All I needed was a kernel recompile! - Linux

This is a discussion on All I needed was a kernel recompile! - Linux ; Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64) Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12 install. I wasn't able to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

  1. All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)

    Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."

    http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075

    What a glorious operating system! Linux just *works*. There's nothing
    people like better than to burn hour after hour fixing borked code.

    It'll shove Windows aside in no time...




  2. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    On Oct 23, 8:27 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >
    > Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    > config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    > install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    > attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    > recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."


    First of all, Slackware is most popular among users who have very
    little RAM on their computers. One of the reasons for this is that
    there are different kernels that can be selected which have been
    "skinnied down" and include only the probes and modules needed for
    common configurations, such as IDE with common network cards.

    Other Linux distributions include lots of probes and modules and will
    customize themselves at boot time. When the kernel does need to be
    recompiled, it's often part of a driver installation and can often be
    done in less time than it takes to reboot Windows.

    > http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075
    >
    > What a glorious operating system! Linux just *works*. There's nothing
    > people like better than to burn hour after hour fixing borked code.


    Actually there is. They really love it when Microsoft automatically
    installs a "security fix" that renders their favorite 3rd party
    applications unusable, especially if it's about 2-3 hours before a
    critical deadline.

    They also love it when a virus renders their Windows XP or Vista
    system unbootable because the virus whacked the video driver and
    triggered a drive corrupting race condition.

    They also love being told that they don't have a choice about the 3rd
    most expensive purchase they make.

    They also love being forced to use labor intensive software on a
    system that they have to stare at for 60 hours/week.

    They love having to rewrite a document that disappeared because the
    application crashed or corrupted the only version containing the
    modifications, because they couldn't save revisions in something like
    CVS or Subversion that lets them "Fall Back".

    They love being told "Disk drive full" because some IE web site pumped
    3 gigabytes of "promotional material" into their hard drive overnight.

    They love being told "Out of Memory" - especially when they are making
    a presentation in a conference room full of customers.

    They love having the computer just "freeze" for 60-90 seconds -
    especially while on a conference call in which they are being asked a
    question.

    > It'll shove Windows aside in no time...


    Nah - that would mean there would be no more good excuses for not
    getting things done.

    If my daughter went to class and said "the dog ate my homework" the
    teacher would never believe her, because dogs don't eat homework
    (unless you cover them with hamburger). On the other hand, if she
    says "Windows crashed and wiped out my file", the teacher is very
    likely to believe that, because it's happened to him so many times
    through all the years he has been using Windows.

    On the other hand, if he used Linux, and he knew that my Daughter used
    Linux, he would KNOW that she didn't do her homework, because he's
    been using Linux for years and never lost files due to a spontaneous
    crash.



  3. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!


    "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    news:1193144452.727482.146770@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Oct 23, 8:27 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >>
    >> Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    >> config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    >> install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    >> attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    >> recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."

    >
    > First of all, Slackware is most popular among users who have very
    > little RAM on their computers. One of the reasons for this is that
    > there are different kernels that can be selected which have been
    > "skinnied down" and include only the probes and modules needed for
    > common configurations, such as IDE with common network cards.


    Excuses, excuses and more excuses.

    Typical linux "advocate" - Out of one side of your mouth 'Linux is so easy
    and Windows is so hard'

    Out of the other side of your mouth - 'It's not a big deal for people to
    recompile their kernel on linux because....'

    Yeah right, "normal" people out in the world are going to be recompiling
    their kernel just to get linux to work.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: All I needed was a new computer, new software, new drivers, new peripherals, and a lot of patience -- and it still doesn't work

    DFS wrote:

    [snip bollocks]

    Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    properly.

    Fix: spend a few bucks (~ $1000) on a new computer, with at least 2GB of
    RAM, a 3.8GHz dual-core CPU and a hefty video card. Then take a few days
    off from work to get things up and running.
    After a succesful Vista install, first check your old applications. Lots
    of 'em won't work, so go a-hunting for updates on the manufacturer's Web
    site -- but count on having to spend a few extra bucks ($500 - $?????) for
    updated, "Vista ready" apps. Then check your old peripherals. Chances are,
    one or more of 'em won't work either, so go a-hunting the Internet for
    Vista drivers. Which quite often aren't available, so count on having to
    spend a few bucks on new peripherals.
    With a bit of luck, you're all set, and you can watch beautiful Beryl --
    oops, Aero, calculate the time for copying a file, or warn you that you're
    about to start an application, or fail to burn a CD, to name just a few
    strong points of Vista.
    Now there will always be things that you can't get to work on Vista right
    away, no matter how. But Microsoft tells us not to give up, so hang in
    there. Vista SP1 in in the making, and if you're lucky, it'll fix some of
    your troubles. Be patient, Vista heaven is just around the corner! It's
    just no good to rush things -- and didn't mommy used to tell you that half
    the pleasure is in the anticipation? So don't complain, just wait & pay!

    So what a glorious operating system! With only a small amount of time, extra
    expense and patience, you'll be running the genuine Vista operating system,
    courtesy of Microsoft! It'll Konquer the world by storm!


    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  5. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    DFS wrote:
    > Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >
    > Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    > config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    > install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    > attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    > recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."
    >
    > http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075
    >
    > What a glorious operating system! Linux just *works*. There's nothing
    > people like better than to burn hour after hour fixing borked code.
    >
    > It'll shove Windows aside in no time...
    >
    >
    >

    Don't like to use Linux?
    Using Linux is too hard for you?

    Don't use ti.

  6. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Rick belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > DFS wrote:
    >> Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >>
    >> Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    >> config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    >> install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    >> attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    >> recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."
    >>
    >> http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075
    >>
    >> What a glorious operating system! Linux just *works*. There's nothing
    >> people like better than to burn hour after hour fixing borked code.
    >>
    >> It'll shove Windows aside in no time...
    >>

    > Don't like to use Linux?
    > Using Linux is too hard for you?
    >
    > Don't use ti.


    Only DFS would think that finding a minor goof-up in 64-bit Slackware
    would be any deterrent to the average newbie looking at Linux.

    We should call him "Hollywood". Like that fine institution in its
    movie-making, he is scraping the bottom of the barrel in his FUD.

    Maybe we should start using 64-bit Windows problems as anti-Windows FUD.



    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    Linonut wrote:

    < snip >

    > Maybe we should start using 64-bit Windows problems as anti-Windows FUD.
    >


    Except it would not be "FUD". It is all true.

    Win64 is garbage. It has all of the problems of Win32, and then add to that
    that it has very few drivers, very little software for it, *lots* of
    compatibility problems, and, to top it off, it runs even slower than the
    32bit version.

    Yeah, MS really made a shining example there. An example of "how not to do
    OS development"
    --
    Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
    dumb to handle the real thing


  8. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter K÷hlmann

    wrote
    on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:14:45 +0200
    :
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> Maybe we should start using 64-bit Windows problems as anti-Windows FUD.
    >>

    >
    > Except it would not be "FUD". It is all true.
    >
    > Win64 is garbage. It has all of the problems of Win32, and then add to that
    > that it has very few drivers, very little software for it, *lots* of
    > compatibility problems, and, to top it off, it runs even slower than the
    > 32bit version.
    >
    > Yeah, MS really made a shining example there. An example of "how not to do
    > OS development"



    Part of the issue is simply that Windows went the
    DWORD (int32) route, whereas Linux and Unix use 'int'
    and 'long'. Both are flawed (in Linux's case, mostly
    because of artifacts such as 'long long' and 'loff_t'; C
    never was that good about giving us an integer size that
    was guaranteed the same size as a 'void *' or 'char *')
    but Windows has far more problems in that area for some
    idiotic reason, probably relating to pointers in messages.

    Of course passing pointers about in messages is not that
    great of an idea anyway; one of the advantages of the X
    Windows System's protocol is that there are no pointers.
    Lots of abstract IDs, yes, but no pointers.

    Chalk one up for careful design, as opposed to Windows'
    messaging crap.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: All I needed was a new computer, new software, new drivers, new peripherals, and a lot of patience -- and it still doesn't work

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Rasker

    wrote
    on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:58:19 +0200
    :
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    > [snip bollocks]
    >
    > Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    > properly.


    Pedant Point: the actual price point depends on the edition.

    http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/rob...-Revealed.aspx

    Not that it matters that much; if one buys Ultimate Edition
    and puts it on a $400 machine, one is probably going to
    have issues.

    (Note the angry diatribe regarding volume licening
    discounts -- or the lack thereof.)

    >
    > Fix: spend a few bucks (~ $1000) on a new computer, with
    > at least 2GB of RAM, a 3.8GHz dual-core CPU and a hefty
    > video card. Then take a few days off from work to get
    > things up and running.


    Why? Vista's preinstalled. :-) Of course one will
    probably still have to take a few days off to get
    the bugs out (some of them malware, some of them
    just installation sloppiness).

    > After a succesful Vista install, first check


    Chuck? ;-)

    > your old applications. Lots of 'em won't work, so go
    > a-hunting for updates on the manufacturer's Web site -- but
    > count on having to spend a few extra bucks ($500 - $?????)
    > for updated, "Vista ready" apps. Then check your old
    > peripherals. Chances are, one or more of 'em won't work
    > either, so go a-hunting the Internet for Vista drivers.


    Good luck if one of the requisite drivers is the network
    interface card. (Does Vista still support dialup??)

    > Which quite often aren't available, so count on having to
    > spend a few bucks on new peripherals. With a bit of luck,
    > you're all set, and you can watch beautiful Beryl --
    > oops, Aero, calculate the time for copying a file,


    Does it even calculate it correctly??

    > or warn you that you're about to start an application, or
    > fail to burn a CD, to name just a few strong points of Vista.
    > Now there will always be things that you can't get to work
    > on Vista right away, no matter how. But Microsoft tells us
    > not to give up, so hang in there. Vista SP1 in in the making,
    > and if you're lucky, it'll fix some of your troubles. Be patient,
    > Vista heaven is just around the corner!


    Microsoft's always been good at vaporware, hasn't it? :-)

    > It's just no good to rush things -- and didn't mommy used to
    > tell you that half the pleasure is in the anticipation? So don't
    > complain, just wait & pay!
    >
    > So what a glorious operating system! With only a small amount
    > of time, extra expense and patience, you'll be running the
    > genuine Vista operating system, courtesy of Microsoft!
    > It'll Konquer the world by storm!


    Meanwhile, KDE continues to work seamlessly on Linux systems.

    >
    > Richard Rasker


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  10. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    DFS wrote:
    > Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >
    > Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    > config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    > install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    > attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    > recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."
    >
    > http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075
    >
    > What a glorious operating system! Linux just *works*. There's nothing
    > people like better than to burn hour after hour fixing borked code.
    >


    Imagine what you would have to do if that was a problem with windows... sit
    around and wait for them to fix it... Hmmm... I wonder how many months that
    would take? And the really entertaining thing is... You managed to fix your
    own linux issue... What a hoot! and you complain about it... HAhahahha...

    Whiner....


    --


    Jerry McBride

  11. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >

    Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)

    Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the kernel
    config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my Slackware 12
    install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was brought to my
    attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it on a kernel
    recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the problem."

    http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075



    > Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    > properly.


    You were had: $112
    http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wind...3152685&sr=8-1



    > Fix: spend a few bucks (~ $1000) on a new computer, with at least 2GB
    > of RAM, a 3.8GHz dual-core CPU and a hefty video card.


    Seems when buying a Windows box you get stupid, but when buying a Linux box
    you get cheap. You should find a middle ground.

    Vista Ultimate will run fine on a $400 computer like mine: 1gb RAM, 2ghz
    CPU, ATI 9600 video card ($50). I know because I installed it and it was
    quite snappy.



    > Then take a few days off from work to get things up and running.


    Or spend 45 minutes to install (on a slow machine - 15 minutes on a fast
    system). A couple hours more to install MS Office, some Adobe software,
    Firefox, SQL Server Dev Edition, Oracle dev edition, Visual Studio, some
    good games, etc. After that there's no good reason to look at Linux -
    unless you like to tinker and waste time looking at the output of top.



    > After a succesful Vista install, first check your old applications.
    > Lots
    > of 'em won't work, so go a-hunting for updates on the manufacturer's
    > Web site -- but count on having to spend a few extra bucks ($500 -
    > $?????) for updated, "Vista ready" apps.


    This is somewhat true. And it's definitely holding Vista back.



    > Then check your old
    > peripherals. Chances are, one or more of 'em won't work either, so go
    > a-hunting the Internet for Vista drivers. Which quite often aren't
    > available, so count on having to spend a few bucks on new peripherals.


    Hard to say - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



    > With a bit of luck, you're all set, and you can watch beautiful Beryl
    > -- oops, Aero, calculate the time for copying a file, or warn you
    > that you're about to start an application, or fail to burn a CD, to
    > name just a few strong points of Vista.


    It has dozens of strong points.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature..._Windows_Vista



    > Now there will always be things that you can't get to work on Vista
    > right away, no matter how. But Microsoft tells us not to give up, so
    > hang in there. Vista SP1 in in the making, and if you're lucky, it'll
    > fix some of your troubles. Be patient, Vista heaven is just around
    > the corner!


    That's what Linux has been saying for 10 years...



    > It's just no good to rush things -- and didn't mommy used
    > to tell you that half the pleasure is in the anticipation? So don't
    > complain, just wait & pay!


    You've been waiting for years for a decent desktop experience w/ Linux, and
    it barely delivers, even today, 16 years after it was introduced.



    > So what a glorious operating system! With only a small amount of
    > time, extra expense and patience, you'll be running the genuine Vista
    > operating system, courtesy of Microsoft!


    Tens of millions already are. It took Vista about 6 months - bad reviews
    and all - to far exceed the number of Linux users.



    > It'll Konquer the world by storm!


    For better or worse, you're right.





  12. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:21:06 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>

    > Problem: 100% memory and CPU usage when running 64-bit Linux (slamd64)
    >
    > Fix: "Apparently my chipset's IDE DMA module wasn't enabled in the
    > kernel config, which I found out after randomly fussing with my
    > Slackware 12 install. I wasn't able to set DMA on my drive, which was
    > brought to my attention by fsck running, of all things. So I enabled it
    > on a kernel recompile for 2.6.22.1 and, sure enough, that was the
    > problem."
    >
    > http://forums.slamd64.com/viewtopic.php?t=1075
    >
    >
    >
    >> Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    >> properly.

    >
    > You were had: $112
    > http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wind...t-Builders/dp/

    B000MFDJ1A/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-5760994-6989260?
    ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1193152685&sr=8-1
    >


    Hey, great link! I especially like the section "Tags customers associate
    with this product".

    Some sample tags:

    defectivebydesign
    drm
    badvista

    ....

    You're right, somebody's been had.


    >
    >
    >> Fix: spend a few bucks (~ $1000) on a new computer, with at least 2GB
    >> of RAM, a 3.8GHz dual-core CPU and a hefty video card.

    >
    > Seems when buying a Windows box you get stupid, but when buying a Linux
    > box you get cheap. You should find a middle ground.
    >
    > Vista Ultimate will run fine on a $400 computer like mine: 1gb RAM, 2ghz
    > CPU, ATI 9600 video card ($50). I know because I installed it and it
    > was quite snappy.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Then take a few days off from work to get things up and running.

    >
    > Or spend 45 minutes to install (on a slow machine - 15 minutes on a fast
    > system). A couple hours more to install MS Office, some Adobe software,
    > Firefox, SQL Server Dev Edition, Oracle dev edition, Visual Studio, some
    > good games, etc. After that there's no good reason to look at Linux -
    > unless you like to tinker and waste time looking at the output of top.
    >
    >
    >
    >> After a succesful Vista install, first check your old applications.
    >> Lots
    >> of 'em won't work, so go a-hunting for updates on the manufacturer's
    >> Web site -- but count on having to spend a few extra bucks ($500 -
    >> $?????) for updated, "Vista ready" apps.

    >
    > This is somewhat true. And it's definitely holding Vista back.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Then check your old
    >> peripherals. Chances are, one or more of 'em won't work either, so go
    >> a-hunting the Internet for Vista drivers. Which quite often aren't
    >> available, so count on having to spend a few bucks on new peripherals.

    >
    > Hard to say - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
    >
    >
    >
    >> With a bit of luck, you're all set, and you can watch beautiful Beryl
    >> -- oops, Aero, calculate the time for copying a file, or warn you that
    >> you're about to start an application, or fail to burn a CD, to name
    >> just a few strong points of Vista.

    >
    > It has dozens of strong points.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature..._Windows_Vista
    >
    >
    >
    >> Now there will always be things that you can't get to work on Vista
    >> right away, no matter how. But Microsoft tells us not to give up, so
    >> hang in there. Vista SP1 in in the making, and if you're lucky, it'll
    >> fix some of your troubles. Be patient, Vista heaven is just around the
    >> corner!

    >
    > That's what Linux has been saying for 10 years...
    >
    >
    >
    >> It's just no good to rush things -- and didn't mommy used to tell you
    >> that half the pleasure is in the anticipation? So don't complain, just
    >> wait & pay!

    >
    > You've been waiting for years for a decent desktop experience w/ Linux,
    > and it barely delivers, even today, 16 years after it was introduced.
    >
    >
    >
    >> So what a glorious operating system! With only a small amount of time,
    >> extra expense and patience, you'll be running the genuine Vista
    >> operating system, courtesy of Microsoft!

    >
    > Tens of millions already are. It took Vista about 6 months - bad
    > reviews and all - to far exceed the number of Linux users.
    >
    >
    >
    >> It'll Konquer the world by storm!

    >
    > For better or worse, you're right.






    --
    ´╗┐This message is brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department.

  13. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    skydweller wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:21:06 -0400, DFS wrote:


    >> You were had: $112
    >> http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wind...t-Builders/dp/

    > B000MFDJ1A/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-5760994-6989260?
    > ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1193152685&sr=8-1
    >>

    >
    > Hey, great link! I especially like the section "Tags customers
    > associate with this product".
    >
    > Some sample tags:
    >
    > defectivebydesign
    > drm
    > badvista



    None of the 18 tags for Ubuntu 7.04 are negative

    http://www.amazon.com/Canonical-7-04...3194276&sr=1-1

    indicating Linux lusers are spiteful children in adult bodies.

    Like you.




  14. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    [H]omer wrote:

    > First of all, DooFy is an idiot.




    > Secondly, he goes to an extraordinary effort


    No effort whatsoever. They're all over the place. That's what happens when
    a worldwide "community" of unpaid, irresponsible hackers develops software.



    > to find these obscure
    > problems that affect a tiny percentage of people using a relatively
    > obscure GNU/Linux distro, then declares it as some kind of Coup de
    > Grâce that destroys the reputation of /everything/ connected with
    > GNU/Linux.


    You really don't have much faith in the quality of Linux.




    > Whereas all he's /really/ proved is that:
    >
    > a) ... Yes, GNU/Linux like /all/ software has bugs


    How can that be? According to cola "advocates" Linux is perfect.



    > b) ... Serious GNU/Linux bugs are rarer than serious Windows bugs


    This isn't even a bug, lamer. This is a kernel config issue which
    highlights the difficulties and pitfalls of Linux as a consumer-oriented OS.



    > c) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux bugs nearly always have clear
    > solutions


    Clear to who? To tech-heads maybe. But the general population would NEVER
    figure out this problem, nor would they recompile their kernel.



    d) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux code can usually be fixed
    > by the user


    It's the exceedingly rare user who can find and fix an issue like this one.



    > Another self-nuke from COLA's resident fungus-brain.


    Another petulant "advocate" flies into a rage 'cause he can't handle
    criticism of Linux. You weenies can dish it out, but you can't take it.



  15. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    DFS :
    > [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> First of all, DooFy is an idiot.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Secondly, he goes to an extraordinary effort

    >
    > No effort whatsoever. They're all over the place. That's what happens when
    > a worldwide "community" of unpaid, irresponsible hackers develops software.


    All software has flaws and it seems like the advocates are the first to
    admit that.

    >> to find these obscure
    >> problems that affect a tiny percentage of people using a relatively
    >> obscure GNU/Linux distro, then declares it as some kind of Coup de
    >> Grâce that destroys the reputation of /everything/ connected with
    >> GNU/Linux.

    >
    > You really don't have much faith in the quality of Linux.


    Many of us do, including [H]omer, from what I've read.

    >> Whereas all he's /really/ proved is that:
    >>
    >> a) ... Yes, GNU/Linux like /all/ software has bugs

    >
    > How can that be? According to cola "advocates" Linux is perfect.


    The advocates (as stated above) are the first in liine when it comes to
    saying "all software has flaws". We also (as stated above) have great
    faith in the OSS philosophy to produce excellent software

    >> b) ... Serious GNU/Linux bugs are rarer than serious Windows bugs

    >
    > This isn't even a bug, lamer. This is a kernel config issue which
    > highlights the difficulties and pitfalls of Linux as a consumer-oriented OS.


    Which (as stated above) is a rare issue affect a very mall portion of
    the GNU/Linux population.

    >> c) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux bugs nearly always have clear
    >> solutions

    >
    > Clear to who? To tech-heads maybe. But the general population would NEVER
    > figure out this problem, nor would they recompile their kernel.


    That's why tech heads get paid, to figure out these problems. It doesn't
    matter what software the end user is using. That isn't a GNU/Linux
    problem, it's a societal function of the tech.

    > d) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux code can usually be fixed
    >> by the user

    >
    > It's the exceedingly rare user who can find and fix an issue like this one.


    Yes, we call them tech heads.

    >> Another self-nuke from COLA's resident fungus-brain.

    >
    > Another petulant "advocate" flies into a rage 'cause he can't handle
    > criticism of Linux. You weenies can dish it out, but you can't take it.


    --
    NANCY!! Why is everything RED?!

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  16. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Handover Phist belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > DFS :
    >>
    >> No effort whatsoever. They're all over the place. That's what happens when
    >> a worldwide "community" of unpaid, irresponsible hackers develops software.

    >
    > All software has flaws and it seems like the advocates are the first to
    > admit that.


    Hell, these "irresponsible hackers" include BUGS in their man pages and
    changelogs, they host Bugzilla sites, and they argue endlessly in
    mailing lists about bugs and features.

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    Handover Phist espoused:
    > DFS :
    >> [H]omer wrote:
    >>
    >>> First of all, DooFy is an idiot.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Secondly, he goes to an extraordinary effort

    >>
    >> No effort whatsoever. They're all over the place. That's what happens when
    >> a worldwide "community" of unpaid, irresponsible hackers develops software.

    >
    > All software has flaws and it seems like the advocates are the first to
    > admit that.


    Responsible action is unrelated to the professional status of
    individuals. Amateurs going to jail for corruption are almost unheard
    of, whereas there is a constant stream of corrupt paid people doing
    time. Is Bernie Ebbers out yet?

    The EU found Microsoft guilty of monopoly law violation, but even then,
    they fought it off for years.

    >
    >>> to find these obscure
    >>> problems that affect a tiny percentage of people using a relatively
    >>> obscure GNU/Linux distro, then declares it as some kind of Coup de
    >>> Grâce that destroys the reputation of /everything/ connected with
    >>> GNU/Linux.

    >>
    >> You really don't have much faith in the quality of Linux.

    >
    > Many of us do, including [H]omer, from what I've read.


    Google certainly do, they have something like a million servers running
    linux holding up the world's most popular search engine.

    >
    >>> Whereas all he's /really/ proved is that:
    >>>
    >>> a) ... Yes, GNU/Linux like /all/ software has bugs

    >>
    >> How can that be? According to cola "advocates" Linux is perfect.

    >
    > The advocates (as stated above) are the first in liine when it comes to
    > saying "all software has flaws". We also (as stated above) have great
    > faith in the OSS philosophy to produce excellent software


    Because it finds the problems, *admits* to them, and fixes them. The
    companies which hide the problems are the ones to worry about.

    >
    >>> b) ... Serious GNU/Linux bugs are rarer than serious Windows bugs

    >>
    >> This isn't even a bug, lamer. This is a kernel config issue which
    >> highlights the difficulties and pitfalls of Linux as a consumer-oriented OS.

    >
    > Which (as stated above) is a rare issue affect a very mall portion of
    > the GNU/Linux population.


    And is work-aroundable.

    >
    >>> c) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux bugs nearly always have clear
    >>> solutions

    >>
    >> Clear to who? To tech-heads maybe. But the general population would NEVER
    >> figure out this problem, nor would they recompile their kernel.

    >
    > That's why tech heads get paid, to figure out these problems. It doesn't
    > matter what software the end user is using. That isn't a GNU/Linux
    > problem, it's a societal function of the tech.


    The general population wouldn't have been installing slackware on a new
    board, either. The example is completely specious.

    >
    >> d) ... Unlike Windows, GNU/Linux code can usually be fixed
    >>> by the user

    >>
    >> It's the exceedingly rare user who can find and fix an issue like this one.

    >
    > Yes, we call them tech heads.


    It's an even more rare user who would be trying to install slack in the
    first place, unless they were technically competent.

    >
    >>> Another self-nuke from COLA's resident fungus-brain.

    >>
    >> Another petulant "advocate" flies into a rage 'cause he can't handle
    >> criticism of Linux. You weenies can dish it out, but you can't take it.

    >


    Que?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  18. Re: All I needed was a new computer, new software, new drivers, new peripherals, and a lot of patience -- and it still doesn't work

    Richard Rasker espoused:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    > [snip bollocks]
    >
    > Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    > properly.
    >
    > Fix: spend a few bucks (~ $1000) on a new computer, with at least 2GB of
    > RAM, a 3.8GHz dual-core CPU and a hefty video card. Then take a few days
    > off from work to get things up and running.
    > After a succesful Vista install, first check your old applications. Lots
    > of 'em won't work, so go a-hunting for updates on the manufacturer's Web
    > site -- but count on having to spend a few extra bucks ($500 - $?????) for
    > updated, "Vista ready" apps. Then check your old peripherals. Chances are,
    > one or more of 'em won't work either, so go a-hunting the Internet for
    > Vista drivers. Which quite often aren't available, so count on having to
    > spend a few bucks on new peripherals.
    > With a bit of luck, you're all set, and you can watch beautiful Beryl --
    > oops, Aero, calculate the time for copying a file, or warn you that you're
    > about to start an application, or fail to burn a CD, to name just a few
    > strong points of Vista.
    > Now there will always be things that you can't get to work on Vista right
    > away, no matter how. But Microsoft tells us not to give up, so hang in
    > there. Vista SP1 in in the making, and if you're lucky, it'll fix some of
    > your troubles. Be patient, Vista heaven is just around the corner! It's
    > just no good to rush things -- and didn't mommy used to tell you that half
    > the pleasure is in the anticipation? So don't complain, just wait & pay!
    >
    > So what a glorious operating system! With only a small amount of time, extra
    > expense and patience, you'll be running the genuine Vista operating system,
    > courtesy of Microsoft! It'll Konquer the world by storm!
    >


    You can sum it up easily, though. All you need to do in order to
    upgrade windows is to:

    1) Replace all the hardware
    2) Replace all the software

    .... and you're done.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  19. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    skydweller wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:21:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>> DFS wrote:
    >>>


    >>
    >>> Problem: a spanking brand new $300 OS by the name of Vista won't run
    >>> properly.

    >> You were had: $112
    >> http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wind...t-Builders/dp/

    > B000MFDJ1A/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-5760994-6989260?
    > ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1193152685&sr=8-1
    >
    > Hey, great link! I especially like the section "Tags customers associate
    > with this product".
    >
    > Some sample tags:
    >
    > defectivebydesign
    > drm
    > badvista
    >
    > ...


    OUCH!!! Did you notice how the list was just overwhelmingly DOMINATED by
    negative tags?


    Negative:
    defectivebydesign (34)
    badvista (5)
    defective (4)
    abusive eula (3)
    downgrade (3)
    vista home premium (3)
    drm infected (2)
    expensive (1)
    poor driver support (1)
    treacherous computing (1)

    Positive:
    great product (1)
    ignore the haters (1)


    "Ignore the haters?" WTF?!?!

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: All I needed was a kernel recompile!

    [H]omer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Nick Ballard spake thusly:
    >
    >> OUCH!!! Did you notice how the list was just overwhelmingly DOMINATED by
    >> negative tags?
    >>
    >>
    >> Negative:
    >> defectivebydesign (34)
    >> badvista (5)
    >> defective (4)
    >> abusive eula (3)
    >> downgrade (3)
    >> vista home premium (3)
    >> drm infected (2)
    >> expensive (1)
    >> poor driver support (1)
    >> treacherous computing (1)
    >>
    >> Positive:
    >> great product (1)
    >> ignore the haters (1)
    >>
    >>
    >> "Ignore the haters?" WTF?!?!

    >
    > In the fight of Good Vs Evil, those who oppose evil are naturally
    > perceived as "wrong" by those who embrace it.
    >


    Yeah - where's Kier when you need him!

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast