Linux-Development-Sys Digest #572, Volume #6 Fri, 2 Apr 99 23:14:30 EST
Contents:
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Alexander Dymerets)
Re: 4 Gb memory? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: how are contributions to the linux development coordinated (Michael Hirsch)
meminfo and ps (David T. Blake)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: telnetd source? (David Rees)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (wizard)
cc compiler (Dominic Leelodharry)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Hal Duston)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Jeremy Crabtree)
arp problem when setting NOARP? (Greg Herlein)
Took one guy 3 days, another 1 day, me 1 hour... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Kernel Traffic #12 is out (Alexander Viro)
Re: compiling problem ("Rick Gocher")
Re: meminfo and ps ("J�rgen Exner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexander Dymerets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:10:44 +0300
Hi!
> Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? Keep the i386 tree, and
> add an i686 tree that is optimized for P-II/Celeron/P-III processors.
>
> This might be a pain in the butt for the mirrors (more hard drive space
> used), but for some mirrors this would be just fine. This would also make
> Linux higher performing for all the people with flashy new Pentium-III
> machines...
It's enough to compile kernel and applictions with PPro optipization.
There is no difference in optimisation for PPro,PII,Celeron,PIII,
exept new MMX2 instruction set.
Alexander
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: 4 Gb memory?
Date: 2 Apr 1999 06:55:33 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> It's my understanding that Alphas are currently limited to 1 or 2 GB
> of RAM under Linux, though.
Yes, I have heard that too. It surprised me. But presumably, this
would be a lot less hairy to fix on the Alpha than on the PPro. I
assume that when enough Alpha owners start to request this, someone
will bang out a patch. Maybe D^HCompaq will be the ones to ask for it
so they can migrate AltaVista over to Linux.... (:
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how are contributions to the linux development coordinated
Date: 02 Apr 1999 16:20:49 -0500
"G. Sumner Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > I find the idea behind linux' success is very appealing: everyone
> > who'd like to contribute to the development of linux can. But thinking
> > of that, I ask myself: how is this coordinated. Say, for example, I'd
> > like to change a line in a kernel's source file, because I think this
> > would be more efficient. How would I do that? Do I have to register
> > with some organisation, or with Linus?
> >
> > Is there some faq on these issues or something to clarify this?
>
> Nope. You ought to subscribe to the linux-kernel mailing list, though;
> you'll see the process in action and figure it out quickly.
I like "The linux-kernel mailing list FAQ" at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
It answers some questions like this one.
--
Michael D. Hirsch Work: (404) 727-7940
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX: (404) 727-5611
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hirsch/
Public key for encrypted mail available upon request (or finger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Subject: meminfo and ps
Date: 02 Apr 1999 17:14:28 -0800
I have a curosity at work. There is one linux user who
is the sys admin's nightmare - the paragon of a little
knowledge is dangerous, with root control of his linux
box.
Anyway, he brought an interesting problem to my attention.
cat /proc/meminfo shows 90+% of the RAM being used.
If you sum the RAM stamps of the output of ps aux, it
accounts for less than a fifth of the result seen in
/proc/meminfo.
What could account for this discrepancy ? It has been
seen in 2.0.25 and 2.2.5 now.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:28:30 GMT
Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Bill Anderson wrote:
>> To ignore these facts, and claim they do nothing other than
>> collect stuff, is to appear foolish.
>>
>Are you suggesting that the Redhat sysadmin apps, install process
>etc are *essential* to run Linux? If so you are wrong. All they do
>is tie you in to doing it the Redhat way!
Are you saying that emacs is a worthless piece of software, because people
could as well use vi? rxvt is a worthless piece of software, because people
could use xterm? KDE is a worthless piece of software, because gwm works
just swell? Are you saying the the X windowing system is a worthless
piece of software, because you can use linux with virtual consoles only?
None of the above are *essential*. All make the linux experience more
enjoyable, adaptable or just "better" in some way. I.e. they add value.
Bernie
--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995
------------------------------
From: David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: telnetd source?
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 17:37:27 -0800
Jonas Anden wrote:
>
> Anyone got a pointer to a telnetd source that will easily compile under
> RedHat 5.2? I'm looking to create a chroot()ed version of the telnet server.
> so that I can easily limit the software that may be used when telnetting in
> to my servers.
>
> // Judge
You want the SRPM. Look for telnet-0.10-5.src.rpm. In future, you can
find this out for your self. Here's how I did it on my redhat system:
forty:~> rpm -qf /usr/sbin/in.telnetd
telnet-0.10-5
forty:~>
See the man page for rpm for more details.
-Dave
------------------------------
From: wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 20:36:21 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enkidu wrote:
> wizard wrote:
> >
> > On top of adding value the strengthen the Linux code base by
> > setting things like RPM free.
> >
> RPM is a good package manger, but it is *not* essential. I've been
> running Linux for years without it.
Never said it was essential just stated that it was developed by
RedHat. RPM is not perfect but very little of UNIX or LINUX is. The
fact is that when used properly by developers, RPM is a very helpful in
supporting an installation.
>
>
> >
> > The other key item that everyone overlooks is the large amount
> > of effort the people at RedHat, Suse and others put into driver
> > development. If that does add value I don't know what does.
> >
> This is a fiction. Redhat do *not* develop drivers.
>
What makes you think this. If RedHat isn't developing drivers then
why did they hire the guy that wrote the aic7xxx drivers? RedHat and
Suse have had a hand in developing X-servers for different cards. And
then there is gnome which RedHat is involved in, this may not be a
driver but it is key to Linuxes future as it is a whole lot better than
KDE.
>
> >
> > The simple fact is that the RedHat Cd gets a lot of people
> > involved in Linux that might not otherwise. This is truely a
> > good thing.
> >
> It's a mixed blessing. Count the number of times there are questions
> on this group from someone who has bought or downloaded Redhat, and
> doesn't know how to partition a disk. Or even that they can't run
> Linux under Windows! A recent question posted was "Where's the
> setup.exe for Linux".
>
> However if these people *can* learn, then they become an asset to
> the Linux community, and to the non-Microsoft world.
>
> Redhat does put *barriers* to understanding, by making things look
> more GUI, and hiding the nuts and bolts. Again this is both good
> and bad.
>
I agree that GUI can hide the "nuts & bolts" but for some users this is
required. The technical user however is not constrained by anything
with Linux. The neophyte however can get started relatively easy with
RedHat. One should realize that just because someone is a beginner
with Linux they may or may not be technically competent. I can't
begin to tell you how nice it was to discover that I can flip through 6
terminal screens plus X on my Linux machine. May sound simple to a
regular user of Linux but when first discovered it quickly becomes
apparent just how powerful a feature it is.
>
> Cliff
------------------------------
From: Dominic Leelodharry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: cc compiler
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:50:27 +0000
Help!
I have Redhat Linux
And I can not seem to get the cc compiler to work.
I think I am missing the header files such as <stdio.h> etc, does any
one know where I can
down load them from, If they are included as a RPM could you tell what
that is called
thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: 3 Apr 1999 02:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist...;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
[SNIP]
>Are you saying the the X windowing system is a worthless
>piece of software, because you can use linux with virtual consoles only?
YEAH! X is WORTHLESS for /exactly/ that reason! Heck, I even have
root-menus on my consoles! ;P
(BTW, I really do have root-menus on my consoles ;)
[SNIP]
--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Duston)
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: 2 Apr 1999 09:10:06 -0600
Enkidu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: wizard wrote:
: >
: > The other key item that everyone overlooks is the large amount
: > of effort the people at RedHat, Suse and others put into driver
: > development. If that does add value I don't know what does.
: >
: This is a fiction. Redhat do *not* develop drivers.
Redhat IS paying other people to develop Linux. Alan Cox is contracted
to develop for Linux through a company he set up that is paid by Redhat
Labs. See http://www.linux.org.uk/diary/ for info. They are paying to
develop Gnome. See http://www.labs.redhat.com/ for info.
Hal Duston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boring is GOOD.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: 3 Apr 1999 02:27:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher B. Browne allegedly wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1999 00:35:24 GMT, Jeremy Crabtree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>Christopher B. Browne allegedly wrote:
>>>On 1 Apr 1999 21:34:22 -0500, Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>posted:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[SNIP]
>>>The fixation on RPM, with occasional vague mention of dpkg, betrays a
>>>generally vast ignorance of the various packaging methods that in use.
>>>Almost certainly Ports and the Debian tools represent something closer
>>>to the "state of the art" than does RPM.
>>>
>>>Anyone for stow? Depot? NSBD?
>>
>>I dunno...the whole lot of package tools would have to be evaluated
>>before any one could be selected.
>>
>>(Which is why the summary selection of RPM without ANY consultation
>> bugs me a bit.)
>
>The people that created Red Hat's distribution made their "summary
>selection;" those that created Debian made another; those that created
>SuSE made another.
>
>I would see the issue of non-consultation as an issue with respect to
>a plan to establish (let's say) RPM as the "favored package manager"
>for LSB, which is intended to be a public standard.
>
>In contrast, it is entirely reasonable for people who are building
>their own systems to make their own decisions.
Yeah...I was talking about the summary selection of RPM for
'Linux 2000'.
>>>Note that RPM would be a whole lot more usable if there was something
>>>functionally equivalent to Debian's APT and dselect tools...
>>
>>Or even pkgtool's character-mode interface.
>
>- Does it multiplex data sources together?
>- Does it monitor package dependancies and codependancies?
Nah...pkgtool is a bare minimum package manager, enough to
put stuff in, and take it out; the rest is up to you to
take care of.
(In short, beyond install time pkgtool...well...sucks ;)
>>(Glint is okay, but the CLI RPM stinks)
>
>Glint is almost functionality-free, and hasn't been *significantly*
>improved since its introduction. No multiplexing, no significant
>dependancy checking... Basically just a "dumb" menu atop a
>filesystem.
Well...yeah...there ARE alternatives, though.
(not that they're all that great, but...)
[SNIP]
>>>>>> . GNU make, C/C++ compiler and development libraries
>>>>
>>>>>Well, DUH! ;)
>>>
>>>I disagree, slightly. POSIX make is a more unambiguously requirable
>>>option.
>>
>>HERETIC!...okay, point taken, but gmake, gcc (egcs) and the like
>>would be the most likely ones to use.
>
>Normative standards are always worth *considering.* In the end, I'd
>probably prefer to use GNU make, but I don't think it particularly
>wise to head down the "using GNU-Make-isms" path...
Like I said, point taken.
>>>>>> . XFree86 installed to /usr/X11R6/lib (or /usr/X11)
>>>>
>>>>Optional. Install libs if you are so inclined, but server and
>>>>applications do not belong to required part.
>>>>
>>>>>Or both, thanks to the wonders of sym-links.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>Absolutely.
>>
>>So, we're all in agreement here? <G>
>>
>>(FWIW, I did exactly this when installing XF86 3.3.3.1 on my
>> system...symlinks are wonderful things)
>
>No, the point is that while it may be a nice thing to be aware of
>where X goes, *IF INSTALLED,* that is not a mandatory component. I've
>got headless boxes where running an X server would be just plain
>stupid.
Yeah...I thought I already agreed with that sentiment?
>>>>>>Optional components:
>>>>>> . Web browser (Netscape or Mozilla variation?)
>>>>
>>>>Or lynx, or any other browser. What's the difference for 3-rd party
>>>>applications?
>>>
>>>If trying to establish a standard, shouldn't the product picked be
>>>require to conform to some standards? :-).
>>
>>So...Arena is the one, then? ;)
>>Or, am I confused?
>
>Mandating a particular browser is *dumb.*
Well, obviously.
>-> There are a whole bunch of offshoots of Netscape's browser that
> would be worth considering:
>
> {Navigator|Communicator} in assortedly {Motif|GTk|Qt} variations,
> with major version "numbers" 3.x, 4.0x, 4.5x, and hopefully 5.x
> Real Soon Now.
>
> Heaven only knows how many combinations that adds up to...
Too many.
>-> Arena's probably not a real good choice, considering that the last
> new release was in March 1998...
Yeah, but it standards compliant! ;)
>-> Doubtless there are some Grail partisans...
Is that the awful beast written in TCL/Tk ?
>-> Chimera has two "streams," and is pretty nicely suited to "popping
> up documentation."
I neve did get that to work very well for me :(
>-> KDE and GNOME both have "browser widgets" for their help systems
> that are fairly small, and reasonable choices for some purposes...
Yeah...but that requires GNOME and/or KDE. Speaking for myself, I
would rather not have either one.
>-> Who knows? The Mnemonic guys might get theirs "productionized,"
> and it might well be preferable to Netscape.
I've not heard of that one.
>Based on the varying sets of needs and constraints that people have,
>virtually all of these are decent choices under the right
>circumstances.
>
>Given that none are terribly "standards-conformant," choices will be
>arbitrary.
Yeah, kind of why setting a standard would be a real pain. You have to
try to satisfy everyone...in the end you have no standard, and a lot
of angry people.
>Frankly, I think that the "best" standardization would be done much as
>with EDITOR/VISUAL; one would set the environment variables
>HELP_BROWSER, SSL_BROWSER, BROWSER, and the system pick one on
>demand...
>
>Further multiplexing would be doable by setting those variables to run
>shell scripts that check on system configuration and dynamically
>figure out what to do.
Interesting...sounds a mite complex, but still interesting.
--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."
------------------------------
From: Greg Herlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: arp problem when setting NOARP?
Date: 3 Apr 1999 03:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is a problem that I'm trying to get a solution to. Has anyone help
with this?
======================
I reproduced the ARP weirdness on my testbed, pure kernel 2.2.5 with no
modifications with networking initialized using the standard 'ifconfig'
utility, not iproute2. The testbed is setup like this:
hosta--+--hostb
|
monitor
hosta:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr
00:40:05:41:A4:AA
inet addr:192.168.10.2 Bcast:192.168.10.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500
Metric:1
RX packets:3262 errors:3 dropped:0 overruns:0
frame:3
TX packets:2111 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
carrier:0
collisions:0
txqueuelen:100
Interrupt:11 Base address:0xec00
hostb:
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr
00:40:05:31:0D:CF
inet addr:192.168.10.1 Bcast:192.168.10.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500
Metric:1
RX packets:309 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
frame:0
TX packets:124 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
carrier:0
collisions:0
txqueuelen:100
Interrupt:10 Base address:0xe880
NOTE: Each host has 2 NICs, the NIC not listed was disabled during this
test.
The idea is to eliminate all ARP traffic from the test network by setting
the NOARP flag on the interfaces and adding static ARP entries for each
host.
Once the basic networking was setup (as per default RedHat scripts) I made
the following changes:
hosta:
arp -s 192.168.10.1 00:40:05:31:0D:CF
ifconfig eth0 -arp
hostb:
arp -s 192.168.10.2 00:40:05:41:A4:AA
ifconfig eth1 -arp
When pinging from hosta to hostb:
monitor# tcpdump -neli eth1
tcpdump: listening on eth1
17:47:06.651781 0:40:5:41:a4:aa 0:0:0:0:0:0 0800 98: 192.168.10.2 >
192.168.10.1: icmp: echo request
17:47:07.646843 0:40:5:41:a4:aa 0:40:5:31:d:cf 0800 98: 192.168.10.2 >
192.168.10.1: icmp: echo request
17:47:07.646926 0:40:5:31:d:cf 0:0:0:0:0:0 0800 98: 192.168.10.1 >
192.168.10.2: icmp: echo reply
17:47:08.646791 0:40:5:41:a4:aa 0:40:5:31:d:cf 0800 98: 192.168.10.2 >
192.168.10.1: icmp: echo request
17:47:08.646821 0:40:5:31:d:cf 0:40:5:41:a4:aa 0800 98: 192.168.10.1 >
192.168.10.2: icmp: echo reply
Whenever the an interface has the NOARP flag set, the first packet sent
from each host has the destination MAC 00:00:00:00:00 instead of the other
hosts' MAC address. All subsequent frames sent will be sent correctly to
the other host's MAC address, but when the interface is left idle for 2-5
minutes, or the NOARP flag is toggled on the interface, the problem
recurrs and the first packet will be sent to 00:00:00:00:00. This problem
is completely eliminated when the NOARP flag is removed from the
interface.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Greg Herlein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Herlein Engineering www.herlein.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Took one guy 3 days, another 1 day, me 1 hour...
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 10:06:54 -0600
RHS Linux User wrote:
> Rupert Said the following:
>
> >This marks the end of my first week with Linux.
> >
> >First, let me state: This is not a troll. I am going to criticize
> >Linux, but not bash it. I have a great deal of respect for it and the
> >enormous amount of effort so may have put in to developing and advocating
> >it.
> >
> >I am a long time NT user and fan, and before that a big Mac guy -- ever
> >since they first came out. I am a programmer, database developer, and
> >web application developer. I am not a "newbie", but I'm not a hard-core
> >geek either. My experience with Unix thus far has been using it lightly
> >to serve Perl scripts through an ISP years ago.
> >
> >I also believe MS's days are numbered. Their core philosophies are old-
> >hat and the world is changing. I do believe a publicly owned OS as Linux
> >is will ultimately be the end of MS's reign -- it's pretty obvious Gates
> >lacks the ability to really shift his way of thinking to the degree
> >necessary. I do not believe that Linux will be the answer, because for
> >it to be would require it appeal to the mainstream of users out there,
> >not a small segment of geeks and sysadmins.
> >
> >It has taken me a full week to even get Linux installed and operating
> >correctly with my machine's hardware. The network card itself took 3
> >days and calling a Unix geek friend of mine over who ultimately found a
> >solution so esoteric that I would have never been able to find it. The
> >phrase, "God this sucks" was muttered many many times. Even trying to
> >get the desired color depth, resolution, and refresh rate from my monitor
> >was scary.
> >
> >
> >-RS
>
> I can understand you point of view. It would be really disappointing if
> I were want to install this really great operating system and have it working
> in one day so I could play. It took me several days to install my version of
> Linux too. Hell, it took me a week to put OS/2 on one of my machines also.
> However the point I want to make is I was pretty sure that it would take time
> to load this operating system. People who also loaded it up before me
> warned me that it wouldn't be that easy. Especially since I never put such
> a complicated piece of code on my computer before. One friend told me it would
> be a great learning experience that it would be well worth the effort. And
> he was right. I also bugged him alot too about setting up my machine before
> do the installation, he is rather a well experience with Unix.
>
> If you must, be pissed, get mad, hate Linux. But remember this you probably
> know alittle more about operating systems and how they work with computers.
> The MAC os and Windows may make setting up real easy for you and you can play,
> you really don't learn about what you are doing with your computer. Any idiot
> can set up a Windows machine, they even do it for you if you buy a pre-installed
> machine.
>
> The experience can be bad or good. It's up to you how you wish to look at it.
>
> John
I don't understand folks. You must be installing slackware.
I remember when I tried slackware two years ago it took me 2 weeks to get everthing
set up.
But in the process I learned a whole lot about LINUX. A whole lot.
Today I have a copy of RedHat 5.2 on my machine.
It took me about 1 hour to install and it got everything right on the first try.
I don't think this is an issue anymore. RedHat has such a superior install it's
silly.
And further, everything they put on their release has been tested thoroughly so you
have
less chance of running into problems.
It's like $12 over at best buy. And it's certainly a NT killer.
I also read in here something about having to re-boot linux one to install
software.
What? I've never had to re-boot linux to install software. Not since I installed
RedHat have
I personally had to do that.
Applix required NO re-boot.
Cad Cam program had no re-boot.
None of my editors did.
There is no re-boot necessary with Linux on an install?
What did you guys install which required a re-boot anyway?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Subject: Re: Kernel Traffic #12 is out
Date: 1 Apr 1999 14:12:55 -0500
In article <7e060m$ba9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>You can read Kernel Traffic #12 at
><http://www.kt.opensrc.org/kt19990401_12.html>
>
>Here's the table of contents for this week:
Kinda belated, isn't it?
[lots'a old stuff]
>9 Linux-2.2.4..
>10 Linux-2.2.4 testpatch..
D'oh! 2.2.5 is out for several days.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: "Rick Gocher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compiling problem
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 19:32:17 GMT
I downloaded the newest 2.0.12 and wish to compile it on my RH5.2. I did
not give any options to the configure script and the mailing-list archive
was not a help.
Is tgetstr a variable for ?
thanks again,
Rick
Chris Mahmood wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>what version of ssh? did you give any options to the configure
>script?
>did you check the mailing-list archive?
>-ckm
------------------------------
From: "J�rgen Exner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: meminfo and ps
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:11:27 -0800
Reply-To: "J�rgen Exner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> Anyway, he brought an interesting problem to my attention.
> cat /proc/meminfo shows 90+% of the RAM being used.
>
> If you sum the RAM stamps of the output of ps aux, it
> accounts for less than a fifth of the result seen in
> /proc/meminfo.
>
> What could account for this discrepancy ? It has been
> seen in 2.0.25 and 2.2.5 now.
Please see the Linux FAQ, question
6.4 Free memory as reported by free keeps shrinking.
It is explained there.
jue
--
J�rgen Exner
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
