Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350 - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350 - Slackware ; Roger Maynard continues to impersonate Mike McClain: > ... Unlike many, Sylvain is sincerely trying to help people. > Unfortunately, he often does more harm than good. Roger, You frequently jump to (often false) conclusions based on nothing provided by ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350

  1. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350y

    Roger Maynard continues to impersonate Mike McClain:

    > ... Unlike many, Sylvain is sincerely trying to help people.
    > Unfortunately, he often does more harm than good.


    Roger, You frequently jump to (often false) conclusions based on nothing
    provided by an OP, you occasionally provide "advice" based on these
    (often false) conclusions, usually coloured by your somewhat distorted,
    heavily medicated, and very opinionated view of reality, and when others
    don't follow your "advice" you have a tantrum, put them down, and begin
    to impersonate them in your own messages. You're an arrogant, obnoxious,
    stubborn, and usually wrong (though you'll continue to argue that you're
    right) child. Everyone who reads your messages can see that.

    I suggested to an OP that he check out which filesystem he's using, then
    found out it didn't matter anyway because the one he may be using is, in
    fact, already compiled into the kernel. That hardly seems "harmful".

    By the way, you may want to read your ISP's acceptable usage policy and
    adjust your behaviour accordingly. it's available at
    http://www.shoprogers.com/about/lega...ed_AUP_Eng.pdf.
    You're in violation of more than a few points ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350y

    Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

    Do you really think you'll be the one to heal that which shall not be named? Killfile it...move on...

  3. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350y

    Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    > Roger Maynard continues to impersonate Mike McClain:


    What on earth are you talking about? We have changed news readers
    just to accommodate you and your fantasies...

    >> ... Unlike many, Sylvain is sincerely trying to help people.
    >> Unfortunately, he often does more harm than good.


    > Roger, You frequently jump to (often false) conclusions based on nothing
    > provided by an OP, you occasionally provide "advice" based on these
    > (often false) conclusions, usually coloured by your somewhat distorted,
    > heavily medicated, and very opinionated view of reality, and when others


    Heavily medicated?

    > don't follow your "advice" you have a tantrum, put them down, and begin
    > to impersonate them in your own messages.


    We have fun, sometimes. But newbies should understand that
    whenever somebody attempts to help them in a newsgroup it is proper
    to acknowledge their help with a simple thank you, even if that
    thank you is general and addressed to everyone. Mike did not do
    so. So we taught him a lesson and we had a little bit of fun while
    we did it. If you want to accuse us of throwing a "tantrum" then
    perhaps we should boot up in windoze and get the old newsagent out.
    Or we could fire up mixmaster and have some fun with that. But
    since +cibahole+ never posts here anymore, and the pgp trash
    trolling is otherwise at a minimum, we feel no need to throw such
    "tantrums." And we haven't done any of that stuff in years.

    > You're an arrogant, obnoxious, stubborn, and usually wrong
    > (though you'll continue to argue that you're
    > right) child. Everyone who reads your messages can see that.


    And to think we went out of our way to be nice to you personally.
    We restricted our comments to objective criticism of your advice
    and stepped away from the ad hominem. Our purpose was to help the
    OP and with the last two OPs others posted opinions that agreed
    with our advice and disagreed with yours.

    We don't think that you are the same as the trolls we normally
    battle. We believe that you are sincere and your participation is
    based on a love of slackware, as is ours, and not by some misguided
    attempt to impose your ego on others. So we think that your over
    the top characterizations of us are totally uncalled for.

    All we did in this thread is point out that you were wrong when you
    said that the kernel under discussion did not contain the
    reiserfs compiled in. You pointed out that we were wrong because
    we originally looked at the wrong kernel. Fine, so we went and
    looked at the proper kernel to find out the truth, which you could
    have done just as easily, if you knew how. And since your advice
    was wrong, we posted the truth. We also explained to you and
    others a quick and easy way to see what options the kernels
    provided by slackware feature.

    Now what is your problem with this?

    > I suggested to an OP that he check out which filesystem he's using, then
    > found out it didn't matter anyway because the one he may be using is, in
    > fact, already compiled into the kernel. That hardly seems "harmful".


    You had to be informed by others that the reiserfs was included.
    And apparently you didn't know how easy it is to determine whether
    reiserfs is compiled in or you could have told the OP in the first
    place. We made the correct determination and shared our method of
    making that determination. Another poster also pointed out that
    you were wrong and that reiserfs was included. At the time that
    you were corrected by both of us, you had not posted any message
    showing that you understood the truth of the situation.

    You told the OP that it wasn't included and suggested that he would
    have to load a module. This is work. People don't have time to do
    extra work. That being the case, you should have either checked
    for the presence of reiserfs, or held your tongue. As it was, you
    gave the poster wrong information based on your opinion and not on
    reality. We chose reality and not opinion.

    > By the way, you may want to read your ISP's acceptable usage policy and
    > adjust your behaviour accordingly. it's available at
    > http://www.shoprogers.com/about/lega...ed_AUP_Eng.pdf.
    > You're in violation of more than a few points ...


    What points are we in violation of? If you claim that we were
    impersonating anyone then it is clear that you didn't read
    carefully enough. The name that we used to respond to your
    postings has never been used by anyone at anytime in usenet
    history. But you are welcome to "prove" that we impersonated
    someone. And once you do, you would find it more profitable to
    complain to abuse@easynews.com than rogers, since rogers does not
    provide us with usenet.

    And while we are at it, you have libeled us by stating flatly that
    we are "medicated", implying that we are mentally ill. What
    information do you have to support this charge? And where have we
    libeled you such?

    We have taken care not to insult you personally and we recognize
    that you make a positive contribution to this ng. In fact, your
    positive contribution is clearly greater than our own and we do not
    dispute this. You attempted to help us a while ago with our sound
    card problem, and while you didn't solve the problem, your
    interest, along with the interest of others, in our problem
    embarrassed us enough to take our own problem seriously and we
    finally solved it. In other words, without you we probably
    wouldn't have solved the sound problem.

    But this hardly makes you God and it hardly gives you the right to
    take umbrage when you need correcting, and when we do the necessary
    work to ensure that our information is better than yours. It seems
    to us that others can correct you, but that we cannot. Why would
    this be?

    Just because us, and others, point out that you are wrong, there is
    no reason to throw tantrums and libel posters that are just trying
    to provide alternatives to the clumsy and even unworkables
    solutions that you sometimes provide.

    Some people actually enjoy building ships in bottles. You happen
    to be one of them. But please be considerate of others who have
    different opinions about how things should be done.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  4. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350y

    Nexa wanna uttr da:

    >> (often false) conclusions, usually coloured by your somewhat distorted,
    >> heavily medicated, and very opinionated view of reality, and when
    >> others

    >
    > Heavily medicated?


    Well, not always, and that's a part of the problem ;D)


  5. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350

    Jezussss!
    Is this still about Slackware on a Compac ML350 or what?

    jjg,

    1. If your machine has RAID, you have to configure the harddisks
    in that RAID-contaner, using Compaq tools.
    2. You have to tell your BIOS which device (harddisk) it has to
    look for an Operating System first.
    3. If you decide to install on a IDE disk, you need bare.i
    4. If you decide to install on a SCSCI disk you need scsi2.s
    5. While installing you MUST configure your harddisks using 'fdisk'
    make the partition with your '/root' system active by using
    option 'a' of fdisk (toggle a bootable flag).

    I think ...
    Study fdisk & lilo.
    Brows to the Compac site for linux info & prepare yourself for more
    problems concerning building a good kernel

  6. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350y

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:17:20 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

    > But please be considerate of others who have different opinions about
    > how things should be done.


    Har!

    Smeg off, psycho-dimwit.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  7. Re: Slackware on a Compaq Proliaant ML350



    jjg wrote:

    > hello, *
    >
    > I am installing Slackware on a proliant ml 350, and during installation
    > everything seems to work fine. I am using /dev/hdb with hdb1 as
    > root. /dev/hda is the CD-ROM, so I cannot install the boot record on it.
    > Should not be a problem, I guess, I made a boot floppy.
    >
    > However, when I boot from floppy, I get the message "cannot find
    > /dev/hdb1" (or something similar, I am at home right now), and a kernel
    > panic. Same happens when I enter root=/dev/hdb1.
    > When I start a Knoppix live CD, I can find and read all /dev/hdbx devices.
    >
    > Anybody a suggestion?


    Thanks for all suggestions-- I tried quite a few. Well, finally I changed
    the straps to set the disk to master and the CD-ROM to slave, and then I
    got it working. At least it boots from diskette now.

    Not from disk. I tried installing lilo on the MBR and on the (forgot the
    exact wording, but I tried all possibilities except NFS). The funny thing
    is, there is apparently yet another drive in the system; when I try to boot
    from disk, I get a message that NTloader is not present. Well, that
    figures, the machine was stripped before I got it. Moreover, with some
    tools I can really see yet another hard drive, but I cannot determine what
    kind of drive it is... it is not visible from Slackware, nor from Knoppix.
    I guess it might be the big RAID still sitting in the lower part of the
    cabinet... well, although i am quite happy for the moment, I might be
    interested in accessing it later on, so any suggestions are welcome.

    BTW: if you know a Proliant discussion group: yes, please!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2