On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 23:18 -0500, Randy Edwards wrote:
My problem is that some of the drivers I need aren't keeping up with the
kernel releases, like the NVIDIA drivers, for instance.
The driver issue in 2.6 has impacted me, though in the other direction.
2.6 includes some new
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:23:47AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
There is also the cryptography support. Gone are the
days of having to patch the kernel for IPSec.
Interesting indeed. I recently got wireless working on both my
laptops, though I don't currently have any enryption going on
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 10:15 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:23:47AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
There is also the cryptography support. Gone are the
days of having to patch the kernel for IPSec.
Interesting indeed. I recently got wireless working on both my
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you using IPSec now? I heard that FreeS/Wan forked... What code
base are you using? Pointers would be useful. =8^)
OpenBSD.org :)
It's the most secure, most stable OS out there right now, and IPSec is
built-in to the default kernel. I'm in the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:15:16PM -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you using IPSec now? I heard that FreeS/Wan forked... What code
base are you using? Pointers would be useful. =8^)
OpenBSD.org :)
It's the most secure, most stable OS out there
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 10:47 -0500, Charles Farinella wrote:
I have a server that started throwing the following error the other
day:
kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x1d2/0)
We run some pretty memory intensive apps, and from looking at various
logs it appears
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:03, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
In researching the cause, I find that my kernel does not have high
memory support compiled into it (the default). Now this is all a little
over my head, so I'm asking here, what do you think, will recompiling
the kernel to include
Paul Lussier wrote:
Mmmm, what reasons are there for upgrading to 2.6 at this point. I've
thus far treated 2.6 as 'testing/unstable' kernel, and since many of
it's nicer features (like SATA) are getting backported to the 2.4
series, I haven't had a reason to venture into 2.6 land yet.
I'll bite:
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:27:25PM -0500, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
In addition to that, IMHO, the 2.6 kernel is, BY FAR, the most stable .0
(and subsequent) release I've ever seen. Gone are the days of the 2.4.9
debacle, the 2.2.0 debacle, etc.
It
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:05:29PM -0500, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:27:25PM -0500, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
In addition to that, IMHO, the 2.6 kernel is, BY FAR, the most stable .0
(and subsequent) release I've ever seen. Gone
Ken D'Ambrosio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but I do think that, kind of in opposition to your stance, unless
there's a reason to stick with 2.4 (such as, It just works, which
is a fine reason), 2.6 is the way to go.
Well, our product is based currently based on the 2.4 series, so
there's
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 17:05 -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
...
Mmmm, what reasons are there for upgrading to 2.6 at this point. I've
thus far treated 2.6 as 'testing/unstable' kernel, and since many of
it's nicer features (like SATA) are getting backported to the 2.4
series, I haven't had a
12 matches
Mail list logo
