Jerry McBride wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:54:57 -0500 Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mighty quiet here. Everyone must be busy installing Slackware 9.0.
;-)
Yup... slackware spelled G E N T O O... Excellent. I should have done
this years ago...
Ditto that. Busily going over to
I suggest firewire over DVD. I think DVD as a backup is just too slow. Is
there such a thing as a multi-session DVD?
We use IOMEGA Peerless (20 GB) and IOMEGA 120 GB HDD, both firewire. They
are fast and hassle free. Just don't check the SMP box when compiling your
kernel to run on a non-SMP box.
That wasn't necessary, but as I've started on a new box it was
appreciated.
Randy Donohoe
P.S. To the list, I promise I'll save his e-mail address next time.
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whether its
considered to be a devel or stable release. anyone
On 3/24/2003 4:48 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
...
AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the
kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release.
ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to
a 2.3.x version
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
...
AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the
kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release.
ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the
| procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
didn't suse 8.1 go to 2.3.0 or 2.3.1? whatever they went to, it broke
every
An unnamed Administration source, David A. Bandel, wrote:
% On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:54:54 -0500
% Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Hi, list,
%
% I've never been terribly clear on this, so I'll ask here. Given
% a network address of, say, 192.168.0.0 and a netmask of /8, thus
%
I second THAT !!! Downgraded to SuSe 8.0 after the system went
totally down
the toilet on SuSe 8.1 Same for Redhack 8.0 ..
dep wrote:
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the
You gotta understand, my fastest machine is a overclocked Celeron 300A running at 450.
1.1 is screaming to me :)
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:17:11 -0800
Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Carpenter wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. Yes.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:52:36 -0800
Ken Moffat
Not a problem if the box has enough resources. XCDroast doesn't require that you save
the settings, does it? So long as you have the resources, aren't you able to
Burn-On-The-Fly? That would alleviate the need for large RW HD space for an image.
If you HAVE to create an image, just remount
On Monday 24 March 2003 10:20 pm, someone claiming to be Matthew Carpenter
wrote:
snip
I don't use XCDRoast any more, loving KreateCD and intrigued by K3b.
I haven't used XCDRoast for a lllnnngg time, well over a year. But I'll
vouch for k3b. Was using cdbakeoven heavily until it started
Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing
XFS, reiserFS ext3:
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle.
--
~
L. Friedman
Matthew Carpenter wrote:
Not a problem if the box has enough resources. XCDroast doesn't require that you save
the settings, does it? So long as you have the resources, aren't you able to
Burn-On-The-Fly? That would alleviate the need for large RW HD space for an image. If
you HAVE to create an
Net Llama! wrote:
Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing
XFS, reiserFS ext3:
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle.
shameless plug
Linux on XFS is now our standard deployment model,
On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 18:37, Jerry McBride wrote:
mysqladmin: connect to server at 'localhost' failed
Are you doing this as root?
YES
error: 'Access denied for user: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' (Using password: YES)'
Are you doing this as user TED?
TED
Yup. It can be a total
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:20:14 -0500
Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a problem if the box has enough resources. XCDroast doesn't require
that you save the settings, does it? So long as you have the resources,
aren't you able to Burn-On-The-Fly? That would alleviate the need for
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:14:38 -0700
Andrew Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Net Llama! wrote:
Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing
XFS, reiserFS ext3:
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS
19 matches
Mail list logo
