Besides the problem with gnome, I detected a very weird behaviour on
RAID1 and logic volumes. Consider the same box (ASUS + Sis) with two
120GBytes SATA disks. I created a logic volume and a RAID1 (/dev/md0)...
What happens is that when I have intensive transfer, the box gets frozen
dead (no inputs, no interrupts, no nothing). BTW, no logs.
Both partitions were created canonically and, particularly, for the RAID
it was ensured that both partitions have exactly the same geometry. Both
HDs are equal. RAID worked well under Micro$oft Window$ XP...
I guess that there must be some bug in the treatment of interrupts...
Have someone experienced similar problems with RAIDs ???
Paul A Houle <ph18(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
> > If you want Windows with all its brokeness, you know where to find it...
> I don't think it's all that bad to offer people the option of a
> reversable delete.
Except it isn't exactly when you need it to be. "Reversable delete"
requires infinite-sized disks, and I haven't seen any of those lately. Next
you need reversable <anything> changes to random files (yes, files get
broken by editing too).
Moving to "Thrash" just postpones the moment of disposal, and then they
come whining that they emptied the thrashbin by mistake...
> I've never experienced it personally, but I do encounter people
> quite often who want to recover a deleted file on an ext3
> filesystem and find out that it can't be done.
And learn that what is deleted is /gone/. It is much better (if somewhat
harsh) to get used to that discipline. "It can be undeleted later" just
creates sloppiness. Plus automated responses like I remember from DOS days:
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
I've been following a very interesting discussion in fedora-list about
the recent transfer of FC3 to Fedora Legacy.
Following Rahul's suggestion, I'm starting this discussion in -devel.
I'm asking the FC foundation to consider the following:
1. Fedora's policy dictates that old releases (Current - 2) will be
retired once the new release hits Test2. This policy has one glaring
drawback: User that seek an upgrade can either (1) install a mid-life
release (FC4 in this case) or (2) install a beta release. (FC5 Test2 in
This being I suspect that most users will play the waiting game before
making a decision. They'll wait for the FC5 release and check how it
behaves before making a decision, which in turn, will leave them
vulnerable to security exploits.
Extending the life of FC4 by (a mere?) ~2 months, will give FC4 users
seeking an upgrade a chance to make an informed decision based upon how
FC6 behaves, without leaving them open to security risks.
2. It has been suggested (in the fedora-list discussion) that the last
official FC4 update will be a legacy yum configuration rpm that will
ease/automate the transition to legacy. This sounds like a great idea to
me. Is it possible?
After recompiling from source rpm packages from gstreamer site:
and recompiling livna packages:
I'm able to play with latest fc5 devel totem (totem-1.3.1-1) various
video files, and also divx.
Trying to play dvds I get
"totem was not able to play this disc. No reason"
If I want to stay with totem provided and be able to play dvds where
it is legal, what other requirements should I add?
Or have I to install necessarily totem-xine?
I just finished writing a detailed explanation of RPM version comparison
algorithm, in case you want to know (and remember) how it really works.
I call this required knowledge for every packager:
Fell free to edit and improvise it, specially if you have good examples
to add to the end.
I have no problems here after upgrading to latest packages as of
rawhide 20060124 changes.
I didn't apply yesterday updates in the mean time so I don't know if
something was broken.
My card is nvidia geforce fx 5200 with default nv driver.
Performance of screen redraw operations, as detailed in other posts,
for example in workspace switching operations where both workspaces
have windows open, presents quite noticable latencies.
I never tried nvidia
VendorName "Videocard vendor"
BoardName "nVidia Corporation NV34 [GeForce FX 5200]"
And I'm using a 19" monitor with resolution of 1280x1024@24bit