Re: [SLUG] Re: fedora WAS:(a kernel pickle: qt xlibs dependencies)
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:35:25 + Mike MacCana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 08:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 04:45:57 + Mike MacCana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would too. But the way you worded it sounds like anyone who ever used 8 or 9 made a bad decision. The lack of technical qualification makes it fud-like. Well, how would YOU word it then. I'd actually state the technical or otherwise reason for the statement. Just to explain my request, it is my contention that it is impossible to promote or comment on any distribution or indeed x member of t, where t=editors, or languages etc. without eliciting some indignant reply from a proponent of competing y member of t. So, I was trying to prove my contention by getting you to rephrase Jeff's remark in a more neutral manner. With the fact that you have declined to do so, I rest my case. Unless you'd like to try again. Doing this would be a much more reasonable response, and increase the signal / noise ratio of the thread, much more than moaning that the person that complained is somehow pedantic for expecting people to justify their (strong) opinions. Dur. While you're at it, reconcile these two paragraphs. -- Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] ssh over ADSL weeirdness
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Michael Chesterton wrote: Danny Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: II've justt set my girrlfriend's ADSL coonnection up, and it appeears to be working finne -- 50ms flat pings to Sydney Uni, an 25kb/s downloads. The problemm? Well, my ssh ssessiions keep duplicating characterrs,, ass yyou cn see!! Dooeees anyone have aadvice on whhatt coould be causing this? ii cann't sseee aanny prooblemms wwithh youur messsagee, III thinnk soomeeonne muust ooff haddd t mmmuch cchriisttmmaass cchheeer :)).. TTrry ccuuutiing bbaack on tthhhe pparrtyying, aaand ssee iif tthhe doouuble viission goooes aaway... I had to laugh at Michael's response but am having trouble fathoming how this could really happen with SSH. Some more diagnositics is the only thing I can come up with at the moment. Try SSHing to various hosts on various networks to see if the problem persists. Try telnet to various mail hosts on port 25 and see if you get a similar pattern (ie is it protocol specific). Also for what it's worth try some larger pings ping -s 1500 will give you an ethernet sized frame, try maybe 2000 and 500 and let it go for about 20 to 50 pings. Things you'd be looking for a duplicates dropped packets - again to various hosts. Maybe play with the MTU setting, it's sickening but some providers (or upstream providers even) seem to accidently block MTU path discovery. Also... what if there's a multi-path route and the packets are going both ways, one might be delayed sufficiently to not be picked up as a duplicate... but then again the TCP protocols should take care of this ... that's what sequence numbers are for. -- ---GRiP--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX rider, Walker, Raver rave music lover, Big kid that refuses to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today! Do people actually read these things? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] ssh over ADSL weeirdness
Grant Parnell wrote: I had to laugh at Michael's response but am having trouble fathoming how this could really happen with SSH. That was confusing me too. I now think it's actually some kind of GNOME problem, since sshing from a virtual console window works (poor latency, but no repeated characters), and sshing _in_ from outside works fine. Also, when Mozilla is loading pages over the ADSL connection, the desktop entire gets really really slow and jerky. Someone suggested checking /etc/hosts, but the localhost entry was already there, and the machine works ok with PPP. So my current theory is along the lines you suggest -- it's an MTU problem and packet fragmentation is hammering the TCP/IP stack badly enough to screw up some kind of network (loopback?) polling by GNOME. The weird thing is that both ping times and scp transfer rates over the ADSL connection are fine. I'm going to give up on the half-bridge setup and try the Roaring Penguing PPOE client. (But the machine is my girlfriend's, so I can't look at it right now.) Danny. (Who is unfortunately on pair-gain -- in North Sydney! -- and can't get ADSL himself :-( ) Also... what if there's a multi-path route and the packets are going both ways, one might be delayed sufficiently to not be picked up as a duplicate... but then again the TCP protocols should take care of this ... that's what sequence numbers are for. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] ssh over ADSL weeirdness
hi, Also... what if there's a multi-path route and the packets are going both ways, one might be delayed sufficiently to not be picked up as a duplicate... but then again the TCP protocols should take care of this ... that's what sequence numbers are for. and thats also confusing me. but if (just a stupid and assumption, that this does not work) the tcp is not handling the duplicates which can be cause by retransmissions aso, should not the SSH protocol take care of the integrity of the data flow? SSH is standing for secure, but shouldnt it also check if the data is correct? another idea: have you tried to scp a file and to check the integrity of the file? eg with md5sum? is there also a problem? cya, gottfried -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Video card info
I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Thanks, Alan -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 09:54, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Oops - 1024x768 Thanks, Alan -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 09:54, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Not really: 1024 pixels * 768 pixels * 8 bits per pixel = 6291456 bits = 6MB for one screenful. And the 32MB card in my machine is running quite happily with 16 bit colour. So. What sort of video card is it? How have you got it set up in XF86Config? -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:54:34AM +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? The maths on this is pretty simple - the number of bits you need to store your image is with * height * bpp. Divide by 8 for bytes. So, 1024x768 = 786432 pixels, at 8bpp is 1MB. Even at 32bpp, you're still running at 4MB. Something's rooted somewhere. Of course, modern video cards use their memory for a lot more than storing the current image, but I've never seen a card modern enough to have 32MB of video memory that can't push itself to 1600x1200 or so. Either your card is lying, or you've got something squirrelly going on in your X config. Does /var/log/XFree86.0.log tell you *why* it's not giving you any sensible modes? - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:03:14AM +1100, Peter Hardy wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 09:54, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Not really: 1024 pixels * 768 pixels * 8 bits per pixel = 6291456 bits = 6MB for one Eh? 1B = 8 bits. Or have video card makers now started screwing the public over by counting thei video memory in bits? I hope HDD manufacturers never catch on to this trick (like redefining a gig as 1 billion bytes, so their hard drives look bigger). - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 10:00, Alan L Tyree wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 09:54, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Oops - 1024x768 Thanks, Alan No You should easily get 1024x768x32bit colour. My old 8Mb card used to give me 1024x768x24bit in Linux and 32bit in windoze when I out it in my daughter's machine. Stay well and happy Heracles -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
Eh? 1B = 8 bits. Or have video card makers now started screwing the public over by counting thei video memory in bits? I hope HDD manufacturers never catch on to this trick (like redefining a gig as 1 billion bytes, so their hard drives look bigger). That has been the case for a number of HDD manufacturers for a while. http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=107838,00.asp -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 10:03, Matt Palmer wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:54:34AM +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? The maths on this is pretty simple - the number of bits you need to store your image is with * height * bpp. Divide by 8 for bytes. So, 1024x768 = 786432 pixels, at 8bpp is 1MB. Even at 32bpp, you're still running at 4MB. Something's rooted somewhere. Of course, modern video cards use their memory for a lot more than storing the current image, but I've never seen a card modern enough to have 32MB of video memory that can't push itself to 1600x1200 or so. Either your card is lying, or you've got something squirrelly going on in your X config. Does /var/log/XFree86.0.log tell you *why* it's not giving you any sensible modes? Thanks for this Matt Peter. I'll have a look at the logs later today (it's my wife's machine). I'm running RH8 and it picked the vesa driver - I've tried a few others without success. Doing an lspci -vv on it gives: VGA Compatible Controller: SiS: unknown device 6325 Subsystem: MicroStar International: unknown device 5339. Anyway, I'll check the logs. Thanks again, Alan - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] ssh over ADSL weeirdness
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Danny Yee wrote: Grant Parnell wrote: I had to laugh at Michael's response but am having trouble fathoming how this could really happen with SSH. That was confusing me too. I now think it's actually some kind of GNOME problem, since sshing from a virtual console window works (poor latency, but no repeated characters), and sshing _in_ from outside works fine. Also, when Mozilla is loading pages over the ADSL connection, the desktop entire gets really really slow and jerky. Ahh.. now this I can believe, I vaguely recall seeing something like this. I've also seen the mouse play up. Of course the usual recourse is to apply all the errata. Seems like there's been heaps of updates since RedHat 9 was released. Umm I can't remember if you said it was a RedHat system now. Someone suggested checking /etc/hosts, but the localhost entry was already there, and the machine works ok with PPP. So my current theory is along the lines you suggest -- it's an MTU problem and packet fragmentation is hammering the TCP/IP stack badly enough to screw up some kind of network (loopback?) polling by GNOME. Still worth testing but it would have to be pretty poor, or faulty nic to be *that* bad to affect gnome in this way I think. The weird thing is that both ping times and scp transfer rates over the ADSL connection are fine. I'm going to give up on the half-bridge setup and try the Roaring Penguing PPOE client. (But the machine is my girlfriend's, so I can't look at it right now.) Yeah... this contradicts the MTU theory above too. The symptoms with SCP are usually more like small files are fine, but when it goes more than about 20K it slows to a crawl or stops Danny. (Who is unfortunately on pair-gain -- in North Sydney! -- and can't get ADSL himself :-( ) My condolances. Just leave the girlfriend's PC running Linux and do all those downloads on her ADSL, then you've got an excuse to visit every day to burn a CD grin. -- ---GRiP--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX rider, Walker, Raver rave music lover, Big kid that refuses to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today! Do people actually read these things? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:13:59AM +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote: (it's my wife's machine). I'm running RH8 and it picked the vesa driver - I've tried a few others without success. Doing an lspci -vv on it gives: VGA Compatible Controller: SiS: unknown device 6325 There's an SiS driver, which you might luck out on. But the VESA driver should give reasonable performance anyway - there's nothing special about 1024x768 at 16bpp - the dodgy old on-board on an IBM I was using recently did that using the vesa driver, and it was a pretty crap card. Best of luck, - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:10:11AM +1100, Jason Ball wrote: Eh? 1B = 8 bits. Or have video card makers now started screwing the public over by counting thei video memory in bits? I hope HDD manufacturers never catch on to this trick (like redefining a gig as 1 billion bytes, so their hard drives look bigger). That has been the case for a number of HDD manufacturers for a while. http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=107838,00.asp I know that, it's why I said it. What I was referring to was the possible attempt by the HDD manufacturers to list drive capacities in bits, so they're numbers are 8 times as big. Sigh. - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Route Reject
We need to prevent one network from using our Linux box as a router, whilst allowing another network (on anothger interface) to use it. It seems the route reject command will do this; am I right? If so, most of the references I've seen to it require a route add or route del. Is this right? If so, would the correct syntax be: /sbin/route add -net 151.193.141.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 reject? Edwin Humphries, Ironstone Technology Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ironstone.com.au Phone: 02 4233 2285 Fax: 02 4233 2299 Mobile: 0419 233 051 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] ssh over ADSL weeirdness
Danny, I don't think the problem could possibly be ssh or the network for the reasons you and others have mentioned. More likely it's a bug in the pty layer, or the gnome terminal widget. (it's had quite a few). Upgrade if you can. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:54:34AM +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Need more info. The refresh rate is relevant. Lower it and you might be able to get better depth. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Route Reject
route reject will not do what you want it to do. This command allows the linux routing table to become a NOT-routing table as well. Normally if a packet eligible for routing doesn't match an explicit route, it matches whatever is the best match, all the way up to the default route (or 0.0.0.0/0 ) if that exists. The command you have given will mean that any packets with *destination* 151.193.141.0/24 will be dropped. At the IP routing table level, linux never takes into consideration where packets come from. The way to do what you want to enable firewall functionality (iptables) and basically control which interfaces can forward packets to which other interfaces. This can happen before routing (on INPUT traffic), which is preferred, or after routing (using OUTPUT or FORWARDING). You could probably either investigate a GUI iptables config tool such as www.fwbuilder.org or check out some example scripts such as at http://www.linuxguruz.com/iptables/ to get some more clues. Martin Visser ,CISSP Network and Security Consultant Technology Infrastructure - Consulting Integration HP Services 3 Richardson Place North Ryde, Sydney NSW 2113, Australia Phone *: +61-2-9022-1670Mobile *: +61-411-254-513 Fax 7: +61-2-9022-1800 E-mail * : martin.visserAThp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edwin Humphries Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SLUG] Route Reject We need to prevent one network from using our Linux box as a router, whilst allowing another network (on anothger interface) to use it. It seems the route reject command will do this; am I right? If so, most of the references I've seen to it require a route add or route del. Is this right? If so, would the correct syntax be: /sbin/route add -net 151.193.141.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 reject? Edwin Humphries, Ironstone Technology Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ironstone.com.au Phone: 02 4233 2285 Fax: 02 4233 2299 Mobile: 0419 233 051 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 12:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:54:34AM +1100, Alan L Tyree wrote: I have a box with a video card that claims to have 32mb memory. Running at 1028x768, the best I can get is 8 colour depth. Is this about right? Need more info. The refresh rate is relevant. Lower it and you might be able to get better depth. Interesting point. I just booted Knoppix on the machine and it runs at a depth of 16 using the sis driver. Tried the sis driver under RH8 and got zilch. Thanks Matt -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 10:1 3, Alan L Tyree wrote: Thanks for this Matt Peter. I'll have a look at the logs later today (it's my wife's machine). I'm running RH8 and it picked the vesa driver - I've tried a few others without success. Doing an lspci -vv on it gives: VGA Compatible Controller: SiS: unknown device 6325 Subsystem: MicroStar International: unknown device 5339. Alan, I know that chipset (SiS 6325) quite well. It was once necessary to download a special driver for it, but now the driver is included in the Xfree_SVGA drivers(don't use the VESA driver). XFree version 4.1 should have no trouble with it. If the problem persists either get the latest version of XFree or go back to the last of version 3 (3.3.6 If I recall) and use Xfree_SVGA. Stay well and happy Heracles -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Video card info
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:00, Heracles wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 10:1 3, Alan L Tyree wrote: Thanks for this Matt Peter. I'll have a look at the logs later today (it's my wife's machine). I'm running RH8 and it picked the vesa driver - I've tried a few others without success. Doing an lspci -vv on it gives: VGA Compatible Controller: SiS: unknown device 6325 Subsystem: MicroStar International: unknown device 5339. Alan, I know that chipset (SiS 6325) quite well. It was once necessary to download a special driver for it, but now the driver is included in the Xfree_SVGA drivers(don't use the VESA driver). XFree version 4.1 should have no trouble with it. If the problem persists either get the latest version of XFree or go back to the last of version 3 (3.3.6 If I recall) and use Xfree_SVGA. thanks to everybody on this. In the end, I cheated: the Knoppix looked so good that I did a complete install onto the hard disk (easy to do since there wasn't much data on the machine). Looks terrific with KDE. Thanks again, Alan -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
