|
Grex > Helpers > #137: Grex System Announcements - Winter 2004/2005 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 63 of 219:
| 
Dec 30 18:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mfp
|
|
response 64 of 219:
|
Dec 30 20:17 UTC 2004 |
Okay, great. We have NeckzGrecks. Now we'll be sure to get new members.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 65 of 219:
|
Dec 30 21:51 UTC 2004 |
(#54 is the answer to #50's question, which was repeated in #56. It's nice
to see that the subsequent responses echoed #54. :)
|
blaise
|
|
response 66 of 219:
|
Dec 30 22:04 UTC 2004 |
(Er, #54 is an answer to #51, not #50. #56 was a repeat of #51, so the
rest of your response stands.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 67 of 219:
|
Dec 30 22:18 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Jim. :)
|
mfp
|
|
response 68 of 219:
|
Dec 31 00:13 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Jim!
|
janc
|
|
response 69 of 219:
|
Dec 31 00:44 UTC 2004 |
I ran a script that updated .login and .profile files, but only if they
were pretty close to the original distributed versions. People who have
modified theirs much will have to fix them themselves.
There are two changes that need to be made to tset commands. First the
path has changed from /usr/ucb/bin to /usr/bin. Second, if you are
using the following syntax
tset -m something -m something $TERM
It should be changed to
tset -m something -m something
That is, delete the '$TERM' thing.
I did this to nearly everyone's .login and .profile files, but my script
was conservative about not modifying things that had already been
modified.
I want to avoid as much as possible putting in symlinks for things like
this. They would have to be there forever, they'd have to be recreated
everytime the system is upgraded. I'd rather have the few people who
the script missed fix things once instead doing it over and over again
for the rest of my life.
It is useless and harmless to have /usr/ucb in your path. I also don't
recommend putting /suidbin in your path. Since that is non-standard, we
always have symlinks to anything you need there.
|
mfp
|
|
response 70 of 219:
|
Dec 31 00:53 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Jan!
|
twenex
|
|
response 71 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:09 UTC 2004 |
Re: #60. That worked a treat, thanks very much.
Hmm. If Linux 2.6 is "unstable", maybe I should try installing OpenBSD and
seeing what "stability" is like (I presume at least one recent version of
their system rates "stable" in their eyes). Personally, I think if WindowsXP
were so "unstable" as to require a one-line change in one config file to work
with an obscure OS's obscure network communication program, Open Source UNIX
wouldn't stand a chance in hell.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 72 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:12 UTC 2004 |
I don't understand that last sentence, twenex. What does a simple config
change have to do with stability?
|
twenex
|
|
response 73 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:24 UTC 2004 |
I don't know, but the OpenBSD folks seem to think it has something to do with
it; see above.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 74 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:29 UTC 2004 |
Uhh, no. The OpenBSD folks think Linux kernel 2.6 is unstable, therefore,
they are not going to put any effort into making OpenBSD work with it.
The change in config to make Linux work with OpenBSD doesn't affect linux's
stability one or another.
|
twenex
|
|
response 75 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:33 UTC 2004 |
Ah; I see. For a minute I thought *they* thought the two were connected.
Anyway, the point still stands that stability (or the lack of it) is in the
eye of the beholder. This Gentoo box is running gentoo-dev-sources, the
development version of the tweaked Gentoo kernel, without problems so far
after four weeks of use (touch wood).
|
mfp
|
|
response 76 of 219:
|
Dec 31 03:36 UTC 2004 |
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/
|
gelinas
|
|
response 77 of 219:
|
Dec 31 21:38 UTC 2004 |
Grex panicked. So I cycled the power.
|
mfp
|
|
response 78 of 219:
|
Jan 1 06:27 UTC 2005 |
THANKS<J OE!
|
twenex
|
|
response 79 of 219:
|
Jan 1 16:55 UTC 2005 |
What was the cause of the panic?
(And they say Linux 2.6 is unstable. Apart from panics that result from
incorrectly specified boot parameters or an incorrectly built new kernel,
I've not seen one in years.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 80 of 219:
|
Jan 2 04:04 UTC 2005 |
I don't know.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 81 of 219:
|
Jan 2 13:42 UTC 2005 |
Please realize that Grex is using OpenBSD. OpenBSD is not intended to be
highly stable, although it tends to be. Nowhere in OpenBSD's stated goals will
you find the word "stable" :). OpenBSD emphasizes "portability,
standardization, correctness, proactive security and integrated cryptography"
(openbsd.org).
|
twenex
|
|
response 82 of 219:
|
Jan 2 14:07 UTC 2005 |
That's as may be, however I find it rather laughable that the OpenBSD people,
(many if not all of whom, to be fair, have bad reputations in the personality
department) whinge about the instability of Linux 2.6 when that just happened
to their favourite system! (In fact the attitude of many BSD people in general
towards all things Linux seems stinky and hypocritical: "You use the GPL! You
can't keep your source code secret even if you want to, neh neh neh neh neh!
(Just don't mention that we use GCC too, ok?)"!) Rather like an article I saw
on Linux Today a few months back, where the author was saying that he liked
Macs, but didn't much like Mac-lovers. Maybe the Apple and BSD cultures are
compatible.
Have I ever mentioned that hypocrisy annoys me?
|
twenex
|
|
response 83 of 219:
|
Jan 2 14:15 UTC 2005 |
"Correctness" to me would imply "stability", among other things. Why write
neat code if it borks?
|
naftee
|
|
response 84 of 219:
|
Jan 2 19:37 UTC 2005 |
Write us some beat code that norks, twenex.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 219:
|
Jan 3 00:25 UTC 2005 |
The file-table filled up, so no more files could be opened. I had to cycle
the power to log on.
|
charcat
|
|
response 86 of 219:
|
Jan 3 02:52 UTC 2005 |
Just now I couldn't use backtalk, I switched to dial up and got in but things
are hanging severly.
|
keesan
|
|
response 87 of 219:
|
Jan 3 04:06 UTC 2005 |
I am dialed in and bbs (picospan) works fine. Charcat I got your mails.
|