Re: [aanounce] kernel rpms round 3
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 12:02:07PM +0200, Michael Stolovitzsky wrote: > On Saturday 30 November 2002 08:41, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:36:20PM +, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > > > Hello linuxers > > > > > > I have uploaded to iglu, my third round of kernel rpms. Tease are 2.4.19 > > > kernel rpms patched with lowlatency patch, preemtible kernel and > > > supermount. > > > > I'm curious, what kind of testing are you giving these kernels? > > Given the reputation of .19 and especially lowlatency and preempt on it, I > doubt any kind of testing would help it. E... what reputation would that be? care to point at some bug reports? Note that while I have no idea what Diego's kernel rpms contain, calling them "2.4.19" does injustice to the real 2.4.19. So which kernel is giving you headaches? > .19 gives me a variety of headaches, ranging from hanging up IPv6 module to > broken frame diverter, ppp drivers failing to initialize, arts and kdeinit > leaking like hell and such. arts and kdeinit have nothing to do with the kernel. which IPv6 module is hanging up? what is a frame diverter? which ppp drivers are failing to initialize? Did you report all of those problems to the proper place? (which would depend on which kernel exactly you're running). > I would -especially- NOT install it from RPMs, needless to say patched up. > Then again, The Light Of Debian relieves me from this unhappy deed. What have you got against RPMized kernels? Please, be specific. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sctrace strace /bin/foo http://syscalltrack.sf.net/ Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [aanounce] kernel rpms round 3
áùáú, 30 áðåáîáø 2002, 10:21, Muli Ben-Yehuda ëúá: > Note that while I have no idea what Diego's kernel rpms contain, > calling them "2.4.19" does injustice to the real 2.4.19. So which > kernel is giving you headaches? I have explained exactly what they have. I will put the sources and the spec in iglu soon, I just need tofix them and make them more bewtuifull. Maybe I should upload a 2.4.20 as well? > Did you report all of those problems to the proper place? (which would > depend on which kernel exactly you're running). > > > I would -especially- NOT install it from RPMs, needless to say patched > > up. Then again, The Light Of Debian relieves me from this unhappy deed. > > What have you got against RPMized kernels? how aobut he is a debian man? good point there - diego To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hebrew locale in mandrake 9.0 (solution)
áùáú, 30 áðåáîáø 2002, 01:17, Ilya Konstantinov ëúá: > On Saturday 30 November 2002 01:03, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Anyone has succeed in writing hebrew in xchat (or any other program that > > inputs 8bit hebrew) in mandrake 9.0? The locales are installed and > > supported by the system but I get: > > > > Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting string to compound text. > > This might mean that your locale setting is supported > > by the C library but not by Xlib. > > It means just what it says -- Xlib doesn't support that locale. > Would be useful if you'd give us the output of "locale" and "locale > charmap". > > One thing I'd check is that your locale either appears in > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/locale.dir or > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/locale.alias. [root@localhost test]# cat /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/locale.dir| grep he # The first word is the locale database file name and # the second word is full locale name. iso8859-8/XLC_LOCALEhe_IL.ISO8859-8 microsoft-cp1255/XLC_LOCALE he_IL.CP1255 # Note: The UTF-8 locales don't work correctly yet. Work in progress. en_US.UTF-8/XLC_LOCALE he_IL.UTF-8 # The first word is the locale database file name and # the second word is full locale name. iso8859-8/XLC_LOCALE: he_IL.ISO8859-8 microsoft-cp1255/XLC_LOCALE:he_IL.CP1255 # Note: The UTF-8 locales don't work correctly yet. Work in progress. en_US.UTF-8/XLC_LOCALE: he_IL.UTF-8 [root@localhost test]# cat /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/locale.alias| grep he # The first word is the alias name (simplified locale name) # the second word is full locale name. # cz is old name for cs, should be deleted in the future: he he_IL.UTF-8 he_IL he_IL.UTF-8 he_IL.ISO-8859-8he_IL.ISO8859-8 he_IL.cp1255he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.microsoftcp1255 he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.microsoft-cp1255 he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.MICROSOFT-CP1255 he_IL.CP1255 # in was the old iso code for indonesian (now id): # iw was the old iso code for hebrew (now he) iw he_IL.ISO8859-8 iw_IL he_IL.ISO8859-8 iw_IL.ISO-8859-8he_IL.ISO8859-8 # The first word is the alias name (simplified locale name) # the second word is full locale name. # cz is old name for cs, should be deleted in the future: he: he_IL.UTF-8 he_IL: he_IL.UTF-8 he_IL.ISO-8859-8: he_IL.ISO8859-8 he_IL.cp1255: he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.microsoftcp1255: he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.microsoft-cp1255: he_IL.CP1255 he_IL.MICROSOFT-CP1255: he_IL.CP1255 # in was the old iso code for indonesian (now id): # iw was the old iso code for hebrew (now he) iw: he_IL.ISO8859-8 iw_IL: he_IL.ISO8859-8 iw_IL.ISO-8859-8: he_IL.ISO8859-8 [test@localhost test]$ locale LANG=en_US LC_CTYPE="he_IL" LC_NUMERIC="he_IL" LC_TIME="he_IL" LC_COLLATE="he_IL" LC_MONETARY="he_IL" LC_MESSAGES="he_IL" LC_PAPER="he_IL" LC_NAME="he_IL" LC_ADDRESS="he_IL" LC_TELEPHONE="he_IL" LC_MEASUREMENT="he_IL" LC_IDENTIFICATION="he_IL" LC_ALL=he_IL I run xchat (1.8.9) in the latter configuration, and I was not able to write hebrew. Selecting hebrew and pasting it worked. [test@localhost test]$ locale LANG=en_US LC_CTYPE="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_NUMERIC="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_TIME="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_COLLATE="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_MONETARY="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_MESSAGES="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_PAPER="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_NAME="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_ADDRESS="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_TELEPHONE="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_MEASUREMENT="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_IDENTIFICATION="he_IL.ISO8859-8" LC_ALL=he_IL.ISO8859-8 now all works. Well apparebtly mandrake are hearing you Ilia, and fucking arround with stuff that they should not. In mdk9.0 he_IL == he_IL..utf8, but that's written above already... solution: set the locale to iw_IL, or dump mandrake to gentoo (sounds better every day...) - diego To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
units - was [OT] Story: The case of the 500-mile email
On 29-Nov-2002 David Bergman wrote: > Here's a problem that *sounded* impossible ... I almost regret posting > the story to a wide audience, because it makes a great tale over drinks > Feeling slightly giddy, I typed into my shell: > > $ units > 1311 units, 63 prefixes > > You have: 3 millilightseconds > You want: miles > * 558.84719 > / 0.0017893979 > > "500 miles, or a little bit more." > The story was pretty good (although a bit long), but I'm mainly writing to point out the last few lines to anyone who didn't have the patience to read to the end. I, for one didn't know about the ** units ** program. I played with it for a while and it's really great. Of course, for further details try man units - FYI //- Shlomo Solomon E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://come.to/shlomo.solomon Date: 30-Nov-2002 Time: 18:51:42 Message sent by XFMail on a LINUX Mandrake 8.1 machine //- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Mozilla
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, guy keren wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Alexander Maryanovsky wrote: > > > > > When do you know you're talking to an open source supporter? > > > When he's looking for alternatives to *Mozilla* :-) > > > > the fact that something is open-source, doesn't have to mean its a > > resource hog. and mozilla is a great resource hog, and so is KDE. and > > unlike various movie playing software - they don't _have_ to be such > > resource hogs. just that nobody cares enough to make them less 'hoggish'. > > > > I beg to differ. Mozilla has to support a lot of things: all the HTML > versions (2.0, 3.2, 4.0, 4.01, XHTML ), broken HTML, CSS, images, the XUL > portable GUI library, java and Flash applets, JavaScript, many protocols > (all versions of HTTP, FTP, gopher, etc), XML and XSL and the other W3C > inventions, and possibly other things I forgot. It needs to be bloated if > it wishes to support all of those things, and with the advancement of W3C > standards, the situation is only getting worse. when i say something is bloated, i mean it takes too many resources. as you quite well know, two programs doing the same things can use different ammounts of resources. in fact, the same program can do the same thing in two manners - one optimized and one not. the problem with bloatware is not the fact they try to do too much - but rather that they don't give a time to make sure they don't waste resources. i'll call upon your own pet to show that - you modified your algorithms and data structures several times, not to gain new funcitonality, but rather to make it run faster. you did it because you cared about its resource use (a CPU is a resource, too). the kde folks went over board with things, without caring if it runs on older hardware - hence, the bloat. when you have a new PC that runs very fast, you can loose awareness to how bloated your code is. i just bought a new computer a week ago, and suddenly things run fat, that i don't feel the bloat on every spot - suddenly netscape 6 launches quickly. suddenly galeon does not slag behind. so you see - if i was developing on this new PC, it would hardly run on older hardware, cause i wouldn't _feel_ the bloat. only if i care about it, or try it on older hardware, will i notice this bloat properly, and be reminded to keep my code optimized. -- guy "For world domination - press 1, or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Mozilla
> >when i say something is bloated, i mean it takes too many resources. as >you quite well know, two programs doing the same things can use different >ammounts of resources. in fact, the same program can do the same thing in >two manners - one optimized and one not. > And what would you say were the minimum system requirements for Mozilla to run with (not too sluggish) ??? I can tell you exactly how the computers in the CC at TAU are behaving with IE (the computers in the basement). The are all P2's I think, and most of them act sluggish as well with IE, so I wouldn't just come to Mozilla with complaints. Eli "There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones.." - Dire Straits - "Brothers in Arms" = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Mozilla
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, voguemaster wrote: > >when i say something is bloated, i mean it takes too many resources. as > >you quite well know, two programs doing the same things can use different > >ammounts of resources. in fact, the same program can do the same thing in > >two manners - one optimized and one not. > > And what would you say were the minimum system requirements for Mozilla > to run with (not too sluggish) ??? i don't know what are the minimum requirements, as i didn't run it on computers other then those that i have. on a 366Mhz AMD k6-2 it was much too slow. from what i understood from people's posts to this list, if you have a 600Mhz p-III, mozilla still doesn't run very fast - but at least its useable. > I can tell you exactly how the computers in the CC at TAU are behaving > with IE (the computers in the basement). > The are all P2's I think, and most of them act sluggish as well with IE, so > I wouldn't just come to Mozilla with complaints. there you go. the fact that IE runs slow on some hardware, does not mean that every other browser has to run as slow. if we looked up to misrosoft for comparing stuff, linux would have crashed every few days and we'd be filling fine. is that the kind of standard you're looking for? the fact that other browsers do manage to run much better then mozilla on a given hardware, suggest that mozilla contains bloat that it does not necessarily have to carry. this is bloat demonstrated in its purest form. when mozilla runs as fast as opera (for example), i won't say it has bloat. and don't sell me the argument that 'mozilla does much more'. when i view a given web site, the other features of mozilla do not 'run', so they should not slow it down. it runs slower, because it wasn't designed and implemented as good as opera was. plus, often you can add more functionality without paying anything in speed - if you do it right. if this was not the case, there would have been no meaning to the word 'optimization'. -- guy "For world domination - press 1, or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: units - was [OT] Story: The case of the 500-mile email
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED], from the post of Sat, 30 Nov: > On 29-Nov-2002 David Bergman wrote: > > Here's a problem that *sounded* impossible ... I almost regret posting > > the story to a wide audience, because it makes a great tale over drinks > > indeed, you could have sent a link instead of the full text. there are several points in this story that make it unbelievable in my book. first, that 3ms delay is a lot in early 1990s standards, second that sendmail as a user process, manages it's own TCP connection timeout when that's a kernel thing. I'm no great programmer, but I think creating a TCP connection is a blocked call and the timeout is fixed in the kernel. furthermosre, it assumes all internet links go in straight lines and are equaly wide and equaly congested and that the backbone is indeed that clean. a physicist, ignoring the processing time of cisco microcontrollers and the delay of repeating packets from one side of a switch to the other, and then from ether to WAN and through a modem, would STILL argue that electricity doesn't travel at the speed of light either. and there are a few other problems. in short, only a cute suburban legend :) -- Your milage may vary Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal. msg23634/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Mail server and DNS
Which change would I do for DNS in order to mail servers can send and receive email . = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to Mozilla
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, guy keren wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, guy keren wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Alexander Maryanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > When do you know you're talking to an open source supporter? > > > > When he's looking for alternatives to *Mozilla* :-) > > > > > > the fact that something is open-source, doesn't have to mean its a > > > resource hog. and mozilla is a great resource hog, and so is KDE. and > > > unlike various movie playing software - they don't _have_ to be such > >> resource hogs. just that nobody cares enough to make them less 'hoggish'. > > > > > > > I beg to differ. Mozilla has to support a lot of things: all the HTML > > versions (2.0, 3.2, 4.0, 4.01, XHTML ), broken HTML, CSS, images, the XUL > > portable GUI library, java and Flash applets, JavaScript, many protocols > > (all versions of HTTP, FTP, gopher, etc), XML and XSL and the other W3C > > inventions, and possibly other things I forgot. It needs to be bloated if > > it wishes to support all of those things, and with the advancement of W3C > > standards, the situation is only getting worse. > > when i say something is bloated, i mean it takes too many resources. as > you quite well know, two programs doing the same things can use different > ammounts of resources. in fact, the same program can do the same thing in > two manners - one optimized and one not. > There are several levels of optimizations that can be done to a program. Often, there is a memory/speed trade-off. In case, you machine has little memory, than less memory will also mean greater speed. > the problem with bloatware is not the fact they try to do too much - but > rather that they don't give a time to make sure they don't waste > resources. i'll call upon your own pet to show that - you modified your > algorithms and data structures several times, not to gain new > funcitonality, but rather to make it run faster. you did it because you > cared about its resource use (a CPU is a resource, too). > I modified the program to run faster and also to consume less memory (which indirectly made it run faster). However, some of the techniques I used are quite unorthodox, and complicated the code. I can allow myself to do that in Freecell Solver which is a subsystem with a limited functionality that I can optimize to death upon my whims. However, the Mozilla project has a lot of functionality, and I'm not sure how well they can optimize it without sacrificying simplicity, clarity of the code, and the straightforwardness of embedding it. I would not recommend some of the optimization I did for Freecell Solver for a large scale project with a lot of functionality where performance on old hardware was not that critical. > the kde folks went over board with things, without caring if it runs on > older hardware - hence, the bloat. when you have a new PC that runs very > fast, you can loose awareness to how bloated your code is. i just bought a > new computer a week ago, and suddenly things run fat, that i don't feel > the bloat on every spot - suddenly netscape 6 launches quickly. suddenly > galeon does not slag behind. so you see - if i was developing on this new > PC, it would hardly run on older hardware, cause i wouldn't _feel_ the > bloat. only if i care about it, or try it on older hardware, will i notice > this bloat properly, and be reminded to keep my code optimized. > Naturally. (I believe we discussed it, and later I posted it to Hackers-IL). The question is of course, how much the KDE, Mozilla or whatever people care about performance on older hardware. In Freecell Solver, I am competing for speed against other solvers, so every optimization counts. But if you want your code to be more maintainable, then it is highly possible that you rule that it will not function properly with a slow CPU or a computer that does not have a lot of memory. This is a legitimate decision. Of course it amazes me a bit: a Pentium 100 MHz computer is as fast as a Cray 1 supercomputer, and has more memory. Modern computers are faster by a few factors. And still, developers seem to find ways to code programs that require more than that. It is possible that sometimes developers don't take the time to implement good optimizations that will improve speeed or memory consumption drastically, but will not make the program more complicated. Regards, Shlomi Fish > -- > guy > > "For world domination - press 1, > or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy > -- Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Home E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..." "Wait a second - is n a natural number?" = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in t
Re: Mail server and DNS
Quoting mail Admin, from the post of Sun, 01 Dec: > Which change would I do for DNS in order to mail servers can send and > receive email . you can send mail without any DNS, as long as you are not n an RBL somewhere. to recieve mail your sever needs a name pointed at it (an A record) on SOME domain. if you want it to recieve mail for a different name as well (or under a different domain, or have a backup server) you need to setup MX records in your domain or yet another one: in your case: [ira@joy ~]$ host mail.pet.ac.il mail.pet.ac.il has address 194.90.32.2 [ira@joy ~]$ host -t MX pet.ac.il pet.ac.il mail is handled by 10 mail.pet.ac.il. pet.ac.il mail is handled by 20 media2000.mulmedsrv.pet.ac.il. pet.ac.il mail is handled by 100 mx10.netvision.net.il. pet.ac.il mail is handled by 1000 nypop.elron.net. pet.ac.il mail is handled by 5 mail.pet.ac.il. this is basic administration stuff... how come you're admin@mail and don't know this? :) -- Tiger Wood's 4th cousin Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal. msg23637/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
