my play box problems are solved

my play box problems are solved

[Gregory Nowak]

Hi all.

The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
periods, it's all gone.

Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
flames please.

Greg


-- 
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org

Re: my play box problems are solved

[Alex Snow]

It must be something to do with types of hardware bc I have a box here 
running 2.4.22 and it runs great but I have a box at school also 
running 2.4.22 and it runs like shit. crashes disk probs, etc.
On Thu, 
Nov 13, 2003 at 04:58:39PM -0600, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> periods, it's all gone.
> 
> Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> flames please.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?

2.4.22

[Luke Davis]

Does anyone else hold this opinion (that 2.4.22 is crap)?  I am in the
processof compiling it on a live commercial server, and would like
opinions of this.

Luke
 On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> periods, it's all gone.
>
> Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> flames please.
>
> Greg
>
>
>

Re: 2.4.22

[Kirk Reiser]

Well, it's kinda difficult to say for sure what you mean by crap.
Certainly we've seen that Greg has had problems with it for whatever
reason.  He didn't actually figure out what his problem was so whether
it is a kernel code problem or a configuration problem would depend on
him hunting down the difficulty which he may not bother doing now that
he's got his system working reliably once again.

For my part I have not made any concerted effort to move to 2.4.22 but
I do have three machines out of about a dozen using it with no
difficulties so far.  I would say that 2.6.xx is considerably more
flakey than 2.4.22 at this stage and that's taking into consideration
that there are major configuration differences between the 2.4.xx and
2.6.xx code lines.

So in my opinion 2.4.22 is not particularly scrap.

  Kirk
-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: 2.4.22

[Gregory Nowak]

I think I could exclude the possibility that it's a configuration
problem, since when going back to 2.4.21, I just did a make oldconfig
using my config file from 2.4.22 with no other changes. I am also not
basing my opinion of 2.4.22 on this single machine, since I've tried
installing it on 2 other machines, both of which froze while booting,
and before getting to the login prompt. I remember someone else
reported that same problem on the list a while back, so I know I'm not
the only person who experienced that particular problem.

Greg


On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:16:28AM -0500, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> Well, it's kinda difficult to say for sure what you mean by crap.
> Certainly we've seen that Greg has had problems with it for whatever
> reason.  He didn't actually figure out what his problem was so whether
> it is a kernel code problem or a configuration problem would depend on
> him hunting down the difficulty which he may not bother doing now that
> he's got his system working reliably once again.
> 
> For my part I have not made any concerted effort to move to 2.4.22 but
> I do have three machines out of about a dozen using it with no
> difficulties so far.  I would say that 2.6.xx is considerably more
> flakey than 2.4.22 at this stage and that's taking into consideration
> that there are major configuration differences between the 2.4.xx and
> 2.6.xx code lines.
> 
> So in my opinion 2.4.22 is not particularly scrap.
> 
>   Kirk
> -- 
> 
> Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> phone: (519) 661-3061
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org

Re: 2.4.22

[Kirk Reiser]

You may be absolutely correct I don't know.  Have you sifted through
the linux-kernel archives for reports about other validated failures?
Have you asked for help on the linux-kernel mailing list?  Have you
gone through the configuration process choice by choice to make sure
you've bypassed any problem with configuration changes which are
either not used anymore or moved to places which depend on options you
didn't select?

It is quite possible you found a bug but a bug which isn't identified
isn't useful to anyone.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: 2.4.22

[Janina Sajka]

Not at all.

I have 2.4.22 on all four of my machines -- on my Thinkpad T30 and old
office Pentium 3/350 over the Speakup Modified Fedora Core 1.0, and on
an old Pentium 2/200 and on a DEC Alphastation AS200 both running Debian
Woody. I'm having no problems.

I will say that the art of configuring a successful kernel compilation
has become considerably more complex than it was a year or two ago. It
has taken me multiple attempts to build a kernel that compiles and works
properly. But, I don't blame the kernel for that.

Complexity is the result of numerous features. It is the antithesis of
simplicity for that very reason.

Luke Davis writes:
> From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> 
> Does anyone else hold this opinion (that 2.4.22 is crap)?  I am in the
> processof compiling it on a live commercial server, and would like
> opinions of this.
> 
> Luke
>  On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> 
> > Hi all.
> >
> > The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> > works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> > periods, it's all gone.
> >
> > Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> > out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> > That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> > flames please.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
Janina Sajka
Email: janina@rednote.net		
Phone: (202) 408-8175

Director, Technology Research and Development
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
http://www.afb.org

Chair, Accessibility Work Group
Free Standards Group
http://accessibility.freestandards.org

Re: 2.4.22

[Gregory Nowak]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:55:07AM -0500, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> You may be absolutely correct I don't know.  Have you sifted through
> the linux-kernel archives for reports about other validated failures?

No, since it isn't critical that I run 2.4.22, I don't mind running a
lower version.

> Have you asked for help on the linux-kernel mailing list?  

No, for the same reason as above.

Have you
> gone through the configuration process choice by choice to make sure
> you've bypassed any problem with configuration changes which are
> either not used anymore or moved to places which depend on options you
> didn't select?
> 

Yes.

> It is quite possible you found a bug but a bug which isn't identified
> isn't useful to anyone.
> 

I'll look into reporting it if I find the time.

Greg


>   Kirk
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> phone: (519) 661-3061
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org

Re: 2.4.22

[Ameer Armaly]

I use it regularly, no problems.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:13 AM
Subject: 2.4.22


> Does anyone else hold this opinion (that 2.4.22 is crap)?  I am in the
> processof compiling it on a live commercial server, and would like
> opinions of this.
> 
> Luke
>  On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> 
> > Hi all.
> >
> > The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> > works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> > periods, it's all gone.
> >
> > Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> > out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> > That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> > flames please.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: 2.4.22

[Kenny Hitt]

I've been using it here with no problems.
2GHZ AMD with 512 meg ram 40 gig hd.

          Kenny
	  
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:13:26AM +0000, Luke Davis wrote:
> Does anyone else hold this opinion (that 2.4.22 is crap)?  I am in the
> processof compiling it on a live commercial server, and would like
> opinions of this.
> 
> Luke
>  On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> 
> > Hi all.
> >
> > The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> > works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> > periods, it's all gone.
> >
> > Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> > out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> > That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> > flames please.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: 2.4.22

[Luke Davis]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Kirk Reiser wrote:

> Well, it's kinda difficult to say for sure what you mean by crap.
> Certainly we've seen that Greg has had problems with it for whatever
> reason.  He didn't actually figure out what his problem was so whether
> it is a kernel code problem or a configuration problem would depend on
> him hunting down the difficulty which he may not bother doing now that
> he's got his system working reliably once again.

You have a point.  I was sort of assuming he knew what he was doing, from
a configuration prospective.  The same goes for anyone else that replies
to this, but I suppose that is an assumption I can not make.

Luke

Re: 2.4.22

[Luke Davis]

I've seen similar odd oppses/panics on bootup, and so on, for 2.4.22, on
other lists (debian-laptop, I think ma-linux, and others).
Again, though, I have no way of knowing the skill level of those users.

Luke


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:

> I think I could exclude the possibility that it's a configuration
> problem, since when going back to 2.4.21, I just did a make oldconfig
> using my config file from 2.4.22 with no other changes. I am also not
> basing my opinion of 2.4.22 on this single machine, since I've tried
> installing it on 2 other machines, both of which froze while booting,
> and before getting to the login prompt. I remember someone else
> reported that same problem on the list a while back, so I know I'm not
> the only person who experienced that particular problem.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:16:28AM -0500, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> > Well, it's kinda difficult to say for sure what you mean by crap.
> > Certainly we've seen that Greg has had problems with it for whatever
> > reason.  He didn't actually figure out what his problem was so whether
> > it is a kernel code problem or a configuration problem would depend on
> > him hunting down the difficulty which he may not bother doing now that
> > he's got his system working reliably once again.
> >
> > For my part I have not made any concerted effort to move to 2.4.22 but
> > I do have three machines out of about a dozen using it with no
> > difficulties so far.  I would say that 2.6.xx is considerably more
> > flakey than 2.4.22 at this stage and that's taking into consideration
> > that there are major configuration differences between the 2.4.xx and
> > 2.6.xx code lines.
> >
> > So in my opinion 2.4.22 is not particularly scrap.
> >
> >   Kirk
> > --
> >
> > Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> > e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> > phone: (519) 661-3061
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: 2.4.22

[Joseph C. Lininger]

I've been using it on my server and my desktop for quite a while with
absolutely no problems.
---
Joseph C. Lininger
jbahm@pcdesk.net
>From the "Joe Wonders" department:
If a mnemonic device is supposed to help people remember things, why is it
that no one can spell the word, pronounce the word, or even remember what
the word means?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:13 AM
Subject: 2.4.22


> Does anyone else hold this opinion (that 2.4.22 is crap)?  I am in the
> processof compiling it on a live commercial server, and would like
> opinions of this.
>
> Luke
>  On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > The subject says it all. I went back to linux 2.4.21, and the box
> > works like a charm. No segmentation faults, no inactivity for long
> > periods, it's all gone.
> >
> > Thanks to all who provided suggestions/help, but in the end it turned
> > out that 2.4.22 is a piece of crap.
> > That's my personal opinion, which I have the right to state, so no
> > flames please.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

re: 2.4.22

[Jude DaShiell]

Though I could compile sg.o with an include of modversions.h as an add-on,
I found no source code for sr_mod.o and don't know how to build sr_mod.o
under these circumstances.  I can try another kernel pportide or bear.i
and go with emacspeak if sg.o and sr_mod.o are available.  Otherwise it's
back to slackware 9.0 for sound security reasons.  I prefer to be able to
back my stuff up.