Hiho!
Trying to kill the keyboard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] produced:
> ( No, I don't know enough German to carry on a discussion, just enough for a
> woman to slap me )
You have to start by explaining that you are a masochist and
get turned on by being slapped ... :-)
> > Trying to kill the keyboard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] produced:
> > > > Trying to kill the keyboard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] produced:
> > Bootsector viruses do not need any OS to work. They just assume
> All of which (I must happily say) can't affect me, because there's no dos on
> this system, no M$ anything :-)
Let me rephrase:
A bootsector virus does not care if you ran DOS, Windows, BSD,
Solaris_x86, Plan9, Linux, Hurd, or anything else on your Intel
PC. It does not depend on an OS. It *will* kill your LILO if
it is in the MBR. All it takes is a floppy that is booted from.
Bootsector viruses are very wide spread, too, and are easy to get.
> And since I look over stuff before I compile
> it, I probably won't get hit with a trojen either.
Unless you read every line and understand it, you loose.
Trojan changes are usually inconspicous. :-)
> Even if there WAS a
> virus, the boot sector never gets copied to the tape... Moot point if you
> ask me.
But with no boot sector you need a working boot disk/CD at hand,
though I don't doubt you have a few.
> > > 2: IRQ is a non issue for me (relates to top secret stuff)
> > Governmental IRQ ... or is that No Such Ir(a)q? *grin*
> Nope, as in I won't be running out any time soon, honest.
Ah, that would explain your lack of respect for bootsector
viruses: No Intel platform. Right?
> Awww shucks, the frozen chicken out of the cannon is so fun tho :-)
> Almost as fun as the exploding whale...
Ahhhh, yes. Memories. Urban Legends. *sigh*
> > But then ... maybe the TR-1 is aging and dying slowly? And the
> > TR-3 just needed a bump or so to be realigned? *shrug*
> Both units are fairly low mileage, actually. Moreso, the do work fine on a
> 386... can't be the decks, it's not the cables or connectors. It's not the
> tapes. It's not my DMA controller, because it does work with atleast one of
> the tape decks... therefore, it has to be the software :-)
> It's the only logical conclusion.
No (I think). Unless ftape senses how much fragmented your disks
are (or if you reintarnated your drives) and then randomly hickups
(or behaves). As you looked through the code (didn't you?),
you may have noticed there's no such routine build in. Or did
you recompile ftape in the mean time? Changed the version?
And then sudenly it stopped, but on the (current) backup you
still had an *age* old version ...
Maybe your computer *IS* possessed. Or it's a Heisenbug,
> > Next you say the earth is flat. :-) Or you faked your address
> > ... shouldn't there be an 'heaven.org' or something?
> Actually, my host name is dr.ea.ms
> :-)
> Don't believe it? look it up!
Naah, I'd rather not look up to anything with m$ in it, it may
cost $2000 :-)
> > > Shhhh! Quiet! Let's just say I'm improving the interface, and leave it at
> > > that.
> > i ..., .. ....'. ... ... ... ... ..... ..... .. .... ide .......
> > (silent enough? *smirks*)
> uhh...
Suddenly you stand there like I whispered an imoral offer into
your ear. Really, honest, I didn't. Hey, why are your cheeks
glowing like they'd been nuked?
> > > With 128M, I don't have that happen :-) Mebby you need more memory :-)
> > No, it's a question of memory fragmentation.
> *lightbulb explodes* Mebby it's taking my box to long to page RAM?!
> I did the restore w/out telling the box I had 128M, and as you know, the
> 2.0.x series is >64M dumb.... oh my gosh...
> however... this still doesn't explain why it *IS* working with the regualr
> setup too... ahhh yes, yet anther thing for me to check out and test...
> *scribble*
No, I doubt that. You could run swapout 30 first, then you
should have more than enough space without paging. But actually,
the more RAM, the less you need to page (buffers and cache can
be simply dropped and forgotten). You say you compile a lot ...
did you ever get sig 11 errors? If yes and if it's no cyrix, it
is marginal hardware. (maybe a ram loosing it's mind, eh,
bits.)
[memory fragmentation and DMA buffers]
> I know it does :-) When/if the backup fails, I'll change my method.
Just don't let the box unattended for more than a couple of days.
> > Never had that problem as a result of too small buffers. Only as
> > a result of the fast forward/reverse essentially guessing wildly
> > (and inconsistently between sessions) wrong, causing terrible
> > overshooting. (BOT->EOT->BOT->EOT ... of fast forward 30 odd
> > blocks just to spool till EOT(900 blocks away, with one track
> > just over 1000 blocks in length)).
> Intereesting...
I guess it was a half-bad drive. Just good that I could change
the source to make it bearable (after a fallback method of slow
search was implemented by the author).
-Wolfgang
--
PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key".
Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted.
How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html
