With fifteen (15) major enhancements, fixes, etc... kernel version 2.4.10 is
now
release for public consumption...
Good luck! :')
--
**
Registered Linux User Number 185956
Just a side note, question here...
I just compiled 2.4.10 for running on my test client/server setup, no problems.
I enable MTRR in the kernel this time around on the client machine, as X
supposedly those registers for faster screen updates if it is available.
Running xfree 4.10... how does
After compiling succesfully I get the following (paraphrased) error message
almost immediately on booting
"unable to exec /sbin/modrobe "
I have torn my hair out with this kernel release as it comes with devfs and
resierfs auto enabled and a few other things. My kernel 2.4.7 works like a
On Friday 26 October 2001 10:33 pm, you sent an epistle:
> After compiling succesfully I get the following (paraphrased) error message
> almost immediately on booting
>
> "unable to exec /sbin/modrobe "
>
> I have torn my hair out with this kernel release as it comes with devfs and
> resierfs
from Keith Antoine:
[...]
" I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc were
" ok.
iirc 2.4.11 shows up at kernel.org (I think) as 2.4.11-dont use or similar.
2.4.12-ac3 (patched) resulted in a couple of boot errors (re my 8139 card) going away.
I've seen some co
Well, i don't know diddly about devfs, so i have no clue how that
impacts the situation. However, it sounds to me like you're either
running an older version of modultils, or the executable bit on modprobe
got turned off.
FWIW, i've successfully built & booted every kernel since 2.4.3. Some
hav
On Saturday 27 October 2001 10:06 am, you sent an epistle:
> from Keith Antoine:
>
> [...]
>
> " I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc
> were " ok.
>
> iirc 2.4.11 shows up at kernel.org (I think) as 2.4.11-dont use or similar.
Damd I meant 10 not 01, thick finge
hey did boot. Also, i'll note that
> running any 2.4.x kernel less than 2.2.12 is a very bad idea, as they
> have known root exploits.
>
> I'm currently running 2.4.12 & 2.4.13 on my boxes.
erk! There I was thinking 2.4.10 would be pretty close to the bleeding edge
and
a, as
> they
> > have known root exploits.
> >
> > I'm currently running 2.4.12 & 2.4.13 on my boxes.
>
>
> erk! There I was thinking 2.4.10 would be pretty close to the bleeding
> edge
> and #13 is there already!
Yea, #13 popped out last week.
&g
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:06:30 -0400, Keith Antoine wrote:
>I read somewhere were it was said that 01 and 11 were broken and 12 etc were
>ok.
With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok.
stayler
___
Linux-users mailing list
On Monday 29 October 2001 05:08, Net Llama wrote:
> Quite honestly, i haven't had much of a problem with the 2.4.x tree.
> There were some problems with 2.4.7 & 2.4.8 but other than those, every
> single kernel has been rock solid for me.
>
I phrased that wrongly llama. I agree that compile
On Monday 29 October 2001 10:43, stayler wrote:
> With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok.
do you mean .13 has Ieee problems?
--
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:26:42 +1130, Mike Andrew wrote:
>On Monday 29 October 2001 10:43, stayler wrote:
>
>> With the exception of ieee-1284 support. 12 is broke, 13 seems ok.
>
>do you mean .13 has Ieee problems?
Damned typos fairies are at it again No 12 has a problem building
ieee-
--- Mike Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2001 05:08, Net Llama wrote:
>
> > Quite honestly, i haven't had much of a problem with the 2.4.x tree.
> > There were some problems with 2.4.7 & 2.4.8 but other than those,
> every
> > single kernel has been rock solid for me.
>
Net Llama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the release notes, it looks to me that most of the changes are
> *alot* of Alan Cox merges and other assorted stupid bug fixes. Not
> much
> in the way of new features (as it should be).
...but I thought new features were introduced in the devel serie
Perhaps i should have worded it a bit differently. You are correct, i
meant to say that there aren't any new features in 2.4.x, which is the
way it should be.
--- Myles Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Net Llama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From the release notes, it looks to me that most
16 matches
Mail list logo
