Hello from Gregg C Levine Okay thank you Alan. Right now it's booting, and behaving itself. Still no response from Slackware itself, so I think they are busy researching the problem. Yes, I'll agree that it is a problematic thing. And what gets me, is the sparse documentation inside the kernel itself. I still haven't figured out how to go the route that you suggested, so I'll stick with this until it breaks. ------------------- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> -----Original Message----- > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Alan Cox > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] An Intel Slackware question about the 2.4.x kernels > > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:01, Gregg C Levine wrote: > > Would anyone familiar with the kernel creation process be able > > confirm, or even deny that it has been repaired by the later 2.4.x > > kernels? In this case it would be the 2.4.19, or 2.4.20 kernel. > > > > I phrased my subject that way, so that people would have some idea > > regarding the distribution I use. > > USMDOS has always been problematic, its pretty much defunct in 2.4 > and is unlikely to be in 2.6. Its much cleaner and faster to run > a real linux fs loop mounted over FAT32
