Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux Kernel?!?!
Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't litter up the
kernel listserver with this.
- Original Message -
From: Rick Hohensee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kurt Maxwell Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J Sloan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
[snip]
In that case, I have the following
- Original Message -
From: Adam Schrotenboer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LKML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Kurt Maxwell Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
dissatisfied
[snip]
Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions
do.
Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as
compensation
for your troubles?
This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
Why would that make MS afraid of Linux. It
- Original Message -
From: Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Adam Schrotenboer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LKML
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
Name
- Original Message -
From: Ben Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Marius Nita [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
It's hard to understand the point of such arguments. Surely you
- Original Message -
From: Adam Schrotenboer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LKML
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Jim Roland wrote:
[snip]
Good for business. bad
- Original Message -
From: William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all
- Original Message -
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Jim Roland wrote:
I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away from me!
I see your point, but in a very real sense
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long
time
ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-)
And they annoyed not just a few
@Home tells you the same thing. Although they portscanned me frequently,
they were checking for specific servers and actually deny traffic on ports
135-139 (Winblows traffic). Unless they change over to non-routables (which
would kill things like ICQ, etc) they will not be able to stop me from
I confronted @Home's tech support, and they're programmed to say server
but even tier-2 had no idea what it actually meant that I could and could
not do. Go figure.
- Original Message -
From: Hua Zhong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J
Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Jesse
I have successfully (finally) installed MPPE and PPP with PPP 2.40 and Linux
Kernel 2.4.2. However, anytime I allow and use MPPE-40 packets will not
forward into a VPN. If I comment it out and use MPPE-STATELESS or MPPE-128
it works fine. As soon as MPPE-40 is uncommented, it fails to operate.
Unfortunately, some distros will have some configurations, patches, and
customizations that may cause problems with some systems. I am using an
EPoX 8KTA3+ (with IDE ATA100 RAID controller) and have absolutely no
problems with RedHat 6.1, or my current RedHat 7.1, and I am using the RAID
I am trying to get RedHat's Kernel RPM 2.2.16 installed, however, the rpm
program does unpack the files, but does not run any script to install them
into the source tree (kernel-2.2.16-3.i386.src.rpm). Is there a trick to
making it work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
mpilation and kernel
installation information on their website in a fairly easy to find place.
A little digging would be good for your soul and education. There is other
stuff there associated with the kernel compile and install instructions
that can be a great help.
{^_^}
- Original Messag
AH HA! Thanks!
- Original Message -
From: "David Woodhouse" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Jim Roland" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "J. Dow" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
[
the IDE's mount points. Otherwise, since your reason for doing this is that
you're out of space, add another SCSI drive.
Are you getting IDE corruption with the BIOS set to AUTO for your IDE
drive?
Regards,
Jim Roland, RHCE
- Original Message -
From: M.H.VanLeeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: M.H.VanLeeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS
errors?
Jim,
Thanks for the info, comments interleaved below
Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux Kernel?!?!
Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't litter up the
kernel listserver with this.
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Hohensee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 30,
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
[snip]
> >In that case, I have
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LKML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Kurt Maxwell Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
>
[snip]
> >Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions
do.
> >Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as
compensation
> >for your troubles?
> >
> >This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
> >
> Why would that make MS afraid of
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Hoyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> >
> > You always have a
- Original Message -
From: "Marius Nita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> > You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Marius Nita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> >
> >
> >It's hard to understand the point of such
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Paul Mundt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LKML"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject
- Original Message -
From: "William T Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
>
> > This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't
- Original Message -
From: "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Jim Roland wrote:
>
> > I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long
@Home tells you the same thing. Although they portscanned me frequently,
they were checking for specific servers and actually deny traffic on ports
135-139 (Winblows traffic). Unless they change over to non-routables (which
would kill things like ICQ, etc) they will not be able to stop me from
I confronted @Home's tech support, and they're programmed to say "server"
but even tier-2 had no idea what it actually meant that I could and could
not do. Go figure.
- Original Message -
From: "Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J
Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:09 AM
Su
I have successfully (finally) installed MPPE and PPP with PPP 2.40 and Linux
Kernel 2.4.2. However, anytime I allow and use MPPE-40 packets will not
forward into a VPN. If I comment it out and use MPPE-STATELESS or MPPE-128
it works fine. As soon as MPPE-40 is uncommented, it fails to operate.
Unfortunately, some distros will have some configurations, patches, and
customizations that may cause problems with some systems. I am using an
EPoX 8KTA3+ (with IDE ATA100 RAID controller) and have absolutely no
problems with RedHat 6.1, or my current RedHat 7.1, and I am using the RAID
your SCSI drive onto
the IDE's mount points. Otherwise, since your reason for doing this is that
you're out of space, add another SCSI drive.
Are you getting IDE corruption with the BIOS set to for your IDE
drive?
Regards,
Jim Roland, RHCE
- Original Message -
From: "M.H.VanL
- Original Message -
From: "M.H.VanLeeuwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Does kernel require IDE enabled in BIOS to access HD, FS
errors?
&g
I am trying to get RedHat's Kernel RPM 2.2.16 installed, however, the rpm
program does unpack the files, but does not run any script to install them
into the source tree (kernel-2.2.16-3.i386.src.rpm). Is there a trick to
making it work?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
s
> that can be a great help.
>
> {^_^}
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 21:03
> Subject: RedHat kernel RPM 2.2.16
>
>
> > I am tr
AH HA! Thanks!
- Original Message -
From: "David Woodhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "J. Dow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:37 AM
Subject: Re:
42 matches
Mail list logo
