On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 07:02:36PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > I want to set the tcp_keepalive timer to 60 seconds and understand
> > possible implications for Linux.
>
> echo 60 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time
By default, this is only polled by the kernel every 75 seconds, so
you
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 07:02:36PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
I want to set the tcp_keepalive timer to 60 seconds and understand
possible implications for Linux.
echo 60 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time
By default, this is only polled by the kernel every 75 seconds, so
you would
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
> Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
>
> > I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
> > privileged with respect to interpretat
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > > mak
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
Ah, but Linus
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux was
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
makes him privileged in this respect
I periodically experience major system slowdowns, which are
obviously network related because they instantly go away when I pull
out the network cable, and return when I put it back in. The
machine is not totally unresponsive, but nearly so. For example, if
I hit enter at a shell prompt, it may
I periodically experience major system slowdowns, which are
obviously network related because they instantly go away when I pull
out the network cable, and return when I put it back in. The
machine is not totally unresponsive, but nearly so. For example, if
I hit enter at a shell prompt, it may
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:20:48PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Wait ... I thought you were just using Python bindings to Tk. Are you
> > telling us the Tk library, which for 8 or 10 years has been pretty much
> > *the* X toolkit/widget set for
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:20:48PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wait ... I thought you were just using Python bindings to Tk. Are you
telling us the Tk library, which for 8 or 10 years has been pretty much
*the* X toolkit/widget set for scripting, does
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:13:47PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The problems with devfs (other than kernel memory bloat, which is pretty
> much guaranteed to be much worse than the bloat a larger dev_t would
> entail) is that it needs complex auxilliary mechanisms to make
> "chmod /dev/foo"
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:13:47PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The problems with devfs (other than kernel memory bloat, which is pretty
much guaranteed to be much worse than the bloat a larger dev_t would
entail) is that it needs complex auxilliary mechanisms to make
"chmod /dev/foo" work as
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 08:00:05AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm more interested in the case where the module is loaded for the second
> time:
Is there really a reason to unload a module in normal usage? Beyond
miniscule memory savings and hack value? You can solve the whole
problem with
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 08:00:05AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
I'm more interested in the case where the module is loaded for the second
time:
Is there really a reason to unload a module in normal usage? Beyond
miniscule memory savings and hack value? You can solve the whole
problem with a
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
> >
> > Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
> > exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
> > take up all
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
take up all your
18 matches
Mail list logo
