24 Aug
2005
24 Aug
'05
1:55 p.m.
On 8/23/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:36 -0700, Noah Roberts
wrote:
I've remained silent on this. You really are no help when you act
like this. If you want to help people, great, but this kind of crap
isn't helpful. You've replied to this thread 5 times and only once
was it without derogatory crap. Only once where you moderately
helpful. If you really want to help people, there are better ways to
go about it.
To everyone that was helpful, thanks. I haven't been able to test
since the last report but I think it is working well enough to use for
my needs. I have a few more questions but this thread is quickly
degrading, and I am just not in the mood to try and justify my
selection of hardware and other BS, so I'll just figure the rest out
on my own. I really do appreciate those that have been helpful and
those that participated to get their own questions answered as well.
On 8/22/05, Shayne O'Connor
<forums(a)machinehasnoagenda.com> wrote:
Sorry dude, that's what you get when you buy bleeding edge hardware.
You didn't expect this new architecture to work as smoothly as i386
which has been around for 20 years, did you? have i missed something? i've been applying
patches to the 2.6.13 kernel:
I also tried that patch but do you have amd64? When I tried to
compile it blew up. Lots of undefined functions and such. The kernel
without the patch compiles cleanly. And like I said before, I wasn't
going to try the *full* preemption right away anyway. So I get the
same stuff with the vanilla kernel as with the patch applied in the
end.