This is why I don't like MS.
Running Win2k Server
We had that problem with the server not responding after a period of no
traffic. The server itself wasn't asleep it seemed that i just refused to
take network traffic.
I was trying to figure out why it was doing this so I went into
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, at 9:22am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A freaking checkbox labeled Allow the computer to turn off this device to
save power.
Is there a reason that MS feels that this is an Option? Does the power
that that card uses really make THAT big a difference?
On laptops, the
I've seen something similar with my laptop Win 2k using a wireless card.
Everything works fine until the laptop, running on battery, desides to go to
standby mode. When the system wakes up it's pretty much impossible to revive
the network connection off the wireless card. Just plain bad design
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, at 10:37am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen something similar with my laptop Win 2k using a wireless card.
Everything works fine until the laptop, running on battery, desides to go
to standby mode. When the system wakes up it's pretty much impossible to
revive the
It's been a while since I deliberately forced the machine into standby
although it would only take a few minutes. My vague recollection is that
stopping/removing/reinserting the card didn't help. In fact I concluded at
the time that it was YAWB (yet another Windows Bug). If I had a nickel for
Without getting into the why are you using X to do the job:
I've got a csh script in an arbitrary location. But I need to know
from within the script where it exists in the directory structure. The
reason for that is I need to source a file from within that same
directory (where the script is).
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Mark Komarinski wrote:
=Without getting into the why are you using X to do the job:
=
=I've got a csh script in an arbitrary location. But I need to know
=from within the script where it exists in the directory structure. The
=reason for that is I need to source a file from
I just read a write-up of the Ahtlon bug at
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-21-001-20-NW-KN They
describe a simple workaround and perhaps the problem is fairly machine
specific. I have a 900 mhz Athlon Thunderbird processor (Gigabyte mother
board) and haven't seen this
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:43:42PM -0500, Mark Komarinski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:34:28PM -0500, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Without getting into the why are you using X to do the job:
I've got a csh script in an arbitrary location.
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
echo $0 in the script in both irix and linux gives:
-tcsh
How about $_ instead of $0 ?
(I just tested this; it works for me)
Regards,
--kevin
PS It's unclear to me as to why your system is printing out tcsh
instead of csh.
--
Listen, this
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:44:44PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:20:12PM -0500, Mark Komarinski wrote:
Without getting into the why are you using X to do the job:
Who, us? ;-)
I've got a csh script in an arbitrary
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:47:56PM -0500, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
echo $0 in the script in both irix and linux gives:
-tcsh
How about $_ instead of $0 ?
_: undefined variable.
(I just tested this; it works for me)
Regards,
--kevin
PS
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that as the software is distributed now, you have to
create a link in the root directory to the location of where
the software actually sits (which is arbitrary due to NFS and
how things are configured).
Perhaps you could solve this
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:47:56PM -0500, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
How about $_ instead of $0 ?
_: undefined variable.
(I just tested this; it works for me)
I'm not trying to make an incendiary comment here.
If whatever csh-flavored shell
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, at 11:34am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. My favorite (not) windows bugs are the ones associated with the AMD
K6 processors. You end up with a very unstable machine but when you put
Linux or any of the NT variants on these systems magically everything
works.
To be fair,
Thing is though Ben, the machine I had the most trouble with was
manufactured by a now merged PC company called Compaq. With the original
factory installation the machine wouldn't run more than an hour or so
without crashing or blue screening. You're probably quite right about a lot
of systems not
Ben Scott pointed out:
Keep in mind that the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) for
Microsoft Windows is a lot shorter than the pool of available hardware.
If it is not on the HCL, Microsoft makes no promises as to whether
Windows will work.
We had the same sort of issue on Digital UNIX/Tru64
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, at 12:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thing is though Ben, the machine I had the most trouble with was
manufactured by a now merged PC company called Compaq.
That's nice. Was it on the HCL? :-)
With the original factory installation the machine wouldn't run more than
I wouldn't say quick to point the finger. It took me quite a long time to
come to the conclusion that there was a CPU/Windows interaction. And yes,
now that you mention it I've see a few Intel boards be unstable under
Windows. Truth is, there really is engineering involved in building a stable
I think a really sad thing about our technology is that name brands don't
necessarily mean the system will be all that good. For every pissed off
Compaq customer I've found a pissed off Dell customer. That goes for most of
the vendors out there. They mostly provide support from the same third
Having worked support before, I can say that it is one of the few areas
that is considered a money sink. Thus, interaction with customers always
gets the short end of the stick (think: voice mail hell).
Unfrotunately, that leads to the situation you describe - customers hate
vendor X and don't
The short answer is: it can't be done, at least not
in any manner that won't cause projectile vomiting,
so just remember that you asked...
A hack like this might start with the understanding
that scripts are not, in themselves, executable.
What's really happening when you execute a script is
Another solution, albeit extremely fugly, would be to 'exec
somenewscriptname'
from csh that would have #! /bin/sh or whatever defined and then have that
script execute in a bash environment and do whatever machinations you need.
I don't envy - the constraints are obvious, and obviously
Derek, I think you just made my point! For every happy user you can find one
almost equally unhappy. As another data point I helped someone out with
their problem about a year ago. They had purchased a shiny new HP Pavilion
desktop system. They tried and failed to reliably connect to 3 different
Some followup examples, with the last one showing how it can fail:
shrapnel:/tmp 165--- cat /tmp/nastyHack ; chmod a+x /tmp/nastyHack
cd $* # Stand in specified directory ($HOME if none),
echo PWD is $PWD# confirm our location,
ls -CFl /proc/$$/fd #
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, at 2:57pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did I ever mention that life in academics is a lot different from life in
the business world?
Yah, in the business world, they want you to do everything you have to do
in academia, and make a profit, too.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL
Geez Ben, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel! ;^)
And remember those damned things were built specifically so the manufacturer
could save $2 or $3 on the cost of the modem.
-Alex
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greater NH Linux User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 matches
Mail list logo
