Re: [techtalk] RE: [grrltalk] webads
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:22:36AM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Telsa Gwynne thought: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:12:43PM +0100 or thereabouts, Conor Daly wrote: > > > > And I thought mainland Europeans had it nice already. Here in Ireland, > > the "local loop unbundling" as it's called is busily failing to happen. > > Good grief, you could be describing the UK here. British Telecom is > dragging its feet in exactly the same way as this Eircom bunch over > exactly the same issue: unbundling the local loop. > > We have a watchdog for BT, of course. Oftel. But um. > > Oftel: "Oy, BT! We've given you warning after warning! When are you > going to unbundle the local loop?" > BT: "Bog off. We'll get around to it." > Oftel: "Ok, okay. As you were then." Yup, same here! > Telsa Conor -- Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Domestic Sysadmin :-) - Faenor.cod.ie 12:47am up 2 days, 11:02, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Hobbiton.cod.ie 1:09am up 49 days, 10:19, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.03 ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] modprobe
I have compiled a kernel 2.2.19 with USB components as modules. This is to access SanDisk's Compact Flash reader. When I run "make modules_install", the modules are installed in /lib/modules/2.2.19/ directory. At startup time, the rc.modules has the following entries, /sbin/modprobe usbcore /sbin/modprobe usb_uhci /sbin/modprobe usb_storage After I login and do an "lsmod", only usbcore is listed. At the end of execution of rc.modules, the message is something to the effect, "Cannot find usb_uhci module" "Cannot find usb_storage module" The modules are in the usb directory. I can manually load them using "insmod". If anyone has a clue why this is happening, please let me know how to troubleshoot and fix this problem. The other modules in rc.modules are being loaded fine without a problem. Thank you in advance. -- Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/subba9/ GPG public key ID 27FC9217 ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] linuxconf
Megan McGuire writes: > Can anyone help me get linuxconf working? it tries > it starts... > > Executing: /sbin/ifup ppp0 I've never succeeded in using linuxconf to configure anything to do with a modem (on Redhat, at least). Redhat isn't very modem oriented, and they set up several things wrong so that modem configuration won't work right. I have a page on how I get modems and PPP working on Redhat 6.2 and 7.0; if you're on some other distro, perhaps the information will still be helpful. http://www.shallowsky.com/linux-modem.html -- ...Akkana http://www.shallowsky.com ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] The manager to send flames to:
Last week I sent out email detailing my experience as an accused telnet
criminal. No one has yet made any convincing argument that I was in any
way jeopardizing the machine I was telnetting from, but the unnamed system
manager has completely halted my ability to job-hunt by his irrational and
ignorant prohibition of my use of telnet to my shell account where I
receive email.
Since the rules of the site state that the resources of the site (including
the computers and their installed programs) are to be used for job-search
activities and I was using the telnet program ALREADY INSTALLED on the
machine, I cannot be accused of breaking the rules.
The rules DO NOT state that "thou shalt unquestioningly obey every order of
the system manager", which is really the heart of the issue. Even in the
Army, we were taught that "just following [illegal] orders" is no defense -
one is obliged to disobey illegal orders. I'm not saying his order was
illegal, but it IS stupid, and following it effectively ends my job search,
thus making his order to me in contradiction to the purpose of the TWC -
which is to help people find jobs.
After some thought, I think my best strategy is to have hundreds of emails
on my behalf flood the site manager's mailbox about the clueless and
counterproductive behavior of the
system-manager-who-refused-to-identify-himself who is this man's
subordinate. That way, when I finally DO appear in person to complain, I
will have a host of experts who have already explained to him (hopefully in
excruciating detail) the complete lack of any danger to the site's machines
posed by my use of telnet from TWC. I ask this because I fear the site
manager is no more clueful than the anonymous manager who issued the
unreasonable edict, and I need the strength of many professionals (the more
credentials, the better) to help me make my point and educate these people.
Otherwise, I fear the site manager will blindly and unquestioningly back
his system manager, right or wrong, and I might be placed in the position
of making the job-hunting situation worse for all Texas residents. So far
this anti-telnet "rule" is vapor. I do not want it to become cast-in-stone
policy.
The administrator to which the unnamed machine manager referred me
and to whom complaints about the anonymous clueless one may be sent
(cc: or Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] please) is:
Theodore Andrews III, Site Manager
3401 Webberville Rd, Bldg 1000
Austin, Tx 78702
(512) 223-5459(voice)
(512) 223-5464(fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I appreciate everyone's help.
.Tami
.signature: syntax error at line 1: `(' unexpected
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(512) 699-7175
Austin, Tx.
___
techtalk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] The manager to send flames to:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 07:32:31PM -0400, Tami Friedman wrote: > > Last week I sent out email detailing my experience as an accused telnet > criminal. No one has yet made any convincing argument that I was in any > way jeopardizing the machine I was telnetting from, but the unnamed system > manager has completely halted my ability to job-hunt by his irrational and > ignorant prohibition of my use of telnet to my shell account where I > receive email. > > Since the rules of the site state that the resources of the site (including > the computers and their installed programs) are to be used for job-search > activities and I was using the telnet program ALREADY INSTALLED on the > machine, I cannot be accused of breaking the rules. You said you used PuTTY from a floppy before. What gives? -- Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org Finger me for my public key Real software engineers work from 9 to 5, because that is the way the job is described in the formal spec. Working late would feel like using an undocumented external procedure. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
