The Ian in DebIan) for another. Progeny very
well may be the one to break into the Desktop market once and for all.
> Downloading Progeny as I
My thanks,
Downloading Progeny as I type, this will pretty much kill my Unreal
Tourament games for a short while. I'll put it on my 'old' P200 system with
128 MB of ram. Should be a fairly solid little trooper. When I get
comfortable with it, I'll build up my PPro 150 and put it on a real DMZ,
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Steven Peck wrote:
> fine. When I get Debian to install satifactorily, I do have a long term
> goal of replacing my IIS server with a Debian Apache system, and my seperate
> Exchange server with a qmail setup. Just got to get a stable understandable
> Linux system installed
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Jack Coates wrote:
> now now, let's all play nice before someone gets an eye put out.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Then it's just fun. =)
> Besides, everyone knows that real men use links :-)
Well, since I eat quiche, that's irrelevant for me. =)
> M
nope -- they still don't have it together. Rumor has it there's a BIOS
issue with the stinkpad, which I'll be investigating shortly.
"I hear the train a comin, it's comin round the bend
and I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when."
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
ROFLMAO!
Information Technology of the company STILL hasn't got that w2k build fixed
yet?? I won't mention the company names (how you like it there? It's been
3 months since I left so I got 3 more months before I can get hired without
contract penalties, if they offer of course) Though
now now, let's all play nice before someone gets an eye put out.
Besides, everyone knows that real men use links :-)
Mozilla 8.1 is nice -- I use it on Win2K and Mandrake 7.2. I'm actually
getting excited that it might not suck when it hits 1.0.
Did I mention that Win2K sucks?? Work laptop is an
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Matthew Schalit wrote:
> > (Lets face it gang, ain't no UNIX browser out there
> > that matches up to IE5, no matter how much I want Mozilla to succeed)
>
> IE5 is p@@p.
I KNEW I should've let lie. I was kinda hoping that that wouldn't lead to
flamewar shiz...
> I happily r
I've cross posted to lrp and leaf-devel; replies should go only
to leaf-devel.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:39:51PM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > Are zlib and openssl required to be on the LRP or just on the devel box?
> > I think I know the answer, but I'm hoping I'm wrong. :)
>
> Well, ac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't have Unixware, but on my Linux box NS 4.72 sucks.
Why? And why are you using 4.72?
I've been using Netscape 4.76 under Red Hat 6.2 and its remarkably
stable...
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://l
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Matthew Schalit wrote:
> George Metz wrote:
> >
>
> > (Lets face it gang, ain't no UNIX browser out there
> > that matches up to IE5, no matter how much I want Mozilla to succeed)
>
>
> IE5 is p@@p.
Hmm. A few too many proprietary features, but remarkably stable for me.
Matthew Schalit wrote:
> David, I just found that problem.
>
> 1) I burned a fresh 1.68 3/26 diskette.
> I modified the default boot down to 8192 MB ram
> I boot single disk and configure + setup + passwds
> + /var/boot/modules/*
> I loaded ldd, strace, ltracc.
>
David Douthitt wrote:
>
> Mark Seiden wrote:
>
> > as an experiment, i went back to the /lib/lib* from nov 2000
> > oxygen. tar doesn't seg fault, ssh mkhostkey doesn't seg fault,
> > but more still does, as before. it's mystifyin'.
>
> There was briefly some talk about whether libraries get
David Douthitt, 2001-03-27 15:59 -0600
>Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > It looks like the FTP server is advancing time stamps by 8 hours.
>
>That sounds like Pacific Time vs. GMT^H^H^HUTC - isn't Pacific
>Time GMT+8?
David,
Yes, although it's TZ is PST8PDT.
BTW, did you scp gdb.lrp with the permiss
George Metz wrote:
>
> (Lets face it gang, ain't no UNIX browser out there
> that matches up to IE5, no matter how much I want Mozilla to succeed)
IE5 is p@@p.
I happily run Netscape Communicator 4.61 w/128 bit
strong encryption on UnixWare 7.1.1.
You gone to the Dark Side, huh?
Boo.
Georg
Mike Noyes wrote:
> It looks like the FTP server is advancing time stamps by 8 hours.
That sounds like Pacific Time vs. GMT^H^H^HUTC - isn't Pacific
Time GMT+8?
I know CST is GMT+6 ...
Also, I heard on the TinyCobol list that SourceForge was having some
kind of problems with the CVS serve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:56:44PM -0800, Matthew Schalit scribbled:
> > Apparently, in 3/26 you changed /etc/fstab so that
> > the /boot --> /mnt specification is now commented out
> > and we can no longer type mount /mnt from a prompt
> > and mount the default d
Matthew Schalit, 2001-03-27 13:20 -0800
>Mike,
>
>Upon further investigation:
>
>The one I was looking at was at the ftp site leaf.sourceforge.net
>in /pub/leaf/oxygen and when I checked it at 13:13 PST it said,
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 37002 users1720320 Mar 27 13:27 develop.ima
Matt,
I show:
ht
Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> Mike Noyes, 2001-03-27 12:59 -0800
> >Matthew Schalit, 2001-03-27 12:47 -0800
> >>Found it, thanks. Either you touched the dates funny
> >>or sourceforce is having a 2000/ 2001 problem.
> >>gdb.lrp is listed as
> >>
> >> gdb.lrp 573 KbMon Mar 27 13:27:00 2000
> >
> > They work but have that nasty "offset by X" so I fixed it.
>
> Is that a warning to be concerned about, or just ugly?
This isn't anything to worry about, it pretty much just means someone added
or deleted a line from the file. For instance, adding:
/* Charles Steinkuehler just looked at thi
Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> Matt,
> SourceForge isn't having a problem with dates. see.
>
> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/pub/oxygen/
> gdb.lrp 27-Mar-2001 05:27 573k
>
You're right, it was a problem with my
ftp client.
Thanks,
Matt
Mike Noyes, 2001-03-27 12:59 -0800
>Matthew Schalit, 2001-03-27 12:47 -0800
>>Found it, thanks. Either you touched the dates funny
>>or sourceforce is having a 2000/ 2001 problem.
>>gdb.lrp is listed as
>>
>> gdb.lrp 573 KbMon Mar 27 13:27:00 2000
>>
>>Same date on develop.ima
>>
>>I g
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:00:39PM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> I saw in 2.2.19 that there is now support to configure the kernel with
> DHCP/BOOTP/RARP to load over a network; anyone know anything of this?
That's not new to 2.2.19. That's what I know of it. :-)
--
rick -- A mind is like
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:56:44PM -0800, Matthew Schalit scribbled:
> Apparently, in 3/26 you changed /etc/fstab so that
> the /boot --> /mnt specification is now commented out
> and we can no longer type mount /mnt from a prompt
> and mount the default diskette devicel, while the
> directi
I saw in 2.2.19 that there is now support to configure the kernel with
DHCP/BOOTP/RARP to load over a network; anyone know anything of this?
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Matthew Schalit, 2001-03-27 12:47 -0800
>Found it, thanks. Either you touched the dates funny
>or sourceforce is having a 2000/ 2001 problem.
>gdb.lrp is listed as
>
> gdb.lrp 573 KbMon Mar 27 13:27:00 2000
>
>Same date on develop.ima
>
>I guess that's a cc: Mike Noyes
Matt,
Sourc
David Douthitt wrote:
>
> Matthew Schalit wrote:
> The new March 2001 release uses the WORKING format, as you described it.
Thanks for that. I found another issue, and
I thought I'd tack it one here, though, because it's
serious, but not critical.
Apparently, in 3/26 you changed /etc/fst
David Douthitt wrote:
>
> I updated develop.ima -- just in case it's been updated; it almost NEVER
> changes -- and put gdb.lrp there as well. You'll have to use the URL to
> get there (there's no links):
>
> ftp://shell1.sourceforge.net/pub/leaf/oxygen/gdb.lrp
Found it, thanks. Either yo
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:34:24PM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > Really? I thought that there was an issue with it in 2.4.2 only...
>
> You're probably right. Rick, watch out!
Gack! Argh!@
I tried to install a 2.4.2 kernel this morning...lilo told me
it worked, but after a reboot, I was
George Metz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> > Existing 2.4.1 has problems with loop mounts, so you might want to
> > avoid it. ?
>
> Really? I thought that there was an issue with it in 2.4.2 only...
You're probably right. Rick, watch out!
> I also
> wanted to tak
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> Neither of the patches touches the makefile. The mods are all limited to C
> code...the kernel's main.c (IIRC) and the ramdisk code. The code patched
> should be quite stable between various 2.4 versions, especially since the
> "classic" ramdis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > They work but have that nasty "offset by X" so I fixed it.
>
> Is that a warning to be concerned about, or just ugly?
Just ugly.
Also, there's an OpenWall patch available for 2.2.19.
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PR
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>
> > I've got the initrd & linuxrc-always patches for the 2.4 kernel:
> > http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/2.4.0-test11/
>
> Anyone going to compile 2.4.2-ac26 or whatever other is out there now?
>
> Existing 2.4.1
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:04:23PM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > The patches are different for 2.2.19? I successfully used the
> > 2.2.16 patches on 2.2.19, no problems at all.
>
> Spoil everything now
Hey, everybody's been spoiling my own work, include YOU, with
your data CD... ;-)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:05:45PM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>
> > I've got the initrd & linuxrc-always patches for the 2.4 kernel:
> > http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/2.4.0-test11/
>
> Anyone going to compile 2.4.2-ac26 or whatever other is out the
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:53:50PM -0600, Charles Steinkuehler scribbled:
> Neither of the patches touches the makefile. The mods are all limited to C
> code...the kernel's main.c (IIRC) and the ramdisk code. The code patched
> should be quite stable between various 2.4 versions, especially sinc
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> I've got the initrd & linuxrc-always patches for the 2.4 kernel:
> http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/2.4.0-test11/
Anyone going to compile 2.4.2-ac26 or whatever other is out there now?
Existing 2.4.1 has problems with loop mounts, so you might want to
avoi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:19:48AM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > What's the best way to release these?
> >
> > I talked once of getting the patches together; perhaps we should
> > start? I compiled these patches for 2.2.17, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19.
>
> The patches
> > I've got the initrd & linuxrc-always patches for the 2.4 kernel:
> > http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/2.4.0-test11/
>
> Charles, do you - or anyone for that matter - know if either of these
> patches touch the Makefile in any way? Between -test12 and release, they
> changed the Makefi
Everyone,
The Oxygen news item posted on the SourceForge home page this morning
at 2001-03-27 09:16. It looks like our site handled the load without problems.
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
http://www.boingworld.com/workshops/linux/iptables-tutorial/
might be useful info, so I thought I'd share
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:16:14AM -0800, Mike Noyes scribbled:
> Rick did most of the work on recreating our old messages in the archive.
Bah! I just ran a 'bounce.pl' that mail-archive.com linked to,
using their instructions. Mike dug up all the messages (he's a
more organized pack-rat than I
Mike Noyes, 2001-03-26 06:26 -0800
>Everyone,
>Our lists are now being archived at the Mail-Archive in addition to
>GeoCrawler. Rick and I will attempt to recreate the older messages in our
>new list archives.
Everyone,
Three of our lists are now archived at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/index.p
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> I've got the initrd & linuxrc-always patches for the 2.4 kernel:
> http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/2.4.0-test11/
Charles, do you - or anyone for that matter - know if either of these
patches touch the Makefile in any way? Between -test
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> What's the best way to release these?
>
> I talked once of getting the patches together; perhaps we should
> start? I compiled these patches for 2.2.17, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19.
>
> I thought someone else had patched them against 2.4.1 ...?
I was working
Mark Seiden wrote:
> "more" appears to segfault in termios support
termio support is optional in busybox, and seems to only affect more -
busybox comments state: "more is prettier with this on"
> tar in malloc.
busybox tar (or at least tar.c) uses xmalloc in two places in the
code:
1. When yo
> > I talked once of getting the patches together; perhaps we should
> > start? I compiled these patches for 2.2.17, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19.
>
> The patches are different for 2.2.19? I successfully used the
> 2.2.16 patches on 2.2.19, no problems at all.
>
> > I thought someone else had patched the
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:19:48AM -0600, David Douthitt scribbled:
> What's the best way to release these?
>
> I talked once of getting the patches together; perhaps we should
> start? I compiled these patches for 2.2.17, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19.
The patches are different for 2.2.19? I successfully
What's the best way to release these?
I talked once of getting the patches together; perhaps we should
start? I compiled these patches for 2.2.17, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19.
I thought someone else had patched them against 2.4.1 ...?
___
Leaf-devel mailing l
David Douthitt, 2001-03-27 07:37 -0600
>Mark Seiden wrote:
>
> > i found it in
> > ftp://shell1.sourceforge.net/pub/leaf/oxygen/develop.ima
> >
> > no gdb.lrp there though.
>
>I updated develop.ima -- just in case it's been updated; it almost NEVER
>changes -- and put gdb.lrp there as well. You'l
David Douthitt, 2001-03-27 07:09 -0600
>Mike Noyes wrote:
> >
> > David Douthitt, 2001-03-26 17:19 -0600
> > >Where would be a good place for a "data" ISO image? I've an image
> > >I'm tempted to put up, but the boot image does not work correctly.
> > >It has a (semiold) image of Charles' website
Mark Seiden wrote:
> i found it in
> ftp://shell1.sourceforge.net/pub/leaf/oxygen/develop.ima
>
> no gdb.lrp there though.
I updated develop.ima -- just in case it's been updated; it almost NEVER
changes -- and put gdb.lrp there as well. You'll have to use the URL to
get there (there's no link
Mark Seiden wrote:
> as an experiment, i went back to the /lib/lib* from nov 2000
> oxygen. tar doesn't seg fault, ssh mkhostkey doesn't seg fault,
> but more still does, as before. it's mystifyin'.
There was briefly some talk about whether libraries get corrupted when
root is backed up; can y
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> I would, however, support
> putting lots of LRP package files on the CD image, [...]
...that actually was my focus and purpose...
> & modifying linuxrc to
> allow paths in the pkgpath= setting (I think you did this already, didn't
> you Dave?).
Actually, George fo
Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> David Douthitt, 2001-03-26 17:19 -0600
> >Where would be a good place for a "data" ISO image? I've an image I'm
> >tempted to put up, but the boot image does not work correctly. It has a
> >(semiold) image of Charles' website I think, and a portion of Rick's.
> >It also ha
56 matches
Mail list logo
