Linux Compatible USB Adapter Recommendations? [OT]

I'm looking to buy a wireless USB adapter that I can plug into a Fedora 8 box. The main feature I want it to be able to stick it in and have it just work. No custom kernel compiles. If it had 802.11n that would be a plus. So - what "just works" with Linux? Thanks in advance. Marc P

Linux Compatible USB Adapter Recommendations? [OT]

I'm looking to buy a wireless USB adapter that I can plug into a Fedora 8 box. The main feature I want it to be able to stick it in and have it just work. No custom kernel compiles. If it had 802.11n that would be a plus. So - what just works with Linux? Thanks in advance. Marc Perkel Junk

Kernel friendly chipsets - video drivers - nVidia vs. AMD 690G

690G chipset. I'm thinking of using it in the workstation and using the nVidia board on a colo machine. My question - how friendly is the video drivers in Linux with the AMD690G chipset? Is it going to work in 1680x1050 mode easily or should I stick with nVidia? Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot

Kernel friendly chipsets - video drivers - nVidia vs. AMD 690G

690G chipset. I'm thinking of using it in the workstation and using the nVidia board on a colo machine. My question - how friendly is the video drivers in Linux with the AMD690G chipset? Is it going to work in 1680x1050 mode easily or should I stick with nVidia? Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

that when you use an editor that totally sucks then it's going to cause you to write code that sucks. It going to lower your standards. It's going to create a culture where poorly done work is considered acceptable. When you u

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

and justifiable, as demonstrated here by people who ACTUALLY DEFENDED IT. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Paolo Ornati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT) > Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 20 years, a million programmers, tens of millions > of > > users and RM is BROKEN. Am I the only one who has > a &g

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 09:15:22AM +0200, Jiri Slaby > wrote: > > Marc Perkel napsal(a): > > > Let me give you and example of the difference > between > > > Linux open source world brain damaged think

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc Perkel napsal(a): > > Let me give you and example of the difference > between > > Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and > > what it's like out here in the real world. > > > > Go to a dire

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sunday 19 August 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > > Let me give you and example of > > > > > brain damaged thinking > > > > > out here in the real world. > > > I tried Peyote once about 25 years ago and it

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 10:20:34PM -0700, Marc > Perkel wrote: > > Let me give you and example of the difference > between > > Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and > > what it's like out here in the real

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 10:20:34PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: Let me give you and example of the difference between Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and what it's like out here in the real world. [snip] Marc, why don't you do

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 19 August 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: Let me give you and example of snip brain damaged thinking snip out here in the real world. I tried Peyote once about 25 years ago and it was fantastic. Sounds like it hasn't worn off yet. Afreed

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc Perkel napsal(a): Let me give you and example of the difference between Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and what it's like out here in the real world. Go to a directory with 10k files and type: rm * What do you

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 09:15:22AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: Marc Perkel napsal(a): Let me give you and example of the difference between Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and what it's like out here in the real world

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

--- Paolo Ornati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 20 years, a million programmers, tens of millions of users and RM is BROKEN. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? If so - I'm normal - and Linux

The vi editor causes brain damage

ryone gets pissed off and freaks out why don't you ponder the question why rm won't delete all the files in the directory. If you can't grasp that then you're brain damaged. Think big people. Say NO to vi! Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemail

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

hostility towards new concepts here. Something I don't understand. At some point Linux needs to grow beyond just being an evolved Unix clone and that's not going to happen if you don't think differently. I still believe that the VI editor causes brain damage. :) Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

ory structure fast and effecient with automatic inheritance of rights. I know it can be done because Microsoft is doing it and Novell Netware was doing it 20 years ago. So the fact that it is done by others disproves your arguments that it can't be done. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

and effecient with automatic inheritance of rights. I know it can be done because Microsoft is doing it and Novell Netware was doing it 20 years ago. So the fact that it is done by others disproves your arguments that it can't be done. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

hostility towards new concepts here. Something I don't understand. At some point Linux needs to grow beyond just being an evolved Unix clone and that's not going to happen if you don't think differently. I still believe that the VI editor causes brain damage. :) Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com

The vi editor causes brain damage

pissed off and freaks out why don't you ponder the question why rm won't delete all the files in the directory. If you can't grasp that then you're brain damaged. Think big people. Say NO to vi! Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

with a method that will work. You have to look for a solution rather than attack other people's solutions. That's what thinking outside the box means. Impossible = Challenge Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

with a method that will work. You have to look for a solution rather than attack other people's solutions. That's what thinking outside the box means. Impossible = Challenge Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:50:17 PDT, Marc Perkel said: > > I don't see it as being any worse that what we > have > > now. To open a file you have to start at the > bottom > > and open each directory and evaluate the > permissions >

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

. My proposal is the same somewhat. If one put restricting on a specific name to deny access to users then that denial follows that filename even if it is copied or moved. However if a file has no specific restrictions and is in a restricted directory then the file inherits the restrictions a

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote: > > > > Kyle - you are still missing the point. chmod goes > > away. File permissions goes away. Directories as > you > > know them goes away. > > You are missing the point Marc.

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 15:26:07, Lennart Sorensen > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Marc > Perkel wrote: > >> When one thinks outside the box one has to think > about evolving > >>

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Craig Ruff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:30:19AM -0700, Marc > Perkel wrote: > > --- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except they do, and without directories the > > > performance of your average filesystem

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 14:05:23, Marc Perkel wrote: > > In this new system setfacl, chmod, chown, and > chgrp all go away > > except inside of an emulation layer. File and > directories no longer > > have pe

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

access to the files. It eliminates the step of having to apply permission after moving files into a tree. You don't have to change file permissions because files no longer have permissions. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 13:19:16, Marc Perkel wrote: > > One of the problems with the Unix/Linux world is > that your minds > > are locked into this one model. In order to do it > right it requires > > t

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

re tree. Then you only need > to store a single acl > on disk, and only have to update one acl to add a > new user. > > In the model I'm suggesting files and directories no longer have permissions so ACLs go away. Only users, groups, managers, applications, and other object

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Michael Tharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote: > > That not a problem - it's a feature. In such a > > situation the person would get a general file > creation > > error. > > Feature or not, it's still vulnerable to probing by >

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 13:09:31, Marc Perkel wrote: > > The idea is that people have permissions - not > files. By people I > > mean users, groups, managers, applications > > etc. One might even specify

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

levels are emulated based on name separation characters or any other algorithm that you want to use. One could create a file system and permission system that gets rid of the concept of directories entirely if one chooses to. That's outside the box big time. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot c

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:02:41, Marc Perkel wrote: > > Kyle, thinking further outside the box, files > would no longer have > > owners or permissions. Nor would > > directories. People, groups, managers,

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:02:41 PDT, Marc Perkel said: > > > Kyle, thinking further outside the box, files > would no > > longer have owners or permissions. Nor would > > directories. People, groups, managers, and other > > object

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > For example. If you list a directory you only see > the > > files that you have some rights to and files where > you > > have no rights are invisible to you. If a file is &

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

the root user where the kernel would have access to files that even the root user can't see (unless debug modes are set) so that some files can be system only or readable by root but writable by kernel. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

so you could implement "self" rights which might be use to replace the concept of /tmp directories. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Got a little cou

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

the concept of /tmp directories. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

can be system only or readable by root but writable by kernel. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel wrote: For example. If you list a directory you only see the files that you have some rights to and files where you have no rights are invisible to you. If a file is read only to you then you can't delete it either

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:02:41 PDT, Marc Perkel said: Kyle, thinking further outside the box, files would no longer have owners or permissions. Nor would directories. People, groups, managers, and other objects with have permissions. You gotta think *way

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:02:41, Marc Perkel wrote: Kyle, thinking further outside the box, files would no longer have owners or permissions. Nor would directories. People, groups, managers, and other objects with have permissions. One might

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

. Only users, groups, managers, applications, and other objects have permissions. So if you move a file into the tree then everything that has permission to that tree has rights to the file. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

characters or any other algorithm that you want to use. One could create a file system and permission system that gets rid of the concept of directories entirely if one chooses to. That's outside the box big time. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 15, 2007, at 13:09:31, Marc Perkel wrote: The idea is that people have permissions - not files. By people I mean users, groups, managers, applications etc. One might even specify that there are no permission restrictions at all

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Michael Tharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc Perkel wrote: That not a problem - it's a feature. In such a situation the person would get a general file creation error. Feature or not, it's still vulnerable to probing by malicious users. If there are create permissions

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

access to the files. It eliminates the step of having to apply permission after moving files into a tree. You don't have to change file permissions because files no longer have permissions. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 15, 2007, at 13:19:16, Marc Perkel wrote: One of the problems with the Unix/Linux world is that your minds are locked into this one model. In order to do it right it requires the mental discipline to break out of that. The major

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 15, 2007, at 14:05:23, Marc Perkel wrote: In this new system setfacl, chmod, chown, and chgrp all go away except inside of an emulation layer. File and directories no longer have permissions. People have permission to naming patterns

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Craig Ruff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:30:19AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: --- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except they do, and without directories the performance of your average filesystem is going to suck. Actually you would get a speed

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 15, 2007, at 15:26:07, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: When one thinks outside the box one has to think about evolving beyond what you are used to. When I moved beyond DOS I have

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc Perkel wrote: Kyle - you are still missing the point. chmod goes away. File permissions goes away. Directories as you know them goes away. You are missing the point Marc... open()ing a file will have to perform a number

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

to it. Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:50:17 PDT, Marc Perkel said: I don't see it as being any worse that what we have now. To open a file you have to start at the bottom and open each directory and evaluate the permissions on the way to the file. In my system you have

Thinking outside the box on file systems

away from the limitations of the past. Anyhow, I'm going to stop at this just to let these ideas settle in. In my mind there's a lot more detail but let's see where this goes. Marc Perkel Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemail

Thinking outside the box on file systems

the limitations of the past. Anyhow, I'm going to stop at this just to let these ideas settle in. In my mind there's a lot more detail but let's see where this goes. Marc Perkel Marc Perkel Junk Email Filter dot com http://www.junkemailfilter.com

Re: Woke up to a crashed kernet this morning - nVidia is crap

OK - so the driver I downloaded from nVidia to fix their problem I was having with the video installed drivers for everything? I'm really getting to dislike nVidia. --- Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nvidia binary crap > > "When you are using a binary driver, the kernel

Woke up to a crashed kernet this morning

Found this in the log. Running 2.6.22,1,41,fc7 - I had just upgraded the kernel last night using yum. And - I was running a lot of backups using rsync and was backing up to a usb connected drive. I'm not sure which event triggered it but I'm guessing the latter in that it's something I rarely do

Woke up to a crashed kernet this morning

Found this in the log. Running 2.6.22,1,41,fc7 - I had just upgraded the kernel last night using yum. And - I was running a lot of backups using rsync and was backing up to a usb connected drive. I'm not sure which event triggered it but I'm guessing the latter in that it's something I rarely do

Re: Woke up to a crashed kernet this morning - nVidia is crap

OK - so the driver I downloaded from nVidia to fix their problem I was having with the video installed drivers for everything? I'm really getting to dislike nVidia. --- Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nvidia binary crap When you are using a binary driver, the kernel is

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

--- Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or use the same hardware as me (and debian)-- and > read on my home page how > I got things working :p > > hikaru:/usr/lib>dpkg -l | grep nvidia > ii nvidia-glx > 100.14.11-0

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

--- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or use the same hardware as me (and debian)-- and read on my home page how I got things working :p hikaru:/usr/libdpkg -l | grep nvidia ii nvidia-glx 100.14.11-0

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

--- Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc, please choose a more appropriate list next > time. LKML is not > for user questions about "Why doesn't my monitor+GPU > work?" > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 05:49:20, Daniel J Blueman > wrote: > > On 2

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

t; mailing list is for > kernel issues (which include rivafb and nvidiafb but > not nv and nvidia > 3d issues) so if you ever plug in a hard drive and > it's not working at > full speed or something along those lines that's > when you should call. > > Cheers > >

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

d issues) so if you ever plug in a hard drive and > it's not working at > full speed or something along those lines that's > when you should call. > > Cheers > > Mike > > On 27/06/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Trying to get my A

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

On 27/06/07, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to get my Asus M2NPV-VM motherboard and my Samsung SyncMaster 215tw Digital to work in 1680x1050 mode but 1280x1024 is the most I can get. Chip Set is GeForce 6150. Looking in Xorg.0.log it ssems to think that the panel size

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

at full speed or something along those lines that's when you should call. Cheers Mike On 27/06/07, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to get my Asus M2NPV-VM motherboard and my Samsung SyncMaster 215tw Digital to work in 1680x1050 mode but 1280x1024 is the most I can get

Re: NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

--- Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc, please choose a more appropriate list next time. LKML is not for user questions about Why doesn't my monitor+GPU work? On Jun 27, 2007, at 05:49:20, Daniel J Blueman wrote: On 27 Jun, 04:40, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote

NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

Trying to get my Asus M2NPV-VM motherboard and my Samsung SyncMaster 215tw Digital to work in 1680x1050 mode but 1280x1024 is the most I can get. Chip Set is GeForce 6150. Looking in Xorg.0.log it ssems to think that the panel size is 1280x1024 in spite of my setting telling it differently.

NVidia Driver Support - 1680x1050 mode

Trying to get my Asus M2NPV-VM motherboard and my Samsung SyncMaster 215tw Digital to work in 1680x1050 mode but 1280x1024 is the most I can get. Chip Set is GeForce 6150. Looking in Xorg.0.log it ssems to think that the panel size is 1280x1024 in spite of my setting telling it differently.

Re: How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 19 2007 10:14, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> > >> tcpdump -lni any port 25 > >> iptables -p tcp --dport 25 -j NFQUEUE > >> ... > >> > > > >Thanks Jan, but I'm no

Re: How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 19 2007 09:48, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > >I have a server with port 25 closed. I was to be > able > >to run a script every time someone tries to connect > to > >port 25, but from the outside the p

How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

I have a server with port 25 closed. I was to be able to run a script every time someone tries to connect to port 25, but from the outside the port remains closed. I need the script that I'm going to run get the IP address that tried to connect. I know it's off topic but it's part of an

How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

I have a server with port 25 closed. I was to be able to run a script every time someone tries to connect to port 25, but from the outside the port remains closed. I need the script that I'm going to run get the IP address that tried to connect. I know it's off topic but it's part of an

Re: How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 19 2007 09:48, Marc Perkel wrote: I have a server with port 25 closed. I was to be able to run a script every time someone tries to connect to port 25, but from the outside the port remains closed. I need the script that I'm going

Re: How would I do this? (expert tricks) OT

--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 19 2007 10:14, Marc Perkel wrote: tcpdump -lni any port 25 iptables -p tcp --dport 25 -j NFQUEUE ... Thanks Jan, but I'm not sure it answers my question. There's more than one way to do it. One is... tcpdump -lni

Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

--- Kevin Bowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the > name simply be > changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 > vs GPL3. Same > verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep > cutting into our > corner of pragmatism, I am

Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

--- Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 > debate > > and the problem is that it leads to confusion. > GPL3 is > > nothing like GPL2

Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license

Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe that GPL3 is just GPL3 improved. So - just throwing out the idea that if Linus is unhappy with GPL3 that Linux lose the GPLx license

Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

--- Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/15/07, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is nothing like GPL2 and the GPLx leads people to believe that GPL3

Re: Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License)

--- Kevin Bowling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the OP is suggesting that the name simply be changed from GPL to LKL to avoid confusion of GPL2 vs GPL3. Same verbiage, different name. If these FSF loonies keep cutting into our corner of pragmatism, I am inclined to

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > [] > > The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be > written out at intervals, > > not at every write, so the extra head movement for > bitmap updates should > > be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process >

More nVidia 4gb ram problems

Running FC6. When I try to format a Raid 1 device the server locks up when it creates the journal. However if I use just 2 gigs of ram then it doesn't lock up. Asus motherboard. Please CC me as I'm not a list member. Linux version 2.6.19-1.2911.6.5.fc6 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.1

Networking Question [ot]

This may be a little off topic but I know there's people here that can give me a quick answer. I'm running Fedora Core 6 and I have two blocks of IP addresses on eth0. 69.50.231.0/28 69.50.231.128/26 Do I need to set some kind of static route so that IPs in one set can talk to the other? If so

Networking Question [ot]

This may be a little off topic but I know there's people here that can give me a quick answer. I'm running Fedora Core 6 and I have two blocks of IP addresses on eth0. 69.50.231.0/28 69.50.231.128/26 Do I need to set some kind of static route so that IPs in one set can talk to the other? If so

More nVidia 4gb ram problems

Running FC6. When I try to format a Raid 1 device the server locks up when it creates the journal. However if I use just 2 gigs of ram then it doesn't lock up. Asus motherboard. Please CC me as I'm not a list member. Linux version 2.6.19-1.2911.6.5.fc6 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.1

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: [] The other thing is, the bitmap is supposed to be written out at intervals, not at every write, so the extra head movement for bitmap updates should be really low, and not making the tar -xjf process slower by half a

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> > >> -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed > up > >> resynchronization. > > > >I'm trying to figure out what

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote: -b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed up resynchronization. I'm trying to figure out what the default is. -b none, meaning the whole drive will be resynchronized when the even

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 19:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > >Thanks - because of your suggestion I had found the > >instructions. But you have some interesting options > >set. > > > >-N nicearray -b internal -e 1.0 >

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 15:10, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm > >> not > >> >sure if this is a factor or not as

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: > >I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm > not > >sure if this is a factor or not as the problem > occurs > >without starting any VEs. > > > >I'v

Raid 10 Problems?

Running into a problem and not sure what I'm doing wrong. Created a software raid 10 array. Everything seems to be normal except that if you take the array down and run e2fsck on it there are always errors, mostly all little stuff and it recovers without losing any data. I'm running the latest

Raid 10 Problems?

Running into a problem and not sure what I'm doing wrong. Created a software raid 10 array. Everything seems to be normal except that if you take the array down and run e2fsck on it there are always errors, mostly all little stuff and it recovers without losing any data. I'm running the latest

Re: Raid 10 Problems?

--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4 2007 08:25, Marc Perkel wrote: I'm running the latest OpenVZ kernel 2.6.18. I'm not sure if this is a factor or not as the problem occurs without starting any VEs. I've never used raid 10 before (stripes on top of 2 mirrors) so I

  1   2   >