Cameron G wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what's the best practice for upgrading a default
> installation 3.0 installation to the latest and greatest? I'd really
> rather avoid rolling my own kernels, it always ends up being a pain to
> maintain, and I have several servers to look after. The reason I
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:37:27 +0800
"Cameron G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what's the best practice for upgrading a default
> installation 3.0 installation to the latest and greatest? I'd really
> rather avoid rolling my own kernels
There are symbolic links in / for the kern
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Madden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 December 2004 5:40 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Upgrading a 2.2 kernel (3.0r2) to 2.6
>
> On Wednesday 22 December 2004 11:37 pm, Cameron G wrote:
&
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 11:37 pm, Cameron G wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what's the best practice for upgrading a default
> installation 3.0 installation to the latest and greatest? I'd really
> rather avoid rolling my own kernels, it always ends up being a pain
> to maintain, and I have seve
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 04:37:27PM +0800, Cameron G wrote:
> I'm just wondering, what's the best practice for upgrading a default
> installation 3.0 installation to the latest and greatest? I'd really rather
> avoid rolling my own kernels, it always ends up being a pain to maintain,
> and I have se
I'm just wondering, what's the best practice for upgrading a default
installation 3.0 installation to the latest and greatest? I'd really rather
avoid rolling my own kernels, it always ends up being a pain to maintain,
and I have several servers to look after. The reason I'm asking is that I
just g
"Martijn Brinkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes I did. Well I though that dpkg -i kernel-image would do that.
Actually, this isn't necessary true. It depends on the value in
kerel-img.conf(5)
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
--
"Martijn Brinkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes I did. Well I though that dpkg -i kernel-image would do that. But I
> also ran Lilo just in case. Could it be there is some interaction
> between Lilo on MBR and Lilo a partition (/dev/hda1)
I'm not sure.
Usually when I problems you describe, i
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, John L Fjellstad wrote:
> "Martijn Brinkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I also tried a custom build with 2.4 kernel but "uname -a" still keeps
> > reporting "Linux corbu 2.2.20-idepci #1 Sat Apr 20 12:45:19 EST 2002
> > i686 unknown"
>
> Did you update lilo?
it als
John L Fjellstad wrote:
> "Martijn Brinkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I also tried a custom build with 2.4 kernel but "uname -a" still
> > keeps reporting "Linux corbu 2.2.20-idepci #1 Sat Apr 20 12:45:19
> > EST 2002 i686 unknown"
>
> Did you update lilo?
Yes I did. Well I though that
"Martijn Brinkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also tried a custom build with 2.4 kernel but "uname -a" still keeps
> reporting "Linux corbu 2.2.20-idepci #1 Sat Apr 20 12:45:19 EST 2002
> i686 unknown"
Did you update lilo?
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis c
Hi I am trying to get RAID 1 working on Debian 3.0 2.2 kernel.
I used the patch from:
http://packages.debian.org/stable/devel/kernel-patch-2.2.20-raid
I followed the custom build kernel tutorial at:
http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html
selected the RAID settings from
well sarge works with a
2.2 kernel? I gather that, since the 2.2 kernels are still available in
sarge, it should work on some level, but I'd like to hear more details.
2.2 is not a standard option in Sarge:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache search kernel-image-2.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cach
Greetings, all.
I'm current running stable. I understand that sarge is likely to be
released fairly soon now. Even if it's not, external pressures (access
to svn, gcc 3.3) will likely force me to upgrade in any case.
In light of that, could someone comment on how well sarge works
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 17:23, Donald Spoon wrote:
> I have lost the OP's message, so I will reply to this one instead in the
> hopes it gets seen.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200303/msg02001.html
> Over the last 4-5 months of monitoring this list, I have seen a
> "hand
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 14:57, Jonathan Matthews wrote:
> [snip rtl8139 problems]
>
> No idea if this is feasible here, but my favourite way of solving 8139
> problems is to put a decent nic in the box (Intel EtherExpress, Tulip,
> LinkSys - maybe, etc.) and ignore the PoS RTL.
>
> Seriously - dr
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:07:22PM +0100, PeterG wrote:
> "Jonathan Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:07:10AM -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > [snip rtl8139 problems]
> >
> > No idea if this is feasible here, but
Hi,
this cant´t be the solution.
I´m suffering and going crazy about this problem.
I have a 3com 3c905b!
peter
"Jonathan Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:07:10AM -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> > Hi,
> [snip rtl8139 probl
Jonathan Matthews wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:07:10AM -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote:
Hi,
[snip rtl8139 problems]
No idea if this is feasible here, but my favourite way of solving 8139
problems is to put a decent nic in the box (Intel EtherExpress, Tulip,
LinkSys - maybe, etc.) and ignore
Hi
I also have a rtl8139 card. It works perfectly well for me. I compiled
kernel 2.4.18 from unstable(which i am running) with support for the
rtl8139 card. Had no problems with getting the 8139too driver probed.
Worked first time around.
I am to a certain degree a newbee, but are you sure the s
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:07:10AM -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> Hi,
[snip rtl8139 problems]
No idea if this is feasible here, but my favourite way of solving 8139
problems is to put a decent nic in the box (Intel EtherExpress, Tulip,
LinkSys - maybe, etc.) and ignore the PoS RTL.
Seriously
Hi,
First off, is this the correct place to get answers on kernel/driver problems?
Should I instead post to debian-boot, should I email the kernel maintainer,
or should I submit a bug report?
Now the problem ... I recently purchased a Gigabyte GA-8SIMLH motherboard. It
has an onboard network
Thanks for all the responses to my query.
s.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 01:55:13PM +0100, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> Sam Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What are the advantages (and disadvantages ) of Linux 2.4 compared
> > with Linux 2.2? References will suffice.
>
> * netfilter/iptables
Moin Urs!
Urs Thuermann schrieb am Saturday, den 11. January 2003:
> * Logical Volume Manager (LVM)
* new generation MD driver (raid)
> * File systems: ext3, reiserfs, tmpfs (RAM based FS that shares the
> swap space), devfs (device file system)
* JFS, cramfs for read-only-filesystems
Sam Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the advantages (and disadvantages ) of Linux 2.4 compared
> with Linux 2.2? References will suffice.
* netfilter/iptables instead of ipchains: Better packet filtering,
e.g. stateful filtering, many more matches on packets with lots of
kern
2.2 runs better than 2.4 on older hardware. The differences are
relatively minor. The workload was a as a server. IIRC, it was on
Slashdot.
Here are some references, but not the one I was thinking of:
http://www.nks.net/linux-vm.html
http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=642
http://cs.nmu.e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Once upon a time Sam Rosenfeld wrote @ Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:31:15 -0500
> What are the advantages (and disadvantages ) of Linux 2.4 compared
> with Linux 2.2? References will suffice.
>
> Thanks.
>
For me, The most important is the ext3 journalized
What are the advantages (and disadvantages ) of Linux 2.4 compared
with Linux 2.2? References will suffice.
Thanks.
s.
s.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 05:42:00PM +0800, david hong wrote:
> i downloaded the Woody CD image,
> and installed succesfully.
> The default installation kernel is 2.2.
>
> how do i install kernel 2.4 from the CD?
Use the bf2.4 flavour. See:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch-rescue-b
i downloaded the Woody CD image,
and installed succesfully.
The default installation kernel is 2.2.
how do i install kernel 2.4 from the CD?
or do i need to build the 2.4 kernel from scratch?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:39:32PM -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
| >
| > > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
| > >
* Grant Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >
> > > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> &g
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> > kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
>
> 2.2 was current
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
2.2 was current when woody was in development.
> Is the plan to have "stable" 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel?
Yes.
Xeno Campanoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
> last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
> bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
> systems to 2.2.20.
2.2.19 in Debian's
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
> last time I asked about it I was told to get it off "testing". Kindof
> bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
> systems to 2.2.20
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> > I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > > other distros?
>
> Actually,
> I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > other distros?
Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
last time I a
t, and uses mostly new packages...pretty
> slick! no apt though :-\
We use woody at school with a 2.4.18 kernel without the slightest probs. I use
it also at home.
I don't think that there is any reson to _not_ take the 2.4 as default. Its
very stable and MUCH better than 2.2. I als
well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make
our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to
see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for
peeps who could dedicate at least 4-10 hours a week or somethin' like
that. i like all
gt; questions... dunno.
I just finished reading the whole thread. It seems to be a
hotly contested issue at this point in time. FWIW, I think it
would be a shame if Debian 3.0 shipped with 2.2 as the default
kernel. Everytime some magazine shows a comparison table, the
fact that Debian 3.0 in
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> > me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> > 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> > other distros?
>
> I could try, but
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 01:14:02PM:
> I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell
> me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a
> 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most
> other distros?
I could try, but I would
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Donald R. Spoon wrote:
> Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel,
> > there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with
> > Debian running a 2.4 kernel, I don't want to find out th
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> Then you should read Release Notes
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
>
> > I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
>
> Then you should read Release Notes
I did. I didn't find
#include
Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM:
>
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
Then you should read Release Notes and put the bf2.4 CD into the drive.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Wer Stabilität aufgibt, um Benutzerfreundlich
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:32:09 -0500
"Grant Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
> kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
TMK, Woody installs the kernel that the installation was started with.
T
I notice that "woody" installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4
kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision?
I'm hoping to start shipping a product that has Debian
installed on it in a couple months, and hopefully the "stable"
release of 3.0 will be out by then.
Is the
> I am trying to figure out what kernel I should use, for the next 6
> months at least anyway. Security is my main objective, most other
> things can go to the wall if they conflict.
>
> But I would like my Nvidia card to work with a 2.2 kernel, and I
> would like to be ab
st other things can go to the
> wall if they conflict.
>
> But I would like my Nvidia card to work with a 2.2 kernel, and I would like
> to be able to use cdrecord/xcd-roast, and other goodies too. I need to be
> able to run XFree 4.1. I would like to be able to have sound, using a
As far as XFree86 version 4.1, you can see
http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/
Penguin wrote:
Given that I am super paranoid, maybe my old Debian 2.2r2 Potato is the best
bet for me. Is there any reason why I may not be able to upgrade X to XFree
4.1 with this version of Potat
d all
| incoming and outgoing like a packet sniffer for my modem dialup connection -
| does ipchains with the 2.2 kernel have a comparable option? I want to see if
| when I log into my POP3 server if my user and pass is sent in clear, etc etc.
| I want to see everything passing on the wire.
|
| Can
would like my Nvidia card to work with a 2.2 kernel, and I would like
to be able to use cdrecord/xcd-roast, and other goodies too. I need to be
able to run XFree 4.1. I would like to be able to have sound, using a
SoundBlaster 128 Live card.
I would prefer iptables, since I know it has a LOG option
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Daniel Faller wrote:
> On Friday 25 May 2001 13:55, Sachin Garg wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I am trying to install Debian 2.2 with 2.2.17 on a system with the Adaptec
> > chip supported by the AIC 7xxx driver.
> >
> > While booting up, I get messages " Trying to reset SCSI. Timed O
On Friday 25 May 2001 13:55, Sachin Garg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am trying to install Debian 2.2 with 2.2.17 on a system with the Adaptec
> chip supported by the AIC 7xxx driver.
>
> While booting up, I get messages " Trying to reset SCSI. Timed Out.
> Synchronous at 20.0 MB/s at offset 15" These
> mess
Hi!
I am trying to install Debian 2.2 with 2.2.17 on a system with the Adaptec
chip supported by the AIC 7xxx driver.
While booting up, I get messages " Trying to reset SCSI. Timed Out.
Synchronous at 20.0 MB/s at offset 15" These
messages continue and I am unable to start installation.
We only
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:40:30PM +, Sumit Sarkar wrote:
> This is 2nd time I am posting this message.
>
> sumit
>
> >Hi There!,
> >
> >This is my first time in this mailing list. I am having cut-n-paste
> >problem while using 'hpterm' on Debian 2.2 potato and kernel is:
> > "2.4.1 #2 SM
This is 2nd time I am posting this message.
sumit
Hi There!,
This is my first time in this mailing list. I am having cut-n-paste
problem while using 'hpterm' on Debian 2.2 potato and kernel is:
"2.4.1 #2 SMP Thu Feb 1 16:22:58 PST 2001 i686"
The problem is like this:
I am displaying
Hi There!,
This is my first time in this mailing list. I am having cut-n-paste
problem while using 'hpterm' on Debian 2.2 potato and kernel is:
"2.4.1 #2 SMP Thu Feb 1 16:22:58 PST 2001 i686"
The problem is like this:
I am displaying 'hpterm' from a HP-UX 11.00 box in my Linux box.
I am
You might also want to check out Iomega.com. They actually have a small linux
utility that offers *some* of the functions of IomegaTools. I haven't used it
in awhile, so I don't remember if it was particularly useful, but the download
is just a few KB, so it's worth looking at.
-Rob
On Mon, Dec
> Davi and others:
>
> I'm interested in the 250 MB ZIP USB that I acquired and use under
> Windows, but want to access it under Linux. I know about
> adding USB support to the kernel, but else must I do?
>
> Would someone point me to the right place to find how make this
> device work with Potato.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Davi Leal wrote:
> I have debian 2.2 installed on my host. I have downloaded the
> kernel.2.2.18.tar.gz and I have compiled it with USB support so as to use my
> USB modem on Linux. But the '/sbin/hotplug' does not appear. Maybe, is there
> a .deb file which I could download
I have debian 2.2 installed on my host. I have downloaded the
kernel.2.2.18.tar.gz and I have compiled it with USB support so as to use my
USB modem on Linux. But the '/sbin/hotplug' does not appear. Maybe, is there
a .deb file which I could download and install directly which keeps all the
script
Hi,
I've just upgraded to the 2.2 (2.2.16 I think) kernel, and have a couple of
questions:
1. How come there is a debian package for 2.2.17, but all I could find on
ftp.kernel.org is 2.2.16?
2. If I compile as bzImage, I get an error on booting after uncompressing
the kernel. It either gives a m
After I upgraded to kernel 2.2.14 from 2.0.38 my printer wouldn't work.
I had to:
cd /dev
rm lp*
MAKEDEV lp
to correct the problem. Unfortunately I don't remember what the old major
and minor device numbers were, however there were four of them
lp0, lp1, lp2, lp3. After reinstalling them I only
> From: Igor Mozetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
> > list that find them unstable?
>
> When running close to VM limit, 2.2.14 turns out to be buggy.
I had seemingly similar repeated serious disk corruption with
2.0.36 before I upgraded
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Micha Feigin wrote:
> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
> 2.2.14 ?)
> I am using kernel 2.2.9 , is it worth the update?
>
> also, by what name does the 2.3 kernels
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Micha Feigin wrote:
> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
> 2.2.14 ?)
> I am using kernel 2.2.9 , is it worth the update?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> finger
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Peter Palfrader aka Weasel wrote:
palfra >Debian 2.1, codename slink, used kernel 2.0.36 IIRC
this may not be accurate on all versions of slink as the one that comes
with the oreilley book defaults to 2.2.12(anyone know why??)
nate
[m
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 12:25:42AM +0200, Micha Feigin wrote:
> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
> 2.2.14 ?)
> I am using kernel 2.2.9 , is it worth the update?
2.2.x
\-- 2 is ev
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Phil Brutsche wrote:
pbruts >> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
pbruts >
pbruts >2.2.14
pbruts >
pbruts >> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
pbruts >> 2.2.14 ?)
pbruts >
pbruts >Y
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
2.2.14
> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
> 2.2.14 ?)
You need to worry about the middle of the three being even - ie 2.0.x and
On 16-Feb-2000 Micha Feigin wrote:
> I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
> I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
> 2.2.14 ?)
> I am using kernel 2.2.9 , is it worth the update?
>
with kernels the second dotted numbe
I was wondering which is the stablest 2.2 kernel curently
I am never shure if it is the even or uneven numbers ( is it 2.2.13 or
2.2.14 ?)
I am using kernel 2.2.9 , is it worth the update?
also, by what name does the 2.3 kernels go? are they available under
debian, and is it a new version after
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:40:05PM +0100, Igor Mozetic generated a stream of 1s
and 0s:
> > 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
> > list that find them unstable?
>
> When running close to VM limit, 2.2.14 turns out to be buggy.
>
> -Igor Mozetic
>
>
I don't know about
> 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
> list that find them unstable?
When running close to VM limit, 2.2.14 turns out to be buggy.
-Igor Mozetic
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:20:54AM -0800, aphro wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Onno wrote:
> >
> > Onno >2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
> > Onno >list that find them unstable?
> > Onno >
> >
> > i avoided 2
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
erbens >2.2.13 is evil. it throughly and completely and repeatedly ruins
erbens >filesystems.
erbens >
erbens >(i know not for everyone, but if you want to be scared into getting
erbens >rid of it i'll send the 64000+ byte output of fsck as it dumped 2/3
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:20:54AM -0800, aphro wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Onno wrote:
>
> Onno >2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
> Onno >list that find them unstable?
> Onno >
>
> i avoided 2.2.13 it was just a bug fixer from 2.2.12/.11 .14 has been ok
> for me so f
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Onno wrote:
Onno >2.2.13 and 2.2.14 are lokking good, is there anyone on this
Onno >list that find them unstable?
Onno >
i avoided 2.2.13 it was just a bug fixer from 2.2.12/.11 .14 has been ok
for me so far, although i have it installed on a BP6 that crashes on a
weekly basi
:
>
>The blackdown JDK 1.2 requires a 2.2.xx kernel with glibc 2.1.2 and I'd like
>to find out which 2.2 kernel is reasonably stable for use on a development
>workstation. Would 2.2.10/glibc 2.1.2 work well?
>
>Rahul Sood
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
>
> The blackdown JDK 1.2 requires a 2.2.xx kernel with glibc 2.1.2 and I'd like
> to find out which 2.2 kernel is reasonably stable for use on a development
> workstation.
2.2.x has been more than stable for at least
d like
> to find out which 2.2 kernel is reasonably stable for use on a development
> workstation. Would 2.2.10/glibc 2.1.2 work well?
>
> Rahul Sood
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
>
--
Marcin
The blackdown JDK 1.2 requires a 2.2.xx kernel with glibc 2.1.2 and I'd like
to find out which 2.2 kernel is reasonably stable for use on a development
workstation. Would 2.2.10/glibc 2.1.2 work well?
Rahul Sood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 19:48:04 -0500, Suresh Kumar.R wrote:
> Do you know when is the 2.2.* kernel based debian coming out?
The code freeze for "potato" (the current "unstable" tree which uses 2.2.x
kenels) has been rescheduled for mid-January (see
http://slashdot.org/
Hi,
Do you know when is the 2.2.* kernel based debian coming out?
Suresh
---
Suresh Kumar.R
Lecturer
Dept of Electronics & Communication
College of Engineering
Trivandrum - 695 016
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chia-Sheng Chang hat gesagt: // Chia-Sheng Chang wrote:
> I am considering installing ALSA Sound drivers for my Ultrasound
> MAX card. However, ALSA drivers require the "general sound support" be
> enabled in the 2.2 series kernel (I personally use 2.2.10). So is there
> anyone can tell me
Hi, all,
I am considering installing ALSA Sound drivers for my Ultrasound
MAX card. However, ALSA drivers require the "general sound support" be
enabled in the 2.2 series kernel (I personally use 2.2.10). So is there
anyone can tell me if this "general sound support" enabled by default in
Subject: Re: Upgradeing to 2.2 kernel broke X
Date: Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:37:33AM +0200
In reply to:peter karlsson
Quoting peter karlsson([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I just upgraded to a 2.2 kernel (from 2.0.38), running a virtual framebuffer
> > (ATI Mach64), and now
> I just upgraded to a 2.2 kernel (from 2.0.38), running a virtual framebuffer
> (ATI Mach64), and now my X Windows doesn't work, the picture is *extremely*
> distorted. Console mode (which also is graphics now) works just fine.
I switched to the VESA framebuffer, and now it w
Hi!
I just upgraded to a 2.2 kernel (from 2.0.38), running a virtual framebuffer
(ATI Mach64), and now my X Windows doesn't work, the picture is *extremely*
distorted. Console mode (which also is graphics now) works just fine.
I'm running on a PC, and my card is, according to SuperPro
I just upgarded a sparc running slink to a 2.2.9 kernel (with pty's
enabled) and now sshd has stopped working. When you try to ssh from
another box to it you simply sit there. ssh'ing from the box back to
itself yields the warning "Warning: Remote host failed or refused to
allocate a pseudo tty." (
I have a machine with a fresh install of Slink. (This is *not* the same
machine in my previous message which has the bash weirdness under potato.)
I have been running the 2.2 kernel on a Red Hat v5.2 machine for the last
few months. I want to do the same on the new Debian machine.
I looked on
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 06:12:08PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> 2. upgrade pcmcia-cs to the 3.0.7 version which is in potato
You need 3.0.8.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/socie
Here is the process I have gone through to try and make a 2.2 kernel
work on my friend's laptop:
1. compile and install a 2.2 kernel image
2. upgrade pcmcia-cs to the 3.0.7 version which is in potato
3. got pcmcia-source from potato, installed it, and untarred the
pcmcia-cs.tar from it
Hi Matt,
> I just installed a 2.2.0 linux kernel, and everything works except
> bootpc, which is used to give me an IP at startup. The boot process
> freezes when bootpc tries to startup, but dies with the message "no
> response from BOOTPC server" (or something to that effect). However,
> I boot
I just installed a 2.2.0 linux kernel, and everything works except
bootpc, which is used to give me an IP at startup. The boot process
freezes when bootpc tries to startup, but dies with the message "no
response from BOOTPC server" (or something to that effect). However,
I booted with my old (2.
98 matches
Mail list logo
