I have been trying to get a recent, unpatched, kernel to work with a fedora system. I am able to get the kernel to boot but things seem to stop for want of an /init program in the root directory. init=/sbin/init does not seem to help.
Who has a link to a current boot process explanation? not a howto, but a lecture, covering what is supposed to be happening at each point in a modern complex linux boot?
David,
I can't provide you with a link to a lecture off the top of my head, and no longer having a need for building my own kernels, I've fallen back on using the distro built kernels. I do wonder if what the kernel is complaining about is an initrd rather than init. I know that the kernels supplied with Fedora use and initrd, as do the ones with Ubuntu. Perhaps that's what you are missing? If so, you can use mkinitrd to create one.
Thanks, -- Hal
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:36:07PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
I have been trying to get a recent, unpatched, kernel to work with a fedora system. I am able to get the kernel to boot but things seem to stop for want of an /init program in the root directory. init=/sbin/init does not seem to help.
Who has a link to a current boot process explanation? not a howto, but a lecture, covering what is supposed to be happening at each point in a modern complex linux boot? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Hal Duston wrote:
David,
I can't provide you with a link to a lecture off the top of my head, and no longer having a need for building my own kernels, I've fallen back on using the distro built kernels. I do wonder if what the kernel is complaining about is an initrd rather than init. I know that the kernels supplied with Fedora use and initrd, as do the ones with Ubuntu. Perhaps that's what you are missing? If so, you can use mkinitrd to create one.
Thanks,
Hal
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:36:07PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
I have been trying to get a recent, unpatched, kernel to work with a fedora system. I am able to get the kernel to boot but things seem to stop for want of an /init program in the root directory. init=/sbin/init does not seem to help.
Who has a link to a current boot process explanation? not a howto, but a lecture, covering what is supposed to be happening at each point in a modern complex linux boot? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
This search should reveal some useful links: http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+boot+explained
-Scott Oertel
Guys, I don't want to start another top- vs bottom- posting war, but could you please put a LITTLE bit of effort into your replies? someone just posted three screens of quotes, including at least two LUG signatures, to add two lines of comment, which was totally lost in the garbage.
Please take a moment to delete lines irrelevant to your reply.
Remember that if someone REALLY needs the whole thread to understand your comment, they can check the list archive on the web page.
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hutchins Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:45 AM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Editing
Guys, I don't want to start another top- vs bottom- posting war, but could you please put a LITTLE bit of effort into your replies? someone just posted three screens of quotes, including at least two LUG signatures, to add two lines of comment, which was totally lost in the garbage.
Please take a moment to delete lines irrelevant to your reply.
Remember that if someone REALLY needs the whole thread to understand your comment, they can check the list archive on the web page. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
O.k.
<snip> O.k. </snip>
Thank you. I almost crapped my pants laughing.
Just couldn't resist it. That was too easy to, but a good example of exactly what he was talking about. :)
<snip> O.k. </snip>
Thank you. I almost crapped my pants laughing.
You should switch to a gmail account. Gmail groups all messages into a single conversation and auto hides quoted text and make everything easy to read no matter if they top posted or bottom posted. Its a beautiful thing really... A feature I think all mail clients should have.
On 8/30/07, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
Guys, I don't want to start another top- vs bottom- posting war, but could you please put a LITTLE bit of effort into your replies? someone just posted three screens of quotes, including at least two LUG signatures, to add two lines of comment, which was totally lost in the garbage.
Please take a moment to delete lines irrelevant to your reply.
Remember that if someone REALLY needs the whole thread to understand your comment, they can check the list archive on the web page. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On 8/31/07, Jeremy Fowler jeremy.f76@gmail.com wrote:
You should switch to a gmail account. Gmail groups all messages into a single conversation and auto hides quoted text and make everything easy to read no matter if they top posted or bottom posted.
But that's not the point. You're still sending quotes of quotes of quotes of the same crap for reply after reply after reply, filling up disk drives for no good reason. For the poor schmucks without broadband, you're also taking up their bandwidth to download the redundancy.
Fundamentally, it's a question of whether the writer, a single person, owes it to the large group of people to whom he's addressing his words, to take a few moments to do these things, or whether that large group of people should have to do the work.
I say it's the writer's job. That means I trim excess quotage, I go over my own words and proof them to be sure I don't commit egregious errors of grammar, spelling, or usage, that will at best force my readers to do extra work to understand me, and at worst cause them to just nuke my posts rather than bothering.
On 8/31/07, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
But that's not the point. You're still sending quotes of quotes of quotes of the same crap for reply after reply after reply, filling up disk drives for no good reason. For the poor schmucks without broadband, you're also taking up their bandwidth to download the redundancy.
I was making a new point - that technology is making it easier to deal with lazy people. I wasn't saying that people shouldn't use proper etiquette. However, I would say most people besides USENET geeks from the 90's don't really give a hoot about proper trim and post and that its impossible to always reign in those who neglect proper grammar and syntax.
Also, I think the argument for filling up hard drives with email message length is a little outdated. In today's world of cheap 750GB hard drives, a few extra KB isn't going to a kill ya. Same goes for bandwidth, outdated argument. With all the different broadband solutions available today, if your still on dial-up... Well, its time to pony up and get a real internet connection. Besides, even on a 28.8 kbps dial-up connection running 3.60KB/s it would only take a couple extra seconds to download a few extra lines of text...
Fundamentally, it's a question of whether the writer, a single person, owes
it to the large group of people to whom he's addressing his words, to take a few moments to do these things, or whether that large group of people should have to do the work.
You can't control what someone sends to the list, but you can control what you read from them by using utilities, like gmail, that automatically clean up someone's message.
I say it's the writer's job. That means I trim excess quotage, I go over my
own words and proof them to be sure I don't commit egregious errors of grammar, spelling, or usage, that will at best force my readers to do extra work to understand me, and at worst cause them to just nuke my posts rather than bothering.
Agreed, its the writer's responsibility... In a perfect world, everyone would follow all the rules and there would be no need for topics like this. However, in the real world I use gmail and learn to look the other way.
On 8/31/07, Jeremy Fowler jeremy.f76@gmail.com wrote:
However, I would say most people besides USENET geeks from the 90's don't really give a hoot about proper trim and post and that its impossible to always reign in those who neglect proper grammar and syntax.
And old BBS sysops like me, who had to pay to move the mail via LD.
Also, I think the argument for filling up hard drives with email message
length is a little outdated. In today's world of cheap 750GB hard drives, a few extra KB isn't going to a kill ya. Same goes for bandwidth, outdated argument. With all the different broadband solutions available today, if your still on dial-up... Well, its time to pony up and get a real internet connection. Besides, even on a 28.8 kbps dial-up connection running 3.60KB/s it would only take a couple extra seconds to download a few extra lines of text...
It's not 'a few extra KB' or a "few extra lines". I get emails at work that can be hundreds of KB each, just because a pretty background and expressive font do that in LookOut, before you even start in quoting them to death. And dialup is not an outdated argument for folks out in the boonies (Hi, Oren!) who are forced to use satellites because they're not able to get DSL.
You can't control what someone sends to the list, but you can control what you read from them by using utilities, like gmail, that automatically clean up someone's message.
Actually, we could control it. We could have a bot refuse any message with more than a certain proportion of quoted quoted quoted quoted quotes. It could send back to the writer an explanation of why it's inconsiderate to do that to the readers, and that we have higher standards than that. But we won't do that, because we don't have a consensus on where to draw the line.
Agreed, its the writer's responsibility... In a perfect world, everyone would follow all the rules and there would be no need for topics like this. However, in the real world I use gmail and learn to look the other way.
In the real world, when the rules are broken, people are punished for it. The bot could include an img tag to goatse for repeat offenders. But since corporate culture actively discourages trimming unecessary quotes (I've actually caught crap for trimming at work), we don't really have rules. Hell, the worst offenders for bad mail at my company are the high mucketies themselves. With their example, it's hopeless.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 03:37:41PM -0500, Monty J. Harder wrote:
On 8/31/07, Jeremy Fowler jeremy.f76@gmail.com wrote:
--snip--
You can't control what someone sends to the list, but you can control what you read from them by using utilities, like gmail, that automatically clean up someone's message.
Actually, we could control it. We could have a bot refuse any message with more than a certain proportion of quoted quoted quoted quoted quotes. It could send back to the writer an explanation of why it's inconsiderate to do that to the readers, and that we have higher standards than that. But we won't do that, because we don't have a consensus on where to draw the line.
--snip--
The line is drawn at 40 kilobytes (KB) in the message body.
Thanks, -- Hal
In the real world, when the rules are broken, people are punished for it. The bot could include an img tag to goatse for repeat offenders. But since corporate culture actively discourages trimming unecessary quotes (I've actually caught crap for trimming at work), we don't really have rules. Hell, the worst offenders for bad mail at my company are the high mucketies themselves. With their example, it's hopeless.
And then there is the other extreme like my father who deletes the entire email and then replies. OK, Dad. It's nice you said, "Snickerdoodles", but what was the question?
On 8/31/07, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed
Kclug mailing list I disagree, I think we all should comment in quoted sigs. =) http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On 8/31/07, djgoku djgoku@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, djgoku djgoku@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote: I don't know, it might give some people a stroke... :-( _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Even better, we can respond, impersonating the person we're actually speaking to. ...Reverse-chronological top posting! _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Agreed _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list I disagree, I think we all should comment in quoted sigs. =) http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
... You're still sending quotes of quotes of quotes of the same crap for reply after reply after reply, filling up disk drives for no good reason. ... Treat it like a conversation. If your talking to someone you don't repeat word for word what the entire conversation is before you respond to someone. Don't do it in your email. You can quote the specific lines or bits of the conversation the clarify your point but not the entire conversation.
-
Billy Crook -
David Nicol -
djgoku -
Hal Duston -
James Sissel -
Jeremy Fowler -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Luke -Jr -
Monty J. Harder -
Phil Thayer -
Scott Oertel