Re: GPL only modules

2006-12-17 Thread Ricardo Galli
al" arguments- as a message that makes clear FSF is not trying to push his agenda into the gray areas of copyright laws. But the very same evidence is used to loudly support an opposite interpretation of FSF [evil] intentions, to weaken the legal strength of the GPL, and to accuse FSF of pushing

Re: GPL only modules

2006-12-17 Thread Ricardo Galli
laws. But the very same evidence is used to loudly support an opposite interpretation of FSF [evil] intentions, to weaken the legal strength of the GPL, and to accuse FSF of pushing some hidden and insane arguments. Presumptuous, to say the least. -- ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34 http

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-16 Thread Ricardo Galli
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote: > > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never > > tried to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to > > "di

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-16 Thread Ricardo Galli
rying about "fair use" or "derived work", GPL allows her to do it. So, where's the freaking relationship between GPL (or its "zealots") and "fair use"? Who is trying to re-define it? FUD, FUD, FUD. -- ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34 http://m

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-16 Thread Ricardo Galli
? Who is trying to re-define it? FUD, FUD, FUD. -- ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34 http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

2006-12-16 Thread Ricardo Galli
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote: As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL zealots never tried to change or restrict fair use. GPL[23] covers only to distibution of the covered program. The freedom #0 says

Re: Linux 2.6.13

2005-08-29 Thread Ricardo Galli
cious. Can I do any further test? Or is it a stupid mistake? Cheers. -- ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34 http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http:/

Re: Linux 2.6.13

2005-08-29 Thread Ricardo Galli
? Or is it a stupid mistake? Cheers. -- ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34 http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ

RE: [reiserfs-dev] Re: New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
> > was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache). > You might consider rebooting to flush the cache. > Is it possible to achieve the same by umounting/mounting the file system? --ricardo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

RE: [reiserfs-dev] Re: New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
> My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU > bound) not FS bound. We undertood ;-) > > cp -ar, and I would like Yura to try to reproduce the cp -ar as > > it seems too > > good to be true. > We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not The cp -a

RE: [reiserfs-dev] Re: New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
My apologies, I meant that the make is probably compiler bound (I said CPU bound) not FS bound. We undertood ;-) cp -ar, and I would like Yura to try to reproduce the cp -ar as it seems too good to be true. We find that one must use cp and similar utilities (not The cp -a figures are

RE: [reiserfs-dev] Re: New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
was _just_ copied from another file system (still in buffer/cache). You might consider rebooting to flush the cache. Is it possible to achieve the same by umounting/mounting the file system? --ricardo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of

New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-21 Thread Ricardo Galli
Hi, you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS). This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks (http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and read/write/fsync operations tests

New XFS, ReiserFS and Ext2 benchmarks

2001-05-21 Thread Ricardo Galli
Hi, you can find at http://bulma.lug.net/static/ a few new benchmarks among Reiser, XFS and Ext2 (also one with JFS). This time there is a comprehensive Hans' Mongo benchmarks (http://bulma.lug.net/static/mongo/ )and a couple of kernel compilations and read/write/fsync operations tests

Reiserfs, Mongo and CPU question

2001-05-15 Thread Ricardo Galli
to the list because last time we were slashdotted ;-) and we aren't convinced they are valueable, but I can send it to you directly if you are interested. Regards, -- ricardo galli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Reiserfs, Mongo and CPU question

2001-05-15 Thread Ricardo Galli
to the list because last time we were slashdotted ;-) and we aren't convinced they are valueable, but I can send it to you directly if you are interested. Regards, -- ricardo galli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

Re: reiserfs, xfs, ext2, ext3 (simple benchmarks)

2001-05-09 Thread Ricardo Galli
> It would be great to see a table of ReiserFS/XFS/Ext2+index performance > results. Well, to make it really fair it should be Ext3+index so I'd > better add 'backport the patch to 2.2' or 'bug Stephen and friends to > hurry up' to my to-do list. You can find a simple benchmark (an average of

Re: reiserfs, xfs, ext2, ext3 (simple benchmarks)

2001-05-09 Thread Ricardo Galli
It would be great to see a table of ReiserFS/XFS/Ext2+index performance results. Well, to make it really fair it should be Ext3+index so I'd better add 'backport the patch to 2.2' or 'bug Stephen and friends to hurry up' to my to-do list. You can find a simple benchmark (an average of three

RE: what causes Machine Check exception? revisited (2.2.18)

2001-05-07 Thread Ricardo Galli
>> Definitely not caused by: >> Bad Rams, mb-chipset. > > Erm, it was bad RAM everytime it happened to me. On standard PCs, you > don't see those because you don't have ECC and the error is simply not > detected. I did have the same problem with an SMP Intel 440LX which run without any problem

RE: what causes Machine Check exception? revisited (2.2.18)

2001-05-07 Thread Ricardo Galli
Definitely not caused by: Bad Rams, mb-chipset. Erm, it was bad RAM everytime it happened to me. On standard PCs, you don't see those because you don't have ECC and the error is simply not detected. I did have the same problem with an SMP Intel 440LX which run without any problem since

Kernel panic in 2.2.18 and SMP

2001-03-11 Thread Ricardo Galli
I just upgraded from 2.2.16 to 2.2.18 in a production machine. The machine dies after few minutes with the following error message (it's not complete, the machine was rebooted by a colleague of mine): Kernel panic Exception. Context corruption at bank 0 The motherboard is a RD440LX DP, with

Kernel panic in 2.2.18 and SMP

2001-03-11 Thread Ricardo Galli
I just upgraded from 2.2.16 to 2.2.18 in a production machine. The machine dies after few minutes with the following error message (it's not complete, the machine was rebooted by a colleague of mine): Kernel panic Exception. Context corruption at bank 0 The motherboard is a RD440LX DP, with

Re: Via UDMA5 3/4/5 is not functional!

2001-02-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
> Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command. > i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not > functional"! I had the same problem. Add append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66 ide0=autotune ide1=autotune hda=autotune hdb=autotune hdc=autotune" to

Re: Via UDMA5 3/4/5 is not functional!

2001-02-22 Thread Ricardo Galli
Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command. i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not functional"! I had the same problem. Add append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66 ide0=autotune ide1=autotune hda=autotune hdb=autotune hdc=autotune" to lilo.conf.

RE: 2.4.1 eats RAM or /proc/meminfo bug

2001-02-03 Thread Ricardo Galli
> you should give up thinking there's any real relation between 2.2 > and 2.4. yes, they're both Linux, but their behaviors are essentially > unrelated. > > > total used free sharedbuffers >cached > > Mem:255340 232444 22896 0

2.4.1 eats RAM or /proc/meminfo bug

2001-02-03 Thread Ricardo Galli
I noticed in my server that the memory consumption with 2.4.1 it much higher than 2.2.18 and it gets worse over time. Free was reporting up to 140MB of RAM with no user/X session (50-60MB with 2.2.18, same software). I've upgraded to procps 2.0.7, but the problem persists. After few minutes of

2.4.1 eats RAM or /proc/meminfo bug

2001-02-03 Thread Ricardo Galli
I noticed in my server that the memory consumption with 2.4.1 it much higher than 2.2.18 and it gets worse over time. Free was reporting up to 140MB of RAM with no user/X session (50-60MB with 2.2.18, same software). I've upgraded to procps 2.0.7, but the problem persists. After few minutes of

RE: 2.4.1 eats RAM or /proc/meminfo bug

2001-02-03 Thread Ricardo Galli
you should give up thinking there's any real relation between 2.2 and 2.4. yes, they're both Linux, but their behaviors are essentially unrelated. total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem:255340 232444 22896 0 16988