On 2001.04.18 10:12:40 -0400 Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote: I'm surprised this hasn't been asked before. I need to upgrade the kernel to 2.4.3 on my SUSE 7.0 distro. The src from the kernel says we need an util-linux upgrade but their seems to be no such package on the the updage site. I read a humerous translation of this question in German on Google. They seem to think you need the util package because of the need for PAM. But there is no util paclage upgrade in ap1 in the updates. So ? Should I just install util-linux.2.11 from the kernel.org site and let err rip? Ruben -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752 -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752

When I was testing 2.4.x in my 7.0 system I only had to update the modutils package, just installed it on top of the existing ones. PPP should also be updated if you use it get to the internet. I did not mess with util-linux. It seems that those utilities are in the 'util' suse package. Take a look at what those utilities are. Unless you know what you are doing and have a way to back out in case of problems, I'd suggest you to go slow. Mainly, make sure that the new utilities install in the same location as the suse ones. It would be best if you upgraded to suse 7.1. -- Rafael

Well It didn't work The new kernal with the new tools booted, couldn't load any modules and then gave me a login prompt. The prompt authenicated me, and then dumped me back into a login prompt.....why - I have no idea. /var/log/messages said nothing. This is what sucks about suse. Why should upgradiong the kernel be so damn hard. make dep make bzlilo make modules make modules_install FINISH If the kernel says I need new utils-linux .... document on the site how to do this damn upgrade!! Ruben -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752 -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752 -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

Well

It didn't work

The new kernal with the new tools booted, couldn't load any modules and then gave me a login prompt. The prompt authenicated me, and then dumped me back into a login prompt.....why - I have no idea. /var/log/messages said nothing.

Did you install the util-linux? How did you configure it.

The question which pops into my mind is this: Does the util-linux source package install by default into /usr/local? If so, that could be a problem.

The modules thing could be because the 2.4+ kernel Makefile removes all the exsisting modules first. So if you had say alsa installed by doing the make_isntall you wiped out the alsa modules and would have to reinstall them. That holds true for any modules that were there before the make modules_isntall.

Did you upgrade modutils?

Your login problem sounds like you didn't configure the util-linux correctly or didn't install them (not sure).

...

This is what sucks about suse. Why should upgradiong the kernel be so damn hard.

make dep make bzlilo make modules make modules_install

FINISH

I'm not sure what bzlilo does. But if it replaces the the current kernel image in the lilo configuration, that's bad. It's better to do

make dep bzImage modules modules_install and edit /etc/lilo.conf by hand, preserving the current images as boot options.

...

If the kernel says I need new utils-linux .... document on the site how to do this damn upgrade!!

This has nothing to do with SuSE. If you want to upgrade a kernel you should READ the doc in /usr/src/linux/Documentation before you start. Upgrading a kernel is the same no matter where you got it from. The documentation is again in /usr/src/linux/Documentation. See the changes file. It tells you even where to get whats required. Any package you have to upgrade first will have it's own documentation read it too.

Mark's response here is completely correct. When you decide to upgrade packages from source, you're somewhat on your own. This has never stopped me. One of the really good things about SuSE is that its build environment is NOT broken. So you can build packages from source, usually with a minimum of fuss. -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Curtis Rey wrote: [...snip...]

The part I find ironic and unsettling is that according to the SuSE support terms any 2.4.x kernels can't be supported. It makes you wonder, since they were the first to release the 2.4 kernel, that this was more a marketing ploy to boost sales. [...snip...] At this rate I might give RH with the new 2.4 kernel a try, they claim to support it.

I think a lot of people are confusing two different interpretations of the word "support". SuSE7.1 supports the 2.4.x kernels quite nicely, but that does not mean that the SuSE support department will answer questions regarding those kernels. So the following question has two directly opposite answers (and equally true answers), depending on how you understand the word "support": Does SuSE support the 2.4.x kernels? 1) Yes (these kernels work on SuSE.) 2) No (the Support Department cannot support these kernels.) Regards Ole

I've experienced the same total lack of support. I purchased the full professional 7.1 package for the going retail price. When the software would not, and still does not, install on my machine the response from SuSE technical support is to basically totally ignore my requests for support, the support I paid for in advance and of which there were to be 60 days worth. So far I've received in response to my requests two replies asking for more info both of which were thoroughly answered. Last reply from me to their request was over 3 weeks ago. I'm now five weeks into the 60 day support period with NOTHING having been provided. I guess it is a case of buyer beware when purchasing SuSE Linux 7.1 dave johanson

Your confused. This is not an issue of support, this is an issue of the distro not being broken in the first place. A normal kernal compilation is not a special something which maybe SuSe should allow, it is the corner stone of a working open source system. If the distro is so BROKEN that you can't compile the Linux source code as necessary for security (which as a matter of fact is the issue with the 2.18 code now being insecure), then the system is broken. As an open sourced system, the system is broken when the kernel can not be made to function with conventional compilation and configuration. If things are as you say, we don't need open sourced linux...we can use NT. Ruben PS - The phone support of SuSe is truely bad.... PS - I happen to own - so far 6.4 x3 7.0 Pro, 7.1 persona, 5.3, and applixware office PS - The Kernel modules on the FTP site do not properly upgrade from 7.0 2.2 to 7.0 2.4 among other things.

SuSE support covers unmodified kernels shipped with the box. 2.4.3 kernel has not been shipped with 7.1, AFAIK.

SuSE support does not cover self-compiled kernels. I may not like it, you may not like, but this is the fact stated in SuSE support policy. This is what they mean by 90-days support. You change the kernel - you go on your own. If you don't like it - don't buy it. I think it's simple.

-Kastus

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:54:37PM -0400, David C. Johanson wrote:

...

I've experienced the same total lack of support. I purchased the full professional 7.1 package for the going retail price. When the software would not, and still does not, install on my machine the response from SuSE technical support is to basically totally ignore my requests for support, the support I paid for in advance and of which there were to be 60 days worth. So far I've received in response to my requests two replies asking for more info both of which were thoroughly answered. Last reply from me to their request was over 3 weeks ago. I'm now five weeks into the 60 day support period with NOTHING having been provided.

I guess it is a case of buyer beware when purchasing SuSE Linux 7.1

dave johanson

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

That is a bold statement my friend.

Sorry - this is not a bold statement any more than bold than linux itself. SuSe better start understanding this if it ever wants to be a first class system.

I compile 1-2 kernels a day, without any problems whatsoever.

Yah Know what - I've been compiling kernels since 2.0.12 Maybe 1000 times I've compiled kernels on RH, Slackware, Strorm, Debian and SuSe. This compile DOES NOT WORK because the sysv init system and the kernel module is SCREWED....(as hinted at in the docs). module.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile and the initiation system was screwed with the RPM's...problbly secondary to PAM or the location of the files? AND BTW - mod-ulits? Where waas that under the 7.0 tree in yast? dir .. axx xx [o] * 8.0M Mar 12 16:02 k_deflt.rpm axx xx [o] * 9.5M Mar 2 12:52 k_deflt_24-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm axx xx [ ] * 8.1M Mar 12 16:02 k_i386.rpm axx xx [i] * 9.6M Mar 2 13:19 k_i386_24-2.4.2-5.i386.rpm axx xx [ ] * 9.8M Mar 2 13:19 k_psmp_24-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm xxx xx [ ] * 8.3M Mar 12 18:30 k_smp.rpm x xx [ ] * 9.8M Mar 2 13:15 k_smp_24-2.4.2-5.i386.rpm xx[o] *330.1K Mar 2 11:04 lvm-0.9.1_beta4-1.i386.rpm axx xx [o] *324.8K Mar 2 11:04 lvm-0.9.1_beta4-1.src.rpm axx xx [o] * 2.8M Mar 12 13:50 yast-1.07.3-1.i386.rpm axx xx [o] * 2.8M Mar 12 13:50 yast-1.07.3-1.src.rpm Hmm - not there..... Aside which YAST is also largely broken..... BTW - I don't think 7.1 installed the new Firewall or Forwarding tools to deal with iptables..... I'm still investigating.

And you are free to compile your kernel anytime -- you just loose the ability to get installation support.

Screw that - that is flat out no right of SUSE and is PART of the problem....Changing the oil shouldn't invalidate the agreement... especially when there is a SECURITY HOLE in the 7.0 Kernel

And you _don't_ have to compile your own kernels. How about getting the security updates instead?

THEY FAIL

...

modules.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile

What are you talking about??? This file is a standard.

This file was ignored - not looked at, as i it didn't exist to the astounishment of several expereiced users. It's functionality depends on it being initated correctly by the kernel. mkinitrd does this for RH. This file does not exist in SuSe. Instead it is done with /etc/rc.d files..... The new kernel doesn't work with the old configuation...... Ruben

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

...

modules.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile

What are you talking about??? This file is a standard.

This file was ignored - not looked at, as i it didn't exist to the astounishment of several expereiced users.

It's functionality depends on it being initated correctly by the kernel.

mkinitrd does this for RH. This file does not exist in SuSe. Instead it is done with /etc/rc.d files.....

wrong, modules.conf is part of the modutils packages and is integral part of suse. /etc/rc.d files are part of the sys V init mechanism and has nothing to do with modules.conf. There is no mkinitrd script in SuSE. To create initrd files under suse you use mk_initrd. It's been mentioned already: Michael Hasenstein wrote:

??? /sbin/mk_initrd. _Very_ convenient. The entire SuSE lilo-kernel setup is one big piece of convenience: - no need for you to edit lilo.conf for installing a new kernel you made yourself, just do "make bzlilo". The old default suse kernel is always available as entry "suse" when you overwrite "linux", should you've forgotten a module or to create the initrd or the new kernel has problems for whatever other reason. - creating a config file for a new kernel is _very_ convenient: just use the working, running kernel config as input by issuing "make cloneconfig", which takes the config from the running kernel and applies it to the source tree. - mk_initrd: if you use all the above, all you ever need to do when you compile your own is make cloneconfig [maybe: menuconfig, if you want to change something] dep clean bzlilo modules modules_install; mk_initrd; lilo (if the new kernel has the _same_ version as the old one it's also a good idea to edit linux/Lakefile line 3 and add some string to EXTRAVERSION in order to avoid overwriting the existing modules directory in /lib/modules/)

-- Rafael

In all honesty, being a newbie, I can't really debate the technical merits on the install with any authority at all. However, modules conf, modprobe, and depmod wouldn't work for me after in rpm'ed the 2.4.2 and modutils-2.4.2-14 and followed the instructed for install/post-install. I only got the new kernel to properly display and work with the modules after a copied the fc.config.old to the rc.config. After reboot everything appeared ok. Although the video drivers and the new kernel don't get along at all. Why this worked I couldn't say. -----Original Message----- From: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [mailto:ruben@dsl254-112-136-sea1.dsl-isp.net] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1919 To: Rafael E. Herrera Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

wrong, modules.conf is part of the modutils packages and is integral part of suse. /etc/rc.d files are part of the sys V init mechanism and has nothing to do with modules.conf.

Of course they are related. What does mk_intird do but create boot scripts for the kernel dameon. Are you saying that I use any init scripts and module.conf will look the same? The original /rc.d/boot - or some other script in that directory had a case in the shell script looking for kerneld and conf.modules or modules.conf or both or either ;) If the loader is not initiallized correctly on boot, modules.conf, modprobe and depmod fails to work correctly. I really didn't want to rewrite half the system. Someone will acuse me of just not being smart enough and blaming my deficiencies on SuSe ;)

There is no mkinitrd script in SuSE. To create initrd files under suse you use mk_initrd.

Which is the best peice of information to come out of this thread ! Ruben -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

crrey wrote:

In all honesty, being a newbie, I can't really debate the technical merits on the install with any authority at all. However, modules conf, modprobe, and depmod wouldn't work for me after in rpm'ed the 2.4.2 and modutils-2.4.2-14 and followed the instructed for install/post-install. I only got the new kernel to properly display and work with the modules after a copied the fc.config.old to the rc.config. After reboot everything appeared ok. Although the video drivers and the new kernel don't get along at all. Why this worked I couldn't say.

"Rafael E. Herrera" wrote:

To update your suse 7.0 kernel to 2.4 go to

ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/7.0/kernel/RPMs/

and download these packages:

k_deflt_24-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm lvm-0.9.1_beta4-1.i386.rpm modutils-2.4.2-7.i386.rpm yast-1.07.3-1.i386.rpm

Before installing them make copies of: /etc/modules.conf /etc/rc.config your lilo.conf should have entries similar to this: image = /boot/vmlinuz label = linux root = /dev/sda3 initrd = /boot/initrd image = /boot/vmlinuz_24 label = linux_24 root = /dev/sda3 initrd = /boot/initrd_24 optional The first one is your 2.2 kernel, the second is the 2.4 kernel. Verify that your /etc/modules.conf and /etc/rc.config are still there (I don;t know how you lost them the first time.) If they are not there post any warning or error message you got while installing them, restore the copies you made in place.

After installing the new kernel run as root:

# mk_initrd # lilo

The new kernel label for lilo will be linux_24. This will not be the default, so you may have to edit /etc/lilo.conf and change the order of the kernel entries and run lilo again.

After you reboot, you select linux_24 to boot your new kernel.

If you are using NFS, you have to edit /etc/rc.d/nfsserver to read:

echo -n "Starting kernel based NFS server" if [ "'kernelversion'" == "2.2" ] ; then checkproc -n lockd || \ /usr/sbin/rpc.lockd fi

Some more info in: http://sdb.suse.de/sdb/en/html/ftpkernel.html

The 2.4.3 kernel sources are located in:

ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mantel/next/

You'll have to recompile. To recycle the 2.4.2-4 kernel configuration on Mantel's kernel use 'make cloneconfig' as described in:

http://sdb.suse.de/sdb/en/html/maddin_kernel_config.html

'cloneconfig' uses the file /proc/config.gz, this contains the configuration used to compile the currently running kernel. This feature is available on SuSE kernels only, not in the vanilla kernel from www.kernel.org .

Mantel's kernel are not supported by suse yet, so you are on your own. Post your questions here.

-- Rafael

Give it a try again and post your results. -- Rafael

The instructionas are similar, the updated kernels are in: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/7.1/kernel/ make sure you update the packages from: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/7.1/a1/ -- Rafael

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

wrong, modules.conf is part of the modutils packages and is integral part of suse. /etc/rc.d files are part of the sys V init mechanism and has nothing to do with modules.conf.

Of course they are related. What does mk_intird do but create boot scripts for the kernel dameon.

I think you are confusing the initrd feature with sysv init scripts. /sbin/mk_initrd is a script that will take a bunch of kernel modules and other files and pack them together in a compressed file in the /boot directory, those are the initrd... files you see there. When linux boots that file is uncompressed and the modules in there are loaded, then the boot continues. The variable INITRD_MODULES in /etc/rc.config especifies which modules go in.

Are you saying that I use any init scripts and module.conf will look the same?

I don't understand that question.

The original /rc.d/boot - or some other script in that directory had a case in the shell script looking for kerneld and conf.modules or modules.conf or both or either ;)

The init scripts are a convenient way of booting a unix system, but it is not the only one. The module loading mechanism could be started some other way. Perhaps "not related" is not appropriate, they are part of the same system and each contributes to make your linux expereience what it is. I'll be damned, I just looked for kerneld and there is no such program in my suse 7.1. -- Rafael

"Rafael E. Herrera" wrote:

I'll be damned, I just looked for kerneld and there is no such program in my suse 7.1.

that's old kernel 2.0 stuff... in 2.2 it's in the kernel, try a cat /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe modules.conf exists to "program" the module loading, it is used by modules.conf. The kernel will call the program stored in /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe whenever it needs something it doesn't have yet, and modprobe tries to figure out what module it should insert with what options using the data in modules.conf.

ROFL -----Original Message----- From: marsaro@interearth.com [mailto:marsaro@interearth.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2359 To: Rafael E. Herrera Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) Wow....is everyone on dope or something?.........why not use this list instead of a rant...if there are those that just cannot stand using the product (which ever it may be you will find an issue) go hang out at Venice Beach with a G-string and cry about it.... Regards, Jon On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Rafael E. Herrera wrote:

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

...

...

modules.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile

What are you talking about??? This file is a standard.

This file was ignored - not looked at, as i it didn't exist to the astounishment of several expereiced users.

It's functionality depends on it being initated correctly by the kernel.

mkinitrd does this for RH. This file does not exist in SuSe. Instead it is done with /etc/rc.d files.....

wrong, modules.conf is part of the modutils packages and is integral part of suse. /etc/rc.d files are part of the sys V init mechanism and has nothing to do with modules.conf.

There is no mkinitrd script in SuSE. To create initrd files under suse you use mk_initrd. It's been mentioned already:

Michael Hasenstein wrote:

...

??? /sbin/mk_initrd. _Very_ convenient. The entire SuSE lilo-kernel setup is one big piece of convenience: - no need for you to edit lilo.conf for installing a new kernel you made yourself, just do "make bzlilo". The old default suse kernel is always available as entry "suse" when you overwrite "linux", should you've forgotten a module or to create the initrd or the new kernel has problems for whatever other reason. - creating a config file for a new kernel is _very_ convenient: just use the working, running kernel config as input by issuing "make cloneconfig", which takes the config from the running kernel and applies it to the source tree. - mk_initrd: if you use all the above, all you ever need to do when you compile your own is make cloneconfig [maybe: menuconfig, if you want to change something] dep clean bzlilo modules modules_install; mk_initrd; lilo (if the new kernel has the _same_ version as the old one it's also a good idea to edit linux/Lakefile line 3 and add some string to EXTRAVERSION in order to avoid overwriting the existing modules directory in /lib/modules/)

-- Rafael

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

Michael Hasenstein wrote:

...

AND BTW - mod-ulits? Where waas that under the 7.0 tree in yast? ....... Hmm - not there.....

Where it is supposed to be: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/7.0/a1/

Please read: the directory you were looking it is called "kernel", which means you will find - kernel rpm's! There are also some links to yast, etc. in that directory, and ALSO for modutils. Just looked in 7.0 and 7.1 update directory. So I don't know what you are talking about...???

He is talking about looking at those dirs under yast. The symlinks in the kernel directory are invisble when you look at it through yast. That is a potential problem. If you went in there expecting to find everything you need to do a kernel update you will miss those RPMs. You have to browse all the update directories and update everything to just make sure your are not missing anything, not the best solution I think. -- Rafael

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

This compile DOES NOT WORK because the sysv init system and the kernel module is SCREWED....(as hinted at in the docs). module.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile and the initiation system was screwed with the RPM's...problbly secondary to PAM or the location of the files?

I use 2.4.x on a 7.0 system. I had problems with the VIA chipset, but none from the init system. People's hardware varies a lot, what may work you/me may not work for me/you. I don't recall seeing exactly what was your problem. I've just seen a lot of complainig maybe from you or some other people. Why don't everybody cool off and start over. Can you describe exactly what problems you had, error messages, etc. That is the best way to get this resolved.

AND BTW - mod-ulits? Where waas that under the 7.0 tree in yast?

dir .. axx xx [o] * 8.0M Mar 12 16:02 k_deflt.rpm axx xx [o] * 9.5M Mar 2 12:52 k_deflt_24-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm axx xx [ ] * 8.1M Mar 12 16:02 k_i386.rpm axx xx [i] * 9.6M Mar 2 13:19 k_i386_24-2.4.2-5.i386.rpm axx xx [ ] * 9.8M Mar 2 13:19 k_psmp_24-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm xxx xx [ ] * 8.3M Mar 12 18:30 k_smp.rpm x xx [ ] * 9.8M Mar 2 13:15 k_smp_24-2.4.2-5.i386.rpm xx xx [o] *330.1K Mar 2 11:04 lvm-0.9.1_beta4-1.i386.rpm axx xx [o] *324.8K Mar 2 11:04 lvm-0.9.1_beta4-1.src.rpm axx xx [o] * 2.8M Mar 12 13:50 yast-1.07.3-1.i386.rpm axx xx [o] * 2.8M Mar 12 13:50 yast-1.07.3-1.src.rpm

YaST does not show symbolic links, which are what those other packages are in that directory. Use an ftp session to retrieve them and install them. I've raised this same issue about sym links in the suse bugtrack website and the response I got was that they'll fix it in the future. -- Rafael

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

The problem was delinated about a week ago and at this point, I fixed everything but TWO issues.

Can you repost a detailed description of your problem?

3d on my VOOODOO, which I origially compiled by hand to fix, is not fixed again. FOr that matter, SAX doesn't work and the Xfree86 Setup system, which is actally better IMO than SAX, is not provided.

I can't help you there.

The firewall is not working. Actually ...i'd love to compile the

What kernel are you running? The suse one or one you compiled yourself? The configuration options necessary to support iptables with compatibility for 2.2.x may be your problem. I don't understand them so I just copied the options used in the suse kernel builds. I can send you my .config for my 2.4.3 kernel if you want. My firewall works fine, I think, I have to go back to that web site and run another test.

2.3.4 kernel again, but I'm afraid of breaking the entire module system again.......

Trying out different kernels is not a difficult, keep one you know is working and add entries to lilo.conf for your test ones. If you are trying the same kernel version I can tell you what to do so the test one doesn't clobber the good one. -- Rafael

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

...

The firewall is not working. Actually ...i'd love to compile the

What kernel are you running? The suse one or one you compiled yourself?

www2 2.4.0-4GB #1 Wed Jan 24 15:55:09 GMT 2001 i686 unknown

...

The configuration options necessary to support iptables with compatibility for 2.2.x may be your problem.

I can't find tools or docs for the new iptools

I think there is an rpm in suse 7.0 to use iptools, look for iptables.rpm in the sec1 directory of your suse cd's. Never used it, though. Just to make sure, we are talking about the SuSEfirewals script as a means to do 'firewalling'.

...

I don't understand them so I just copied the options used in the suse kernel builds. I can send you my .config for my 2.4.3 kernel if you want. My firewall works fine, I think, I have to go back to that web site and run another test.

What - from the .config file? That's the file for kernel compilation?

Were talking firewalls or compiling ;)

I'm confused....

The suse firewall package does not use iptables, it uses ipchains, which is a kerenl 2.2 feature. The kernel 2.4 has backwards compatibility with 2.2's ipchains via a module. I didn't have problems when I was running suse 7.0, can you describe what problems you are having under 2.4? "doesn't work" doesn't mean anything. -- Rafael

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com) [010423 22:15]: =>> The suse firewall package does not use iptables, it uses ipchains, which =>> is a kerenl 2.2 feature. The kernel 2.4 has backwards compatibility with =>> 2.2's ipchains via a module. => => =>I tried my old firewall script and it says =>root@www2:/home/ruben/docs > ./firewall.txt =>ipchains: setting MASQ timeouts failed: Protocol not available =>ipchains: Protocol not available =>ipchains: Protocol not available I had issues with iptables..and I was quite happy with my old firewall scripts..so I just load the ipchains module via boot.local and it works. It may not be the clean way to do it..but it works. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.

Well it wasn't - but I just did by hand and nothing is happening

is the module ipchains loaded? -- Rafael

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

On Monday 23 April 2001 21:34, Rafael E. Herrera wrote: <snip>

I use 2.4.x on a 7.0 system. I had problems with the VIA chipset, but none from the init system. People's hardware varies a lot, what may work you/me may not work for me/you.

<snip> I have two PC's here at home. SuSE has always slipped onto the 5 year old Sony VAIO (P166 -64MB) like a silk glove. My new Beast, on the other hand, fights SuSE like it was possessed with the spirit of Bill Gates. One of the problems is the VIA chipset, and I've yet to hear of any successful BIOS upgrade being successfully burned in. The newest 2.4.x kernel is supposed to have a kernel workaround, but I'm not moving to the 2.4 kernel until SuSE makes it their primary kernel. I doubt there are many newbies who could get SuSE to install on my Beast without getting bite by something. In fact, if I had not been using SuSE for 4 years, and as my only OS for 1 1/2 years, I would not have had the knowledge and skill to install it. As I used to tell my Engineering Physics students, "Everything is easy once you know how", but learning how takes time. Merely saying how easy something is to do doesn't teach HOW to those who don't KNOW how to do it. I would have given up and installed about any version of WinXX. The VIA chip, the AC97 sound chip, the wheel mouse, the r128 video card, the cdrw and the zip250 were all bears to install and even now I am simply using the cdrw as a cd because of the VIA problem. The Beast is running, although not exactly as I would like it. Were I to spec the Beast again I would require all storage perhiperals to be scsi, and I wouldn't use the ATI r128 or the wheel mouse. People with machines like my Sony don't need 'installation help". People with machines like my Beast can't be helped by support staff unless the support person is physicall setting at the machine. There are too many subtle problems and disjoints with the hardware and software for a newbie to adequately describe the problems to a support staff. Most people own machines between my Sony and my Beast. Some can be helped. The trick SuSE has to learn is to figure out which ones can be helped without making all of them angry or insulting the ones they can't help. This thread demostrates a lot of frustration, some by SuSE staff but most by SuSE's customers. SuSE would do well to listen.... carefully.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:09:47PM -0500, Jerry Kreps wrote:

On Monday 23 April 2001 21:34, Rafael E. Herrera wrote: <snip>

...

I use 2.4.x on a 7.0 system. I had problems with the VIA chipset, but none from the init system. People's hardware varies a lot, what may work you/me may not work for me/you.

<snip>

I have two PC's here at home. SuSE has always slipped onto the 5 year old Sony VAIO (P166 -64MB) like a silk glove. My new Beast, on the other hand, fights SuSE like it was possessed with the spirit of Bill Gates.

A new Vaio, perhaps? I've heard about these. And in fact a bunch of newer systems have this issue. You can't use FIPS any more because Windows ME doesn't have DOS. So you have to get a new version of Partition Magic, move your partitions around, and then boot from the CD-ROM. Come to think of it, oh, yes, now I remember. The new Vaio's are even more special than this. I haven't gone through this myself, but (banging my head against the monitor), I remember the story. The Vaio's CD-ROM drive was on a controller that wasn't supported by Linux (it might be now) so you couldn't boot Linux off the CD-ROM. I forget the exact details. If only Bill Gates had a soul that could infest a machine... I honestly think the world would be a better place. So you actually had to open the Vaio up, take out the hard disk and install on it using another machine.

One of the problems is the VIA chipset, and I've yet to hear of any successful BIOS upgrade being successfully burned in. The newest 2.4.x kernel is supposed to have a kernel workaround, but I'm not moving to the 2.4 kernel until SuSE makes it their primary kernel. I doubt there are many newbies who could get SuSE to install on my Beast without getting bite by something.

Come to think of it, my neighbor has one of the new Vaios. It's all kind of weird. I don't remember which is which, but for his wireless network connections he has to boot under one kernel and for his actual ethernet connections, he has to boot under the other. One kernel is a 2.2; the other is a 2.4. (Boo... Hiss... EVIL!!!!) He belongs to the church of Debian, though.

In fact, if I had not been using SuSE for 4 years, and as my only OS for 1 1/2 years, I would not have had the knowledge and skill to install it. As I used to tell my Engineering Physics students, "Everything is easy once you know how", but learning how takes time. Merely saying how easy something is to do doesn't teach HOW to those who don't KNOW how to do it. I would have given up and installed about any version of WinXX. The VIA chip, the AC97 sound chip, the wheel mouse, the r128 video card, the cdrw and the zip250 were all bears to install and even now I am simply using the cdrw as a cd because of the VIA problem.

I thought all this stuff was supported with the 2.4 kernels.

The Beast is running, although not exactly as I would like it. Were I to spec the Beast again I would require all storage perhiperals to be scsi, and I wouldn't use the ATI r128 or the wheel mouse.

Is it a Logitech wheel mouse? Under XFree86 version 4? (More booing and hissing...) Run down to the store and get (even more booing and hissing...) a Microsoft Intellimouse. Those work.

People with machines like my Sony don't need 'installation help". People with machines like my Beast can't be helped by support staff unless the support person is physicall setting at the machine. There are too many subtle problems and disjoints with the hardware and software for a newbie to adequately describe the problems to a support staff.

Most people own machines between my Sony and my Beast. Some can be helped. The trick SuSE has to learn is to figure out which ones can be helped without making all of them angry or insulting the ones they can't help.

This thread demostrates a lot of frustration, some by SuSE staff but most by SuSE's customers. SuSE would do well to listen.... carefully.

But the fact is that SuSE does a far better job with uncooperative hardware than any other distribution. Even my Debian-loving neighbor concedes this. This is an installation that just won't quit. -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:18:48PM -0400, Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

That is a bold statement my friend.

And you are clearly trolling this list. If you think SuSE sucks, go find another distribution that makes you happy. It's an open source world. We don't need to hear this crap.

Sorry - this is not a bold statement any more than bold than linux itself. SuSe better start understanding this if it ever wants to be a first class system.

SuSE is a first class system. I've played with a bunch of distributions. SuSE is the only one you can set up and have a functioning system at the end of the day.

...

I compile 1-2 kernels a day, without any problems whatsoever.

Yah Know what - I've been compiling kernels since 2.0.12

Maybe 1000 times I've compiled kernels on RH, Slackware, Strorm, Debian and SuSe.

Apparently that's not enough.

This compile DOES NOT WORK because the sysv init system and the kernel module is SCREWED....(as hinted at in the docs). module.conf was invisible to the 7.0 system with a hand compile and the initiation system was screwed with the RPM's...problbly secondary to PAM or the location of the files?

The compile works fine. I am now running 2.4.3 under 7.1. I built kernels from 2.3.x test on up under 7.0. Sometimes I had problems, but it sure wasn't SuSE's fault, and I have enough sense to understand that.

AND BTW - mod-ulits? Where waas that under the 7.0 tree in yast?

If you can't find in 7.0, which is reasonable, since SuSE 7.0 wasn't made for 2.4 kernels, get the source. And as others have pointed out, update modutils as well. But apparently that's too hard for you. So I have an even easier idea. You could upgrade to SuSE 7.1, but you know what? I'd really rather you didn't. I'd rather you went to Red Hat. Make sure you upgrade to Red Hat 8.0 when it comes out and then you can complain to the Red Hat lists about what a wonderful distribution it is, especially if they pull another wonder like the one they pulled with gcc.

Aside which YAST is also largely broken.....

More evidence that you are merely trolling this list. YaST is fine. I've been through YaST so many ways it's mind boggling. Occasionally you run into something it just does wrong, and I hate it's speed. But it works, 99% of the time, which beats the hell out of every other distribution packaging tool I've tested. Um yes, I should point out that I've tested distributions. I tested them on different machines to certify them. When they didn't work, I had to make them work. I have an even better idea for you than Red Hat. Why don't you try Turbolinux or, even better, Caldera.

BTW - I don't think 7.1 installed the new Firewall or Forwarding tools to deal with iptables..... I'm still investigating.

7.1 comes with a firewall script. It still uses ipchains, which can be supported if you enable ipchains support in the 2.4 kernel configuration. Obviously, SuSE's 2.4 kernel includes this option.

...

And you are free to compile your kernel anytime -- you just loose the ability to get installation support.

Screw that - that is flat out no right of SUSE and is PART of the problem....Changing the oil shouldn't invalidate the agreement... especially when there is a SECURITY HOLE in the 7.0 Kernel

SuSE has every right. They aren't charging enough even to cover the cost of producing their distribution, let alone all the contributions they've made to the open source community (ReiserFS, 3D video drivers, and USB all come to mind, and somebody is welcome to tell me I don't know the half of it), or the security upgrades. As someone else has explained, when you buy a distribution, you're buying their best effort to build a bunch of programs and configure them in such a way that they'll run. SuSE has fewer segmentation faults than any other distribution I've seen. I have an even better idea for you. Roll your own distribution. For information, see http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ and get an idea of what's involved. After you've gone through all that, then you can tell me what a piece of crap SuSE is. But not before. -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

On Monday 23 April 2001 20:38, Mads Martin J�rgensen wrote:

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 18:30]:

...

Your confused. This is not an issue of support, this is an issue of the distro not being broken in the first place.

A normal kernal compilation is not a special something which maybe SuSe should allow, it is the corner stone of a working open source system. If the distro is so BROKEN that you can't compile the Linux source code as necessary for security (which as a matter of fact is the issue with the 2.18 code now being insecure), then the system is broken.

That is a bold statement my friend. I compile 1-2 kernels a day, without any problems whatsoever.

I'n setting up two PC's here at home I recompiled the 2.2.18 kernel on both more times that I can remember without any problems. But, while I chose the 2.2.18 kernel during a clean install, YaST2 decided I needed the 2.4.0 kernel source tree instead. I had to install the 2.2.18 source tree to get it to compile. No big deal, though. Somebody must have thought that because the system already included the modularized 2.2.18 kernal, I would not need the 2.2.18 source. I'd only need the 2.4 source, assuming I would compile it and move to the 2.4 kernel. Or so it seems. ???

And you are free to compile your kernel anytime -- you just loose the ability to get installation support.

And you _don't_ have to compile your own kernels. How about getting the security updates instead?

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:48]:

Hello

The 2.2.18 kernel is insecure and you should upgrade to 2.4.3

Don't listen to this man -- he have not got a clue. With 2.2.18 either get a *fixed* 2.2.18 from the URL I provided earlier, or go with 2.2.19. Do not fool yourself to think that you need to go to 2.4.x for this fix. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 20:35]:

...

Don't listen to this man -- he have not got a clue.

Hmmm - Really

At least that is my postulate against yours. I had to state it so people can judge between yours and mine.

...

With 2.2.18 either get a *fixed* 2.2.18 from the URL I provided earlier, or go with 2.2.19.

Why is SUSe 7.1 come with 2.4?

Hmm - when is the next 2.2 kernel due out?

That is probably gonna take a long time. But you should not have people who are running perfectly solid 2.2 boxed that does their job fine, head into an upgrade to 2.4. That is just wrong.

For that matter ... when was the last 2.0 kernel distributed...

What does the 2.0 kernel have to do with it?

...

Do not fool yourself to think that you need to go to 2.4.x for this fix.

And the next fix? What then - SUSe will have the upgrade path straight at that point?

It have been straight all the time. Now that you're so concerned with security I find it a bit odd that you're not subscribed to our security mailinglists. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com) [010423 21:04]: =>> =>> What does the 2.0 kernel have to do with it? => =>Everything. There hasn't been any 2.0 developement in at least =>a year because it's support is no longer available. => Wrong 2.0.39 came out in December...the end of lifed it then. I guess joining a bunch of lists makes you a f**king expert on Linux and it's development cycles..go read some more ZDnet articles and quit flaming this list with your crap. I have been running the 2.4.2 kernel since Hubert put it up. They are the RPM's and everything works fine...including my 3D accel. video card.. I have seen bitching about Voodoo cards...well..*HINT* nVidia gutted that company months ago and so I doubt there will be much support for them.. Sheesh...this list has gone to shit in the last year.. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com) [010423 21:11]: => =>Straight means working and fixed. It is not working presently. => =>They can START with fixing the problem Rafael described in YAST. => =>Then see when it fails with 7.0 and 6.4 and 6.2 => =>and 5,3 => 7.1 = major changes in the distribution 6.4, 6.3, 6.2 and 6.1 are older then dirt...give up comparing them..they are unsupported. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 22:22]:

After a short period of time the 2.2 tree will stop being supported

I think we're gonna have 2.2 aruond for some time still. Alan Cox is pretty conservative wrt to stable kernels, and he's the maintainer. When 2.5 kicks in, Linus will abandon 2.4 and give it to Alan like he did with 2.2. Then Alan will probably keep supporting it for some months, until he considers 2.4 good enough. I would not worry about 2.2 based systems beeing out of date in any near future. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Jerry Kreps [Apr 23. 2001 20:14]:

...

Don't listen to this man -- he have not got a clue. With 2.2.18 either get a *fixed* 2.2.18 from the URL I provided earlier, or go with 2.2.19. Do not fool yourself to think that you need to go to 2.4.x for this fix.

Opps! We're having English idiom problems again! That's how Christopher and I had a go around. Here is the correct idiom: "Ignore this advice, it is not correct!"

Your idiom will start another fire fight. :-)

Thanks for the correction :-) -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

Oh, crap. 2.4 is insecure too... Or didn't you hear about the FTP exploit for 2.4/IPTables when used for a firewall? http://www.tempest.com.br/advisories/01-2001.html The only truly, completely secure system is the one that isn't connected to any network, is not plugged in, and has no I/O devices. And even then, you never really know... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO" To: "Jerry Kreps" Cc: "Mads Martin Jørgensen" ; "Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO" ; Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

Hello

The 2.2.18 kernel is insecure and you should upgrade to 2.4.3

Ruben

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

On Tuesday 24 April 2001 00:32, you wrote:

...

The only truly, completely secure system is the one that

is properly upgraded and fire walled.

Yea right.. Like you really know. Give me a break. -- Powered by SuSE 7.1, Kernel 2.4.2 KDE2.1.1 For a great linux portal try http://www.freezer-burn.org

Exactly! It was funky from the start. Mine installed fine, but any updates or other packages fell on there face and sometimes hosed the system. SuSE is now taking the stance that I'm asking to much if I want answers to questions about how to work with SuSE or fix a problem. Telling me that it's in the support statement, the statement that wasn't there until after I bought the box. -----Original Message----- From: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [mailto:ruben@dsl254-112-136-sea1.dsl-isp.net] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1538 To: Konstantin (Kastus) Shchuka Cc: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) Your confused. This is not an issue of support, this is an issue of the distro not being broken in the first place. A normal kernal compilation is not a special something which maybe SuSe should allow, it is the corner stone of a working open source system. If the distro is so BROKEN that you can't compile the Linux source code as necessary for security (which as a matter of fact is the issue with the 2.18 code now being insecure), then the system is broken. As an open sourced system, the system is broken when the kernel can not be made to function with conventional compilation and configuration. If things are as you say, we don't need open sourced linux...we can use NT. Ruben PS - The phone support of SuSe is truely bad.... PS - I happen to own - so far 6.4 x3 7.0 Pro, 7.1 persona, 5.3, and applixware office PS - The Kernel modules on the FTP site do not properly upgrade from 7.0 2.2 to 7.0 2.4 among other things.

SuSE support covers unmodified kernels shipped with the box. 2.4.3 kernel has not been shipped with 7.1, AFAIK.

SuSE support does not cover self-compiled kernels. I may not like it, you may not like, but this is the fact stated in SuSE support policy. This is what they mean by 90-days support. You change the kernel - you go on your own. If you don't like it - don't buy it. I think it's simple.

-Kastus

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:54:37PM -0400, David C. Johanson wrote:

...

I've experienced the same total lack of support. I purchased the full professional 7.1 package for the going retail price. When the software would not, and still does not, install on my machine the response from SuSE technical support is to basically totally ignore my requests for support, the support I paid for in advance and of which there were to be 60 days worth. So far I've received in response to my requests two replies asking for more info both of which were thoroughly answered. Last reply from me to their request was over 3 weeks ago. I'm now five weeks into the 60 day support period with NOTHING having been provided.

I guess it is a case of buyer beware when purchasing SuSE Linux 7.1

dave johanson

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

* Jerry Kreps [Apr 23. 2001 18:14]:

It begs the question: Is SuSE management relying on this email list to supply support to SuSE purchasers?

No! We spend money on keeping this list running only as a service to give people a forum where to talk to each other. IMO very true to the ideals of the community. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Geordon VanTassle [Apr 23. 2001 18:24]:

Truth be told, I get more technical assistance from this mailing list than I do/did from Installation Support. Then again, the technical questions that I have are not "Installation" level stuff.

Exactly -- what a lot of people seem to get wrong is what it is actually possible to provide support for, given the amount of money we charge for the box.

By the way, how can I get my hands on a replacement for CD4 from my 7.1 Pro set? Mine came cracked. I submitted a request and have heard no REAL response.

If you call customer service, they will replace it -- anytime!

Thanks, SuSE for the mailing lists!

You are welcome. I don't know if you guys realize how much work is needed to keep them running smoothly? -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:14]:

Of course we do. MAny of us run our own lists...even lugs.

There are items which should be adressed prior to release of the distro which need to fixed.

BTW - I'n definetly brough enough SuSe products over the years to not have a door slammed in my face which discussing a normal kernel upgrade.

Ruben

...

...

Thanks, SuSE for the mailing lists!

You are welcome. I don't know if you guys realize how much work is needed to keep them running smoothly?

The above statement was not slamming a door, I was trying to let people know that it is not something that magically is there. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

Yep, I wish SuSE would tell the public that $1.00 of the cost of the box is actually put towards support. That way people wouldn't get the idea that they put out all this cash for support that isn't 100% to their liking. Believe me I know it's about a dollar of the cost that goes to support. The box makes it sound so grand..but if you look at it...support is not just email questions answered or phone calls..look at the sdb, Knowledge portal and all the other reference matrials that SuSE fits the bill for...that's support. Hell, You can even find links off Caldera's site tell you to go to SuSE's sdb and to get their packages because they are pretty damn good. I wish people knew how to to read Appendix H (7.0 and 7.1) and Appendix A in the older 6.4 ---> below....it would make things much easier. Pfft... *note* this isn't directed at you Jerry. :) * Jerry Kreps (jerrykreps@jlkreps.net) [010423 18:15]: =>It begs the question: Is SuSE management relying on this =>email list to supply support to SuSE purchasers? => =>There is nothing wrong with that approach, AS LONG AS they =>say that the support is via this list on their packaging, which =>they have not. => =>While I've never needed anything more than this list for support, =>with the increasing number of ex-Windows newbies coming =>into the flock, many more are needing a lot of hand-holding. =>Also, we are in a time of massive flux. We are changing kernels =>and KDE is upgrading at a very rapid pace. New hardware and =>peripherals are also making driver upgrades more difficult. =>There are lots of rough edges (or gaping holes) in all three. =>Keeping my 'eyes on the prize' I know things are only getting =>better. All I have to do is compare KDE with 1.0 or 2.218 with =>2.0.36 to see the huge improvements. => =>Regardless, If SuSE can't honor their promise it suggests that =>management is 'cheating' on their pledge of support. That also =>could suggest that they have cut past the fat and into the meat =>and bone of the company. Or, it could also suggest that they =>have abandon the single (personal) users and have gone after =>the high volume corporate accounts. => =>Either way, if SuSE keeps up this neglect it won't take long for =>news of it to spread to the entire flock and then they will be =>hard-pressed to restore user confidence in either their word =>or their product. =>$0.02 =>JLK -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.

Maybe that's the plan. SuSE had to lay off it's U.S. staff and they're probably over working their support staff im Deutchland. So, overworked staff can't handle all the support requests and many go fallow. Maybe things will get better when a bulk of users support periods expire? -----Original Message----- From: David C. Johanson [mailto:dcjohan@erols.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1955 To: Curtis Rey Cc: Ole Kofoed Hansen; SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) I've experienced the same total lack of support. I purchased the full professional 7.1 package for the going retail price. When the software would not, and still does not, install on my machine the response from SuSE technical support is to basically totally ignore my requests for support, the support I paid for in advance and of which there were to be 60 days worth. So far I've received in response to my requests two replies asking for more info both of which were thoroughly answered. Last reply from me to their request was over 3 weeks ago. I'm now five weeks into the 60 day support period with NOTHING having been provided. I guess it is a case of buyer beware when purchasing SuSE Linux 7.1 dave johanson

Fair enough! At least there's a straight answer. I do appreciate you the situation. Thank you! -----Original Message----- From: mha@suse.com [mailto:mha@suse.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2023 To: crrey Cc: David C. Johanson; Ole Kofoed Hansen; SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) crrey wrote:

Maybe that's the plan. SuSE had to lay off it's U.S. staff and they're probably over working their support staff im Deutchland. So, overworked staff can't handle all the support requests and many go fallow. Maybe things will get better when a bulk of users support periods expire?

This has nothing to do with the layoffs. Of course, WITH those people there'd be even more eyes/hands to help you out, but the fundamental problem is that there will be ALWAYS much more demand for support than we can ever provide - at $70/box. And the guys doing that kind of support have to be a "little" better qualified than someone in AT&T's callcenter, and they are therefore more expensive. Face it, i-support will always be a compromise.

Heir Hasenstein, du ist der Mann (forgive my German). All I really ever wanted was someone to acknowledge my situation and give me a straight answer (God - I sound like my wife - lol). So would it be more prudent for me to stick with the 2.2.18 kernel (I'm likely going to have to re-install anyway) and wait for a more stable/user friendly 2.4.x version (and if the new version is the focus of the teams efforts - I don't mind spending money for it - I just want a stable and polished sys)? And, If indeed I should hold off on the 2.4.x upgrades (or default 7.1 install), when and how will I no that the polished kernal is out (realizing you can't give me a fix date, I'm talking about an announcement or something similar)? Once again, thank you kindly for the straight forward information and reply. Curtis Rey R.N. B.S.N. -----Original Message----- From: mha@suse.com [mailto:mha@suse.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2100 To: crrey Cc: David C. Johanson; Ole Kofoed Hansen; SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) crrey wrote:

Fair enough! At least there's a straight answer. I do appreciate you the situation. Thank you!

And quite a lot of VERY qualified people _are_ working on fixing all your 2.4 issues. The problem is we definitely can NOT afford to fix them one-by-one for everyone who calls. Instead, they have to fix it for a few hundred thousand people. The 2.4 kernel and the issue of making it run smoothly and painlessly as the default kernel is receiving the most attention of any package right now! And you guys DO benefit even if you don't buy the next release for which most of the work is being done, just look at the update kernel for 7.0 and 7.1 - the 2.2.18.SuSE is one of the best kernels out there. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

Ya, sounds like the safest bet to me. 2.2.18 seemed to be fairly polished. I just thought I might get some advantage in performance and stability via 2.4.x. Oh well, all part of the learning process. Thanx. Curtis -----Original Message----- From: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [mailto:ruben@dsl254-112-136-sea1.dsl-isp.net] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1839 To: crrey Cc: mha@suse.com; David C. Johanson; Ole Kofoed Hansen; SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) If your planning a reinstall soon, just upgrade to fixed 2.2 kernel Do a clean 7.1 install whe you get a chance. Ruben

crrey wrote:

Heir Hasenstein, du ist der Mann (forgive my German). All I really ever wanted was someone to acknowledge my situation and give me a straight answer (God - I sound like my wife - lol). So would it be more prudent for me to stick with the 2.2.18 kernel (I'm likely going to have to re-install anyway) and wait for a more stable/user friendly 2.4.x version (and if the new

We made 2.2.18 the default for a reason... no way that you can expect the same level of maturity from a fresh kernel line that the long-tested 2.2 line has. It's not a stability issue (any more), but more things like driver support and other stuff around the kernel instead of in the kernel.

version is the focus of the teams efforts - I don't mind spending money for it - I just want a stable and polished sys)? And, If indeed I should hold off on the 2.4.x upgrades (or default 7.1 install), when and how will I no that the polished kernal is out (realizing you can't give me a fix date, I'm talking about an announcement or something similar)?

When it's time for kernel 3.0 (I don't think they'll call the next one 2.6) 2.4 will be a very stable and mature line... personally, I'll switch to 2.4 with the next SuSE release in summer.

* Curtis Rey [Apr 23. 2001 16:48]:

No sir, I was not confused by the word "support" in the context that I was addressing. I was not referring to development support or support for the 2.4 kernel by SuSE in regards to working on and releasing it in the lastest version. I was referring to the end-user support concerning the use of and implimentations of the 2.4 kernel in terms of supporting configuration and installation of the kernel. Which proves my position that SuSE will included the kernel in the release and then washes it hands of any further end-user services or support for that kernel. It's similar to a car maker saying we have a model with the standard 2.2 liter engine and the new and improved fuel injected 2.4 liter high performance engine. We will be happy to sell you either model. Oh, and by the way, if the 2.4 liter engine needs service or tune ups we cannot offer any certified dealer mechanics. And did I mention that the engine a parts are not under any warrenty. If your new fuel injected 2.4 liter engine needs tune ups, repairs, or any other form of service might I suggest that your nearest neighborhood mechanic should be contacted if you should have any problems with the 2.4 liter engine. Gee, that's ok, I want the 2.4 liter engine - it won't break (I hope)!

So if you go ahead and grab the new engine we offer you for the 2.4 liter model, do you also expect us to put it in for you -- in your specific car? And one other thing; Where do you buy a car and get service, repair and tune-ups included in the normal warranty? -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

It seems to me that SuSE is almost actively trying to avoid any mention of the 2.4 kernel and update problems. I keep getting responses that say they support the kernel but don't support my use or any problems with the kernel (symantics - gotta love em). I just wanted to know how to fix my system after I dl'ed the rpms using SuSE's own program designed for just such a purpose. They announced the new kernels and suggested to do the upgrade - Now I'm out of line for wanted someone to help me figure out why its not working like its preport to? I'm not trying to start trouble or one of those guys that likes to start flame wars. I just want my system to work and I've only been using Linux since July of last year. Started with Corel (mistake) and then Mandrake (good to learn on but I wanted the new features). What's so wrong about wanting help from a company that I bought a product from? And I'm not talking about 2.4.3, I'm talking about 2.4.2 and modutils-2.4.2-14. Everything the Brooklyn CEO seems to sum up my frustrations. Using SuSE recommended updates with the recommended methods are my problem if they don't work? It's broken and no one at SuSE appears to be in slighest bit interested in giving me any sort of advice - they appear to be more interested in find ways to have me go away and drop the issue. -----Original Message----- From: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [mailto:ruben@dsl254-112-136-sea1.dsl-isp.net] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1556 To: Mads Martin Jørgensen Cc: Curtis Rey; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) This is a bad model to compare with - but let's run with it. I used to install nearly everything by hand, but the increasing reliance of the package manager which is being encougaged by the distros have created cirumstances where many autoconf files and software dependencies can not any longer be reasonably worked out. As a result, the distro's are disfunctional without the package managers. The recent Kernel upgrade is a prime example. So much of the core of the system's init and module dependencies changed, that not only did nearly everything need to be rebuilt, but even after using the RPM's from a FRESH 7.1 disk (since the on line ones didn't work), and after an initial failure from the CD, once finally things were massaged to work, all my origianl setting were LOST, espeically Firewall, Routing, HOSTING and X (my voodoo3 3d stopped working again). So the distros are say - OK we will for now on drive - YOU - (slap) - take you r hands off the wheel. Now it is asked - should we expect you to put the engine in as well??? Well - what the heck is the RPM then anyway!! BTW - as for the question, if the engine originally provided can be remotely started and then drive the car across country, while charging my plastic for the gas... damn straight I expect your RPM to slip that new 2.4 engine right in place.... Or at least fix the damn system so that it can work with an off the shelf job. Ruben PS One Last thing - I wish Crossfire worked again. It was the reason I brought SuSe.

So if you go ahead and grab the new engine we offer you for the 2.4 liter model, do you also expect us to put it in for you -- in your specific car?

And one other thing; Where do you buy a car and get service, repair and tune-ups included in the normal warranty?

...

And I'm not talking about 2.4.3, I'm talking about 2.4.2 and modutils-2.4.2-14. Everything the Brooklyn CEO seems to sum up my frustrations. Using SuSE recommended updates with the recommended methods are my problem if they don't work? It's broken and no one at SuSE appears to be in slighest bit interested in giving me any sort of advice - they appear to be more interested in find ways to have me go away and drop the issue.

That is a different issue. The support you get for the price of the box is *INSTALLATION* support. Not upgrade support.

And there is nothing wrong in wanting help, but how are we supposed to offer custom support for every single customer taken into consideratin what you pay for the box?

There should be no issue with a kernel upgrade unless the distro is negligent in it's design..... make xconfig make deps make clean make bzlilo make install The RPM's for the init upgrades and modprobe upgrades and the like should just work - regardless of the 2.4 kernel version. Ruben

crrey wrote:

Yep. make config, make dep, make clean, make bzImage (or bzlilo), make modules, make modules_install, make install, a few cp commands, run lilo, and viola! And RPM's, thought those were supposed to take care of that stuff. At least vendor specific rpms into the same vendor specific distro/version. But, heck what do I know, I'm a newbie!

A blind make config or whatever your are doing will not get you a working kernel. Just try to get one of those mobos with VIA chipset to work and you are for a sad reality. There is more to updating kernel RPMs that installing them, it's all documented in the Suse web site and posted here by me. What did you do and what error messages did you get? -- Rafael

Old kernel boot fails to find modules for 2.4.0-4gb and eth0 or sound care. "can't find system map", no eth0, no sound, no modules listed the old modules.conf gone, swithc2nv_glx gone after removal of 0.9-769 mod reinstall of SuSE version 0.9-6 mods. Yast won't let me install any sound card or nic - can't/write to modules.conf, old kernel can't find modules conf. modprobe can't find modules, replace rc.config with rc.config.old and the new kernel boots, old kernel same thing no sound, nic and can't install or load. New kernel won't accept nv mods and edits to the files such as module.conf. etc have no impact on the old kernel/SuSE kernel. I follow the advice/HOWTO from SuSE in the first place and will most likely re-install There seems to be a lot of thing that are assumed and that may be for an experience user. But novices and newbie are hard pressed to find a comprehensive walkthrough for this process. I do the README's and due to subsystem interdependencies I would really like to have some thing that addresses the process from a viewpoint of someone who doesn't have a comp sci degree. If someone said look for the error messages in /var/whatever logs and tell me what they say I'd jump on it. I just don't know what files/logs to look at to figure it out. I at a loss as to where to go from here. -----Original Message----- From: raffo@bellatlantic.net [mailto:raffo@bellatlantic.net]On Behalf Of Rafael E. Herrera Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2151 To: crrey Cc: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO; Mads Martin Jørgensen; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) crrey wrote:

Yep. make config, make dep, make clean, make bzImage (or bzlilo), make modules, make modules_install, make install, a few cp commands, run lilo, and viola! And RPM's, thought those were supposed to take care of that stuff. At least vendor specific rpms into the same vendor specific distro/version. But, heck what do I know, I'm a newbie!

A blind make config or whatever your are doing will not get you a working kernel. Just try to get one of those mobos with VIA chipset to work and you are for a sad reality. There is more to updating kernel RPMs that installing them, it's all documented in the Suse web site and posted here by me. What did you do and what error messages did you get? -- Rafael

crrey wrote:

...

Yep. make config, make dep, make clean, make bzImage (or bzlilo), make modules, make modules_install, make install, a few cp commands, run

Who's got a via mobo? I have and bx440 Abit BE6-II rev2.0 with a Celeron 500. I followed the instructions and the original configs all got hosed and the original 2.4.0 and 2.4.0 suse setup lost its sound and network interface. Yast1/2 won't re-install because the devices are actually there and setup - for 2.4.2 only though! I was just hoping to get some pointers as to where to look for solution and that's when a flame war broke out - then I got even more frustrated because the moderators seemed to act as if I was out of line. Just wanted a few answers - wouldn't bother me if they said start from scratch or whatever. I just didn't appreciate being told that asking for answers or help was not proper or warrented by suggesting that perhaps there might be a problem with the SuSE packages or whatever - especially in light of the fact that no one asked what happened in the first place. -----Original Message----- From: b stephen harding [mailto:big-lime@home.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2259 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) On Monday 23 April 2001 22:51, you wrote: lilo,

...

and viola! And RPM's, thought those were supposed to take care of that stuff. At least vendor specific rpms into the same vendor specific distro/version. But, heck what do I know, I'm a newbie!

A blind make config or whatever your are doing will not get you a working kernel. Just try to get one of those mobos with VIA chipset to work and you are for a sad reality.

There is more to updating kernel RPMs that installing them, it's all documented in the Suse web site and posted here by me.

What did you do and what error messages did you get?

Not sure what you are talking about. I've got one of those VIA Mobo's and I've just finished doing a kernel compile of 2.4.2 with success and you can't get much more of a novice then me. I'm running: AMD K6III 450 256Mb ram DFI Mobo with Via chipset Promise Ultra66 IDE Controller HDD 20.00 Fujitsu Picobird HDD 27.2 IBM Deskstar Sblive Geforce 2 MX This was not my first kernel compile though, maybe me 20th (not all successful). Honestly I'm not sure what some of you are complaining about with the support thing. Seems clear to me what SuSE covers in there support agreement. If you want to upgrade to something not supplied in the orginal package that is your responsibility. All my dealings with SuSE support have been satisfactory in the replies and fixes. They could have been a bit more timely though. LOL, the list most times provides the solutions first. Well most times anyways, when my posts don't get ignored. :-) -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

I have both an Abit KA7 (w/ Athlon 700) and KT7A (w/ Duron 800) I have had no problems with them (except the POST bug w/ GeForce 2). I haven't experienced the problem w/ the SB live cards although mine is the 5.1 if that makes a difference, I don't know. No, problems, with NIC's (D-Link DFE-530TX+ and Netgear FA311). I am using the 2.4.0-SuSE kernel and have had no problems w/ it, or w/ my GeForce2 card in XF 4.0.3. Everything went perfect with my SuSE 7.1 install from start to finish. Rick Barnes rag3fan@yahoo.com At 12:05 AM 4/24/01 -0500, crrey wrote:

Who's got a via mobo? I have and bx440 Abit BE6-II rev2.0 with a Celeron 500. I followed the instructions and the original configs all got hosed and the original 2.4.0 and 2.4.0 suse setup lost its sound and network interface. Yast1/2 won't re-install because the devices are actually there and setup - for 2.4.2 only though! I was just hoping to get some pointers as to where to look for solution and that's when a flame war broke out - then I got even more frustrated because the moderators seemed to act as if I was out of line. Just wanted a few answers - wouldn't bother me if they said start from scratch or whatever. I just didn't appreciate being told that asking for answers or help was not proper or warrented by suggesting that perhaps there might be a problem with the SuSE packages or whatever - especially in light of the fact that no one asked what happened in the first place.

-----Original Message----- From: b stephen harding [mailto:big-lime@home.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2259 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

...

crrey wrote:

...

Yep. make config, make dep, make clean, make bzImage (or bzlilo), make modules, make modules_install, make install, a few cp commands, run

On Monday 23 April 2001 22:51, you wrote: lilo,

...

...

and viola! And RPM's, thought those were supposed to take care of that stuff. At least vendor specific rpms into the same vendor specific distro/version. But, heck what do I know, I'm a newbie!

A blind make config or whatever your are doing will not get you a working kernel. Just try to get one of those mobos with VIA chipset to work and you are for a sad reality.

There is more to updating kernel RPMs that installing them, it's all documented in the Suse web site and posted here by me.

What did you do and what error messages did you get?

Not sure what you are talking about. I've got one of those VIA Mobo's and I've just finished doing a kernel compile of 2.4.2 with success and you can't get much more of a novice then me.

I'm running: AMD K6III 450 256Mb ram DFI Mobo with Via chipset Promise Ultra66 IDE Controller HDD 20.00 Fujitsu Picobird HDD 27.2 IBM Deskstar Sblive Geforce 2 MX

This was not my first kernel compile though, maybe me 20th (not all successful).

Honestly I'm not sure what some of you are complaining about with the support thing. Seems clear to me what SuSE covers in there support agreement. If you want to upgrade to something not supplied in the orginal package that is your responsibility.

All my dealings with SuSE support have been satisfactory in the replies and fixes. They could have been a bit more timely though. LOL, the list most times provides the solutions first. Well most times anyways, when my posts don't get ignored. :-)

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Tuesday 24. April 2001 07:13, Rafael E. Herrera wrote:

Not everybody is bitten by the via bugs. It's a serious problem and has not been solved yet. A machine at school would not boot with the 2.2.18 update from suse a few weeks ago and the problem was with the optimizations used with the VIA chipset. It is being discussed in the linux-kernel mailing list also.

Mine too. It just hangs at VP_something calibrating PCI clocks or similar. Using the boxed 2.2.18, 2.4.0 or 2.4.2 works okay though. I suppose this is also the reason my Nvidia gives black console with CTRL + Alt + F1 or during shutdown. I did a compile of Kernel 2.4.3, but screwed up somewhere as it didn't find my boot device...oh hell, I'll probably try again as soon as the Kernelwizard at SuSE puts up the source with patches (Hail to Mantel) :-)

My mentioning it was to make a point that linux will not run out of the box for everybody, that in some cases it'll plainly bomb. People here are complaining that their upgrades didn't work and blamed suse about it.

Upgrades are always risky. It's better just to backup /home and /etc and maybe even /usr/local and start with a fresh install :-)

This forum is for us users to help each other, all this argument is moving slowly in figuring out what happened to these guys. The sooner they start describing their problems in detail the quicker we'll solve it.

I have been at a point where my system was so screwed I had to boot via the install DVD. YaST/SuSEconfig always got it back on track. I will not go away from SuSE. Sorry if this post is offtopic, I just felt I wanted to share my thoughts in a rather hostile enviroment at the moment. Later, Jens

In AMERICA you do, it's standard for any dealer/maker to give 1 year service. That includes tune ups and bi-annual check ups. And most offer things like 2yrs or 20,000 miles service warranties. -----Original Message----- From: Mads Martin Jørgensen [mailto:mmj@suse.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2005 To: Curtis Rey Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) * Curtis Rey [Apr 23. 2001 16:48]:

No sir, I was not confused by the word "support" in the context that I was addressing. I was not referring to development support or support for the 2.4 kernel by SuSE in regards to working on and releasing it in the lastest version. I was referring to the end-user support concerning the use of and implimentations of the 2.4 kernel in terms of supporting configuration and installation of the kernel. Which proves my position that SuSE will included the kernel in the release and then washes it hands of any further end-user services or support for that kernel. It's similar to a car maker saying we have a model with the standard 2.2 liter engine and the new and improved fuel injected 2.4 liter high performance engine. We will be happy to sell you either model. Oh, and by the way, if the 2.4 liter engine needs service or tune ups we cannot offer any certified dealer mechanics. And did I mention that the engine a parts are not under any warrenty. If your new fuel injected 2.4 liter engine needs tune ups, repairs, or any other form of service might I suggest that your nearest neighborhood mechanic should be contacted if you should have any problems with the 2.4 liter engine. Gee, that's ok, I want the 2.4 liter engine - it won't break (I hope)!

So if you go ahead and grab the new engine we offer you for the 2.4 liter model, do you also expect us to put it in for you -- in your specific car? And one other thing; Where do you buy a car and get service, repair and tune-ups included in the normal warranty? -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

This is more stupidity. Kernel 2.4.3 is nothing but standard. This upgrade amounts to a necessary oil change...not turing it into a 1963 Dodge Chalenge with a Nitro Pack.

On standard equipment. Try to find a dealer who would honor the warranty if you install a nitrous kit or hydraulic risers or a blower, or any other after-marked alterations.

But then you tell me why you need the upgrade? Did the one that came with the distribution out of the box all of a sudden stop working?

Yes it did when CERT issued the security alert about the 2.2.18 kernel. Ruben

Yes But it fails to upgrade to 2.4 Ruben

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:26]:

...

...

But then you tell me why you need the upgrade? Did the one that came with the distribution out of the box all of a sudden stop working?

Yes it did when CERT issued the security alert about the 2.2.18 kernel.

http://lists.suse.com/archives/suse-security/2001-Apr/0371.html

-- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

If you have a 2.2 system you should not have to upgrade to 2.4 to fix the problem. You should upgrade to the fixed 2.2.18

The issue here is that the 2.2 is at the end of it's life and there have been 3 security alerts in it in 6 months. Practically speaking - a 2.4 upgrade is called for. Ruben

<> Wrong wrong it does not The 7.1 upgrade seems to have screwed up the scsi modules as well... More bugs... Ruben -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752

Ehm , Out of curiosity I just clinked the link below which was part of the singature and wow linux 2.2.x kernels are supported but now 2.4 http://www.mrbrklyn.com -- Togan Muftuoglu

On Tuesday 24 April 2001 14:31, you wrote:

<>

Wrong wrong it does not

The 7.1 upgrade seems to have screwed up the scsi modules as well...

Must be another bug.. You sent the message twice.

More bugs...

Ruben

-- Powered by SuSE 7.1, Kernel 2.4.2 KDE2.1.1 For a great linux portal try http://www.freezer-burn.org

Instead of going through this more and more if you are at all affiliated with SuSe - please see if someone can make a smoother upgrade path from the 2.2 kernel to the 2.4 kernel on 7.0 and below systems. And see if we can get Crossfire Working again;) Thank you for the time you spent discussing this important matter. Ruben

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:26]:

...

...

But then you tell me why you need the upgrade? Did the one that came with the distribution out of the box all of a sudden stop working?

Yes it did when CERT issued the security alert about the 2.2.18 kernel.

http://lists.suse.com/archives/suse-security/2001-Apr/0371.html

-- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

Since I haven't seen it (or looked for it, to be honest... ) What's Crossfire? Geordon Linux geek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO" To: "Mads Martin Jørgensen" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

Instead of going through this more and more

if you are at all affiliated with SuSe - please see if someone can make a smoother upgrade path from the 2.2 kernel to the 2.4 kernel on 7.0 and below systems.

And see if we can get Crossfire Working again;)

Thank you for the time you spent discussing this important matter.

Ruben

...

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:26]:

...

...

But then you tell me why you need the upgrade? Did the one that came with the distribution out of the box all of a sudden stop working?

Yes it did when CERT issued the security alert about the 2.2.18 kernel.

http://lists.suse.com/archives/suse-security/2001-Apr/0371.html

-- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." Your words, not mine! Seems to sum up my situation perfectly! -----Original Message----- From: Mads Martin Jørgensen [mailto:mmj@suse.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2127 To: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) * Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:26]:

...

But then you tell me why you need the upgrade? Did the one that came with the distribution out of the box all of a sudden stop working?

Yes it did when CERT issued the security alert about the 2.2.18 kernel.

http://lists.suse.com/archives/suse-security/2001-Apr/0371.html -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

The owner had an eight grade education and analytical skills of a PhD Math major.

Ot's funny that you say this. I've met a number of people like this in my time...my Grandfather included. It's interesting to watch.

Wes never lost a customer by offending him, and he never took offense at remarks or claims of a customer. (That is because Wes worked for the Carpenter, as I do.)

Boro Park Brooklyn would have tested his philosophy ;) Good - I hated being a pharmacist in that neighborhood

And here I was not arguing. I was trying to correct the terrible misunderstanding that one have to go to 2.4 to get the security issues with 2.2.18 fixed.

That wasn't what I said. What I said it made no sense to do that, even if it was easier, IMO....

* Geordon VanTassle [Apr 23. 2001 20:40]:

Mads, minds are made up. It seems that there is not going to be much movement by anyone on the issues. That's sad.

It is. I'm just trying to prevent people from listening to technically wrong arguments.

Did you get the e-mail that I sent directly to you?

Yes, and I'll reply to that tomorrow. I have to leave now. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Jerry Kreps [Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:30:33 -0500]:

SuSE would do better to listen to their customers and not argue with them.

Just a note: my engagement on suse-linux-e has *nothing* to do with my job at SuSE! So it's not SuSE not listening to their customers, but me as a person that happens to work for SuSE participating because I want to help others. Yes, I do know that writing under my SuSE address automatically makes me kind of a rep for SuSE, that's why I do tend to be rather friendly and calm and not flame some people like I'd do otherwise. And I *am* listening, otherwise I'd just leave the list again and do my normal job. Philipp -- Linux only became possible because 20 years of OS research was carefully studied, analyzed, discussed and thrown away. Ingo Molnar on linux-kernel

In message <3AEAEC25.661CDB92@acm.org>, Paul Abrahams writes

Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

And I *am* listening, otherwise I'd just leave the list again and do my normal job.

I have been "lurking" on this list for while, and am most grateful for the help given by Philipp and other volunteers. I often try out the things I have learned on my SuSE 7.1 Prof. and am gradually transferring my work to Linux. I am nearly through with Windows, but still find MSDOS useful. I have a dual-boot machine with Windows98 (drive one 6.5 Mb) and Linux on the other (similar) drive. To all our helpers, thanks, and keep up the good work. Best regards. -- Geoff Bagley G3FHL

Ok, by your logic, SuSE should also support qmail, too. Oh, wait! Installation support doesn't cover Sendmail, either, does it? How about PostFix? Aren't THOSE Standard, too? The support that is included with the purchase price of SuSE is INSTALLATION SUPPORT rather than advanced server support. If you want that additional support, ferkrysakes, pay for it like everyone else can. Or read up on it and go from there. That's what I do. Or, go to the source for the problem program. Good God, people! The support that you get "for free" is bare-bones at best. That's all it ever was advertised as. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO" To: "Geordon VanTassle" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

This is more stupidity.

Kernel 2.4.3 is nothing but standard.

This upgrade amounts to a necessary oil change...not turing it into a 1963 Dodge Chalenge with a Nitro Pack.

...

On standard equipment. Try to find a dealer who would honor the warranty if you install a nitrous kit or hydraulic risers or a blower, or any other after-marked alterations.

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

I've paid for enough SuSe software to have a NORMAL thing like a kernal upgrade to go smoothly, even from Source.

- install sources - cd /usr/src/linux - make cloneconfig dep clean bzlilo modules modules_install; mk_initrd - reboot done

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com) [010423 21:23]: => => =>mk_initrd doesn't exist on 7.0. It does on the updated system. => Go smoke another crackrock..it does exist on it. I have used ..you are blind or extremely miss informed. Why don't you go back to where you came from. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.

Enough ...this has been a thread that is sick, rotten, needs to to die. Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

Welcome to my kill file jerk

Everyone has been polite till you...

...

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com) [010423 21:23]: => => =>mk_initrd doesn't exist on 7.0. It does on the updated system. =>

Go smoke another crackrock..it does exist on it. I have used ..you are blind or extremely miss informed. Why don't you go back to where you came from.

Well, what was your problem? describe your hardware, the error messages, etc. Suggestions on how to do the upgrade have been posted by me and others. All this bickering is pointless. -- Rafael

It is far better than Closed Software. They NEVER HERE you.

...

All this bickering is pointless.

You are not seeing 'bickering', Rafael, you are seeing frustration.

On Monday 23 April 2001 23:03, you wrote:

This is more stupidity. Nope.. You are the one stating that. It isn't stupid at all.

Kernel 2.4.3 is nothing but standard.

Does it come with the original package? Is it "original" equipment? The answer is NO! Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

This upgrade amounts to a necessary oil change...not turing it into a 1963 Dodge Chalenge with a Nitro Pack.

Nope.. Not hardly.

...

On standard equipment. Try to find a dealer who would honor the warranty if you install a nitrous kit or hydraulic risers or a blower, or any other after-marked alterations.

-- Powered by SuSE 7.1, Kernel 2.4.2 KDE2.1.1 For a great linux portal try http://www.freezer-burn.org

ROFL Maybe SuSe forgot that kernel upgrades are standard. BTW - with the attitude SuSe has taken towards it's refusal to fix problems in the distributions which become apearent THROUGH support, they can not ever be recommended for enterprise systems. Ruben

This is *EXACTLY* what it's all about.

But maybe the complaining people simply forgot that?

A kernel upgrade on your own is not a trivial mater,

Yes it is a trival matter unless the system built around the kernel does weird things. In SUSe's case, they don't even distribute the Linux Kernel but their own deriviative. SuSe was slow to install the mkinitrd Ruben

you can't expect them to solve the miriad of problems taht you may encounter.

sigh - No - but they can make sure a standard kernel compiles and interfaces with their kernal dameon and init system.. Ruben

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:59]:

...

A kernel upgrade on your own is not a trivial mater,

Yes it is a trival matter unless the system built around the kernel does weird things. In SUSe's case, they don't even distribute the Linux Kernel but their own deriviative.

SuSe was slow to install the mkinitrd

Ruben

...

you can't expect them to solve the miriad of problems taht you may encounter.

sigh -

No - but they can make sure a standard kernel compiles and interfaces with their kernal dameon and init system..

I think you're trying to blame your faults on us here, because you apparantly consider yourself some kind of expert. I would like you to send to this list *exactly* what you wanted to do, and where the problem arose. Let's stick to technical facts. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:

...

I think you're trying to blame your faults on us here, because you apparantly consider yourself some kind of expert.

You know what - maybe your right. But I just finished doing this with Slackware with no trouble.

And I was working with some VA system engineers when I was doing the SuSe upgrade. They didn't know exactly why module.conf seemed to be completely ignored when the upgrade happened by the kernel dameom. I tried to force kerneld into use though the system setup files, that failed. kmod was failing, kerneld was failing.. so maybe you can tell me why the kernel refused to load the aic7xxx drivers and the 3c90x drivers. The RH solution was tied to mkinitrd which wasn't on the system ANYWHERE. The docs from the source code at

/sbin/mk_initrd creates initrd's for all kernel for which there's an initrd entry in lilo.conf using /etc/rc.config variable INITRD_MODULES to determine which modules to insert.

kernel.org lead to a hand compile of module-utils etc, and the kernel which caused an infinite LOOP in the login process. And in single user mode, nothign showed in the logs as any error. So the system failed without logging any messages!

So your probibly right. It's my fault. Sorry for mentioning it.

...

The I would like you to send to this list *exactly* what you wanted to do, and where the problem arose. Let's stick to technical facts.

The list can read the archival history.

No here is the deal, untill I did an automated update from the 7.1 disk which rewrote the init system, and loaded a bunch of stuff I didn't ask for...nothing from either YAST available RPM's or hand compiling worked to get the system working.

I had reached a point wheren I was consulting face to face with others, but tracking the problem down through the entire sysV system just didn't make sense over upgrading through the 7.1 CD's

You know, the other extreme _does_ exist as well - insert 7.1 cd, select "upgrade", and all works. I know that doesn't help those stuck with the problems. In addition, 7.0->7.1 was a major step. 7,0 was really a 6.5... oh well. No it's not the marketing guys fault, we had a product split into two products, plus when we did the planning for 7.0 we expected both kde 2 and kernel 2.4 to become available. Neither did, but it's harder to change a printing press than to just go through with this too-early version number change.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:30]:

ROFL

Maybe SuSe forgot that kernel upgrades are standard.

Not from one major version number to another, no.

BTW - with the attitude SuSe has taken towards it's refusal to fix problems in the distributions which become apearent THROUGH support, they can not ever be recommended for enterprise systems.

We do! -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:55]:

...

...

Maybe SuSe forgot that kernel upgrades are standard.

Not from one major version number to another, no.

I grant you that it is more difficult, but this is not like the 2.0 to 2.2 upgrade at all.

7.0 should never have been released with 2.2 kernels

Hmmmm, the 2.4 was not out when 7.0 was released? And if you mean 7.1 -- of course. We were at 2.4.0, so not giving people the option to get 2.2 would be simply wrong. If you mean that 7.1 never should be released with 2.4 kernels, then I just don't agree. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 20:28]:

...

Hmmmm, the 2.4 was not out when 7.0 was released?

It was due out any time...if not already anounced.

SuSE Linux 7.0 was out in september. 2.4.0 out beginning of January. And yes -- the 2.4 was supposed to be out more than a year before it actually was. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.

So what about 7.1 with 2.4.0-4GB to 2.4.2-4GB via YaST via the SuSE ftp site? I didn't do anything but tell it to install 2.4.2 and modutils 2.4.2-14 and things got worse. And given the amount of posts to comment that this is not an addressable issue, the time spent doing that probably would have been equal (or less) asking me a couple of questions, giving a couple of suggestions or answers and then it would either fix it or I would have start all over with re-install. My mobo is common, my cpu common, my memory, my hdd's, nic, sound card, etc..., all standard, boring hardware, and my install is stock with the exception of the nvidia kernel and glx packs. I just don't get why a simple install using the vendors progams, methods, and software shouldn't be such a problem and cause so many people to vent their frustration along the same lines. This suggests to me that there is indeed a problem concerning this issue and that I'm not the only one that is experiencing this. I appreciate the fact that there is only so much that might be done. But concering this issue, I really think there is a subtantive problem that needs to be addressed. -----Original Message----- From: Mads Martin Jørgensen [mailto:mmj@suse.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2140 To: Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) * Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Apr 23. 2001 19:30]:

ROFL

Maybe SuSe forgot that kernel upgrades are standard.

Not from one major version number to another, no.

BTW - with the attitude SuSe has taken towards it's refusal to fix problems in the distributions which become apearent THROUGH support, they can not ever be recommended for enterprise systems.

We do! -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

* Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO [Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:37:55 -0400 (EDT)]: I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to answer to that.

Maybe SuSe forgot that kernel upgrades are standard.

Compiling your own kernel has *never* been supported by our installation support. Just take a look at appendix H in your SuSE Linux manual. If we would support it, you'd have to pay *much* more for the box. And we do support it, just not for free. It's that simple.

BTW - with the attitude SuSe has taken towards it's refusal to fix problems in the distributions which become apearent THROUGH support,

O thank you! My colleagues in development and I will love to hear that we're doing nothing. The update trees on ftp.suse.com don't exist. I haven't worked hard lastly in order to fix security bugs in Midnight commander for SuSE Linux 6.0 - 7.1 and so on. This is insulting!

they can not ever be recommended for enterprise systems.

Well, that's your opinion. Quite a few very large companies (like Germanys by far largest ISP T-Online) have decided differently. And IBM must also be stupid to recommend SuSE Linux for machines ranging from Thinkpads up to zSeries mainframes. But all enterprise customers *know* that the level of support they want or need doesn't come for free and thus buy support contracts. Philipp -- Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software. -- Bill Gates, 1976

I'm sick of comparing things with MS. MS support sucks. That's not a reason for the upgrade path to 2.4.x to be broken in SuSe. Ruben

Almost 2 years in development for that kernel and that's the best you can do? I didn't see anything about the "support" conditions on the site before I went to the store to buy it. And I wrote to SuSE about 2 months before the release, when SuSE announced that they had been working on a new version with the 2.4 kernel (back in january when the new kernal release was announced by Linus) and the reply about the support was that I could expect support for the new kernel (I ask about that "very specifically" to avoid these types of happenings). They were more than happy to tell me what I wanted to hear. Now the "online-support" sends me canned, form letter types of responses to all my support question. Read Mr. Kreps response and consider what he's saying, in my opinion this is bad PR and poor customer service. Maybe that's ok mit dier, zo dunka ver nichts? Oh well, guess I'm on my own! -----Original Message----- From: Geordon VanTassle [mailto:gvantass@thecoventree.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2009 To: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3) Bah, I think you're over-simplifying as well as comparing apples and oranges. Why? See below... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis Rey" To: "Ole Kofoed Hansen" ; "SuSE Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Support vs Support (Was: [SLE] util-linux and Kernel 2.4.3)

No sir, I was not confused by the word "support" in the context that I was addressing. I was not referring to development support or support for the 2.4 kernel by SuSE in regards to working on and releasing it in the lastest version. I was referring to the end-user support concerning the use of and implimentations of the 2.4 kernel in terms of supporting configuration and installation of the kernel. Which proves my position that SuSE will included the kernel in the release and then washes it hands of any further end-user services or support for that kernel.

Well, let's see. What does the SuSE site say about "support" shall we? Ok, we go to http://www.suse.com/ and look down the list on the left: "INSTALLATION SUPPORT" is one choice... "SUPPORT DATABASE" is another... "SUPPORTED HARDWARE" is another. Let's click on INSTALLATION SUPPORT and see what we can get. Taken from http://suse.com/us/support/isupport/index.html : <quote> Scope of Installation Support SuSE's installation support representatives are available to answer your questions about installing and configuring basic systems. These include: Installing from CD & DVD Basic configuration of a standalone machine Basic configuration of X11 GUI Basic configuration of a standard analog modem to dial into the Internet (client side) Configuring a local printer to a standalone machine Support topics not mentioned here are not handled by installation support. Installation support services are intended to help you get your basic system installed, not as a training course or an introduction to Linux. As such, th ey may only be used for configuration problems, rather than general questions. In addition, SuSE installation support is unable to answer your questions about the approximately 850 third-party applications included in our distribution. </quote> So, it would seem that the installation support is geared to getting a SuSE Linux system up and running with most of the general.common services running. "Support topics not mentioned here are not handled by installation support" seems to sum it all up pretty well, IMO. Also, it is FREE (beer) support that you get from "Installation Support". Microsoft dosn't provide no-cost support for their OS... Even if you buy it straight from them! However, they'll be more than happy to charge you big bucks to tell you how to reinstall it! Anyway, look up at the top banner-bar. See "Solutions & Services" up there? Click it. There, you are presented with the opportunity to engage a commertial venture with your more complicated, non-trivial questions.

It's similar to a car maker saying we have a model with the standard 2.2 liter engine and the new and improved fuel injected 2.4 liter high performance engine. We will be happy to sell you either model. Oh, and by the way, if the 2.4 liter engine needs service or tune ups we cannot offer any certified dealer mechanics. And did I mention that the engine a parts are not under any warrenty. If your new fuel injected 2.4 liter engine needs tune ups, repairs, or any other form of service might I suggest that your nearest neighborhood mechanic should be contacted if you should have any problems with the 2.4 liter engine. Gee, that's ok, I want the 2.4 liter engine - it won't break (I hope)!

I believe you are mistaken here. This is where I think you're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. Think of kernel 2.2 as an industry standard sedan. Everyone can buy one. Most adequate mechanics can repair one. Then think of 2.4 as an experimental, high-efficiency, prototype sort of vehicle. Only a select group of people are competent to work on it. Very costly to maintain, not nearly as likely to be easily repairable as the 2.2. However, for the group who CAN fix it, the rewards are (potentially) great. Take your pick: the bleeding edge, which is not well known and possibly VERY dangerous, or the old "stand-by" which everybody and their cousin has heard of and can use. SuSE did me a favor by letting me have the opportunity to easily have either kernel. However, they ALSO told me that if I went with the "Experimental car" I'd be on my own as far as getting it running. Nobody made them include 2.4, just as nobody made YOU buy the SuSE distro. You could have gone with Red HAt, which doesn't appear to "support" the 2.4 kernel, either. Get over it. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com