Linux-Misc Digest #860, Volume #27 Mon, 14 May 01 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: My Linux Experience (Steve)
Re: improper /boot/System.map when installing new kernel (Jason Lott)
Re: Y2.0017115K bug (John Hasler)
Re: No DNS with DHCP sometimes (Mark Condic)
Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !! ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Y2.0017115K bug ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Y2.0017115K bug ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Strange "hangings" after IO! (Paulo da Silva)
Linux X goes away??? ("JT")
Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !! ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: My Linux Experience (Stanislaw Flatto)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Subject: Re: My Linux Experience
Date: 14 May 2001 23:16:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I ended up getting rid of the Epson Colour Stylus because I
couldn't get it to work, and the replacement doesn't work all
that well either. I wanted to print from Star Office, but I
can't get it to recognize the ports so ended up just printing
through gv, and saving the doc files that I create in ps format.
I've never had any problems with my modem or with apache, and now
wouldn't swap Linux for anything. I've never had this machine as
dual boot, I just got rid of windows and formatted the drive (with
all my data on a seperate drive), installed Linux and never looked
back, that was about two years ago now.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
11:16pm up 102 days, 4 min, 2 users, load average: 1.22, 1.13, 1.04
------------------------------
From: Jason Lott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: osu.sys.linux
Subject: Re: improper /boot/System.map when installing new kernel
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:25:50 -0500
On 14 May 2001 21:19:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (doug reeder) wrote:
>
>I'm trying to compile and install 2.2.16 on a machine which is
>currently running 2.2.17-14 (because the tape driver patches are only
>for 2.2.16). It's an HP Visualize (essentially identical to an HP Kayak).
>
>I have executed the following steps:
> cd /usr/src/linux
> make xconfig
> make dep
> make clean
> make bzdisk
> cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.16-tape
> make modules
> make modules_install
> depmod -a 2.2.16
> mkinitrd /boot/initrd-2.2.16-tape.img 2.2.16-tape
> emacs /etc/lilo.conf
> lilo
>
>
>depmod -a 2.2.16 gives the following errors, which are for modules
>I can do without, for now:
>/lib/modules/2.2.16/fs/vfat.o: unresolved symbol(s)
>/lib/modules/2.2.16/fs/msdos.o: unresolved symbol(s)
>/lib/modules/2.2.16/fs/fat.o: unresolved symbol(s)
>/lib/modules/2.2.16/misc/lp.o: unresolved symbol(s)
>
>
>When I try to boot using the new kernel, the system complains that
>System.map has the wrong version number, which makes sense because
>there is no version of System.map for 2.2.16, and System.map is a
>symlink to 2.2.17-14:
System.map should appear in the source tree as "/usr/src/linux/System.map" for
example.
>
>/boot/System.map@ /boot/System.map-2.2.12-20smp
>/boot/System.map-2.2.12-20 /boot/System.map-2.2.17-14
>
>
>
>What do I need to run to fix System.map ?
Try make bzImage instead of make bzdisk... I've never used make bzdisk before,
so I can't say for sure that it doesn't generate a System.map file.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:12:47 GMT
Scott Weber writes:
> This is a joke, right?
> I mean people don't actually believe that time_t is stored
> as a decimal number, right???
Go back and read the item again, this time for comprehension. Pay
particular attention to the word "timestamp".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Condic)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.suse,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: No DNS with DHCP sometimes
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:49:19 GMT
How or where do you specify the -d flag to put the server into debug
mode?
Will this also put sendmail into debug mode?
Thanks,
On Tue, 15 May 2001 08:17:41 +1000, Dean Thompson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi!,
>
>> I'll wait till it happens again. Is there a log for the cleint that shows
>> the info returned? I know the bootup log will show the request and ACK.
>
>There is a good chance that when the DHCP server starts it might actually
>write some of its debugging of version information into the
>/var/log/messages. If you want to see all the data that is passed around you
>will have to provide the "-d" flag to put the server into debug mode.
>
>See ya
>
>Dean Thompson
>
>--
>+____________________________+____________________________________________+
>| Dean Thompson | E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
>| Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180 |
>| PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus> |
>| School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office) |
>| MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077 |
>| Melbourne, Australia | |
>+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:37:39 +0200
Christian Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> >Not an answer to your real question, but why would you want to replace
>> >gcc 2.96 with 2.95.3?
>>
>> GCC 2.96 was an experimental, not-for-production-use version of the GCC
>> compiler.
> It was not experimental and it was certainly for production use. I think
It certainly was experimental. It was a not-for-publication development
version.
> it would be very stupid otherwise to base a Linux distribution on it.
Took the words out of my mouth :-(. But no, they apparently had their
reasons. The only technical reason I have heard mentioned is"ia64
support". The commercial reasons are never mentioned but seem more
obvious to me.
>> RedHat jumped the gun by releasing this compiler into their
>> distribution (they provide the real 2.95 compiler as 'kgcc' (kernel GCC) IIRC),
>> and have received lots of bad press about it.
> Umm, no. kgcc is based on egcs 1.1.2, in other words a really old
Really old? I am happily compiling everything in sight with 2.7.3. For
cheap thrills I use 2.8.1.
> compiler that kernel 2.2 likes to be compiled with. That is its only
Huh! A compiler is a device for producing machine code, nothing more
and nothing less. If it works it works. In a kernel, errors are far
more important (not to have) than features, so one doesn't use "new" or
experimental compilers.
> purpose. Kernel 2.4 has been fixed to work with modern compilers, so
Oh yea?
> compiling kernel 2.4 with gcc 2.96 works just fine (I tried 2.4.4 with
> it last week).
That you can't see the problem doesn't mean that it isn't there! Please
place your lifework on that machine, throw away the backups, and start
compiling kernels while running bonnie and cpuburn simultaneously.
> And yes, they have recieved lots of bad press for this, but a lot of
> unwarranted bad press, IMHO.
Oh, and what is unwarranted about it? Doing a stupid antisocial thing
sounds like it warrants a lambasting to me!
>> >that sounds backwards to me. They're both free
>> >software, and gcc 2.96 is among other things more standards-compliant.
>>
>> Nope.
> Uh, what do you mean by "nope"? Could you point out which examples on
> http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html make gcc 2.96 less standards-compliant?
Presumably the fact that it doesn't produce standard code! And in what
way should anyone care?
> I don't know of any, on the contrary! gcc 2.96 *is* more standards-compliant.
Fantastic. If it were so, I wouldn't care. gcc 2.7.3 compiles ansi C
code just fine.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:54:05 GMT
Scott Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I mean people don't actually believe that time_t is stored as a
> decimal number, right???
Of course not; such claim would of course be so much nonsense.
time_t is more likely to be stored as a _binary_ number, as computers
don't generally have any hardware to represent ten states.
> Please tell me I'm right...
> (hint: look around jan 2038 for the real answer)
It is fairly likely that by about 2010, the shift from 32 to 64 bit
processors should be substantially complete, thus leaving 28 years for
the 32 bit systems that remain to see their hard drives, RAM, and CPUs
degrade, and then be replaced by 64 (or more) bit processors.
Linux should be pretty ready for this...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxy2k.html
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:54:05 GMT
Scott Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I mean people don't actually believe that time_t is stored as a
> decimal number, right???
Of course not; such claim would of course be so much nonsense.
time_t is more likely to be stored as a _binary_ number, as computers
don't generally have any hardware to represent ten states.
I just can't fathom anybody using BCD for this; it seems about as
sensible as the "September 9, 1999" problem.
That was the one where some illiterate reporter noticed that there
were a whole lot of "9's" going together.
Of course, if they had taken the 10 seconds to think that the
representation is:
"990909"
and that there are actually a bunch of zeros to break up the monotony,
they would have realized how stupid they were.
I could imagine there being some really weirdo IBM port of Unix to
BCD-happy hardware that might want to roll over at that date; I can't
see it being either AIX or OS/390, which are the platforms that anyone
actually codes for...
> Please tell me I'm right...
> (hint: look around jan 2038 for the real answer)
It is fairly likely that by about 2010, the shift from 32 to 64 bit
processors should be substantially complete, thus leaving 28 years for
the 32 bit systems that remain to see their hard drives, RAM, and CPUs
degrade, and then be replaced by 64 (or more) bit processors.
Linux should be pretty ready for this...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxy2k.html
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:09:54 +0100
From: Paulo da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange "hangings" after IO!
Paulo da Silva wrote:
The problem went a way after a hdparm command
I used to use in my previous Linuxes.
Here it is:
hdparm -d1 -c1 -u1 -a4 -m16 /dev/hda
I don't know exactly which parameter solved the
problem. I will check this better when I get time
to do it.
Regards,
Paulo da Silva
> Hi,
>
> SYMPTOMS:
> After an IO operation (ex. copying a directory)
> more or less intense, the system seems to hang
> immediately (to 2 seconds sometimes) after the
> IO "operation" completion for a period from
> 1, 2 or more seconds depending (I think) from
> the amount of data written/read. When this occurs,
> the system stops even echoing to the console although
> it bufferizes the input chars.
>
> KERNEL: 2.4.3
>
> ENVIRONEMNT:
> I'm installing a new linux from scratch.
> I have all, but a couple of things like scanner,
> cdrw, installed and working properly.
> X, KDE, Printer, Sound, ... everything seems
> to work fine.
>
> In my previous distributions Linuxes I never had
> such a problem.
>
> This is the first time I'm using the kernel 2.4.3.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> This problem is particularly annoying when listening
> MP3. The sound stops. It seems the windows :-)
>
> Can someone help me please?
>
> TIA for any comments or help.
> Paulo da Silva
--
Please remove the anti-spam Xs from my email address.
PF. retirar os Xs anti-spam do meu endereco de email.
------------------------------
From: "JT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Linux X goes away???
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:29:00 GMT
Running RH7.0. I never can be assured if Linux is going to come up in X.
Sometimes it does and somethings its just a blank black screen. When it
doesn't I have to re-install the who OS over again. Running Matrox Millenium
G200 8mgs ram.
What confuses me, why would it work sometimes and sometimes not?
Confused and looking for answers.
Thanks for your help.
JT
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:19:38 +0200
Christian Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> > Not an answer to your real question, but why would you want to replace
>> > gcc 2.96 with 2.95.3? That sounds backwards to me. They're both free
>> > software, and gcc 2.96 is among other things more standards-compliant.
>>
>> And among other things, less standard.
> That's by your definition of standard. Not real standards.
I said "standard".
>> This is FUD.
> No, I am not discrediting anyone.
You are .. you are slighting everyone who doesn't go with gcc 2.9.6
by trying to imply that it's "better" (and hence that distros who.
reightly, won't touch it are "worse").
>> You know perfectly well why he would want to replace it ... so that he
>> can use software compiled on other distros,
> Why should he be using software *compiled for other distros*? Name a
Because that's what people should be doing in a single linux universe.
Go build your own pet garden phenotype of object code if that's what
turns you on.
> piece of software that doesn't exist either as source or as rpm packages
> for Red Hat.
Too easy (my own for a start, I hope!). Go to some archive like sunsite
and count the packages that redhat don't have.
> Besides, Mandrake now uses gcc 2.96 too.
"now uses"? You mean that they copied redhat's distro again in an
effort to beat them to their client market. They've done it every time
so far - and I personally thought that RH's selection of a propriettary
compiler was an effort to get them off their back.
>> and so that his software can be used on other distros.
> It can be used on everything else that looks like a computer and has a
> compiler. Ever heard of source code?
Have many people? Try asking a person in the street. Lot's of them have
computers.
>> The problem is gcc 2.96, nothing to do with RH's attempts to fix it
>> after the fact of their decision to pirate it and the gcc team's prompt
>> disinheritance of it ...
> How can one "pirate" free software? Please tell me. Else I have
Quite easily. Go to my software site and take a development version of
my software. Hack it and release it as your own without telling me or
consulting me. Do that instead of contacting me and asking to work with
me on moving the software along in a cohesive manner towards a common
goal. It's a clasic fork manouever.
> misunderstood the GPL and the concept of free software.
You have.
>> > upgrade to Red Hat Linux 7.1 which contains an even newer gcc. I've had
>>
>> You mean "even worse gcc".
> No. Why should I mean that?
Because of your desire for truth ...
>> I _dislike_ people who seek to use words to deceive. "New" does not equate to
>> "good".
> In this case it does.
>> You can see that by the fact that you are talking about a remedial change
>> to a gcc that was also "new"
> Keyword "was". It *was* new.
>> when it was introduced by RH, and was not "better" then either.
> It was better in many areas than gcc 2.95.x. It still is.
Many areas? Which? Is there ANY area of C compilation in which 2.8.1
is not perfectly satisfactory? If you have a new peephole optimization,
add it to the backend.
> I doubt Mandrake would decide to use it for their entire 8.x series if
> it wasn't.
I do .. I doubt that mandrake do anything except add their own addons
to RH-whatever.
>> By all means discuss the merits or otherwise in plain english, but do not
>> seek to insinuate qualities by your use of loaded words.
> So I should be forced to dissaminate every feature in detail, leaving
> you to be able to spread the FUD with loaded and false statements like
> "it's worse" and no details or backup for your statements?
I merely match your "it's better".
> If you want the details, go to http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html . Then
Actually, I've read that before. It struck me at the time as a
ludicrously false piece of apologism. I've also commented on that
document in the newsgroups before. The only piece of technical truth in
it that I can find is:
gcc 2.96 supports all architectures Red Hat is currently
supporting, including ia64. No other compiler can do this.
And I agree with this:
It may not be "standards compliant" as in "what most others are
shipping", but 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98 compliant,
unlike any previous version of gcc.
and iso C99 compliance is of mild interest (although if there is anything
noncompliant about other compiler versions, the changes will be trivial
to implement if anybody feels like it). I don't particularly care, since
I write ansi compliant code.
But c++ standards are a moving target and not of much interest.
> come back and we can have a proper discussion based on actual merits and
> qualities.
I've already been there. The document is not convincing in any way as
regards C. It doesn't even offer any example of iso C code that 2.9.6
can deal with and others can't, though I'm willing to believe there are
some. So what? No compiler in existence manages compliance with
anything (I recall hp's c89 not compiling the example on its varargs
manpage because of silent promotion of char to int). What is important
is it's reliabilty and _standardness_, not the number of ticks on the
I-spy scoresheet of standards violating bugs. Only the other day I
found that gcc 2.7.2 doesn't correctly initialize labelled fields
in static structs, yet everyone will tell you that gcc 2.7.2 is
reliable as the rock you stand on. That's the point .. there are bugs.
There always are. If you exercise the corners of a language you find
more bugs in the compilers. So programmers, good programmers, don't do
that. And the newer the compiler, the more bugs it has. The more
features the compiler has, the more bugs it has. The bigger the
language that the compiler deals with, the more bugs it has. This
is inevitable. That redhat chose to bug their distro is strange,
but not incomprehensible. I still feel that the reasons were purely
business based.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Stanislaw Flatto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:53:57 +1000
Jim Johnson wrote:
> The problem is that I find many tasks that ought to be simple, or at least
> possible after research and effort, to be insoluble. This is despite my long
> acquaintance with PCs under DOS and Windows, despite the fact that I am much
> above average in aptitude, despite the wide research and reading that I have
> done on the internet, in news groups, in magazines and in books and despite
> the very large number of hours devoted over the past two months. My
> diligence in attempting to solve my own problems has been significant.
>
> I don't write to seek help on my specific difficulties but to ask this
> general question: are my experiences common? If they are then I would
> conclude that Linux is far too difficult to use to gain wide-spread
> acceptance outside professional server roles at its current stage of
> development.
> I'd be grateful to hear other people's comments.
Welcome to Linux-land!
The first thing to do when going Linux is to clear in your head the early
memories of DOS v3.x and the GUI Windows 3.xx.
Did everything work from start? How much editing of AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS
was required (with Unix like switches) to make games run.
Linux IS Unix no worse and no better and it needs YOU to perform to YOUR
satisfaction.
For most of us it is a pleasure, but:
"Each with his/hers little perversions".
Have fun.
Stanislaw.
Slack user from Ulladulla.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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-Misc Digest
******************************
