May 2006 - openSUSE Users - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Re: [SLE] 10.1 virgin /etc/ld.so.conf, please?
by Clint Tinsley 30 May '06

30 May '06

> Michael Nelson wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:23:16PM +1000, Basil Chupin wrote: > >> Strange- it only takes 2.2 seconds to open a document here (on 10.1). I agree that the issue with Acrobat seems to be a problem with some user systems. It works on fine on my 10.1 system, no issues with speed or opening PDF's. > > My point isn't that it doesn't work perfectly well on some 10.1 systems, > > it does. My point, and the point of the bug, is that on some systems it > > is so slow as to be virtually unusable. I am wondering if your install was a fresh install or did you upgrade? > The problem with what you just said is how does one decide that it > is a "bug" because as you just said that it works perfectly on > other installations? You need to submit a detailed bug report detailing the hardware and software environment. > The bottom line really about this is that I have installed Windows > on other people's computers which had a diverse sets of components > and Windows always installs first up and works on all those > systems; if I install Acrobat reader on a Windows computer it reads > whatever pdf document I throw at it without blinking, and if I > install ANY piece of software written for Windows it INSTALLS > without first having to wank itself stupid deciding if there are > dependencies which first need to be satisfied. Windows dependecies are called DLL hell and yes, software installs seamlessly on Windows, no matter what it breaks in the process. At least with Linux, we usually know if we have a problem or conflict. If you want to really see the gates of hell with Windows, try moving a Windows 2000 or XP hard drive from one computer to another. > -- Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity is permanent. A TV commedian said it better. You can't fix stupid. Clint

1 0

w
by lorenzovaleri＠libero.it 30 May '06

30 May '06

please removed my address from the mailing list, me arrives messages without scope fills up me case email uselessly

7 9

/var/run/atieventsd.socket: Address already in use
by Michal Hlavac 30 May '06

30 May '06

I installed newest ati driver (8.25.18) and in /var/log/messages is every second added this line: atieventsd[4225]: Unable to bind control socket to /var/run/atieventsd.socket: Address already in use I don't know if it happends before or after installing new driver... thanks, miso ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

1 0

SuSE Watcher/YOU driving me round the bend...
by T. Ribbrock 30 May '06

30 May '06

Hi all, I ran into an annoying little problem here (SuSE 10.0): At our site, we have two mirrors of the YOU update repositories - one "master" and one "workstation". The former is updated automatically every night while the latter is updated manually after the updates have been tested on the "master workstation". That way, all other workstations will only update if the updates have been approved. The problem I have is on the master workstation. As we're using autoinstall, the master workstation started its life as an ordinary workstation, i.e. with YOU and SuSE Watcher pointing to the "workstation" repo. I then proceeded to change /etc/youservers to point to the "master" repo instead and subsequently ran YOU and changed the repo there, too. However, for some odd reason, both YOU and SuSE Watcher keep reverting to the "workstation" repo at some point, therefore rendering the SuSE Watcher useless, as it monitors the wrong repo. /etc/youservers still points to "master", but YOU somehow ignores that. I've already been grepping through /var/lib/YaST2 to find all occurrences of the "workstation" repo and removed them but this setting just keeps coming back. It's really driving me bananas... If anybody out there knows another place where YOU/SuSE Watcher keep these settings and thus how to change this once and for all, I'd be most grateful to hear about it... Regards, Thomas

1 0

D-LINK DWL-G520 is detected on suse 10, but not on 10.1
by Adinda Praditya 30 May '06

30 May '06

Hi list,... The new suse 10.1 didn't detect my D-Lnik DWL-G520 which is detected on suse 10.0. I forgot it is detected as what (the module that suse use). Can anyone tell me the module (so i can try to make it work on 10.1)? Or IT IS not supported by suse 10.1? Regards, Adinda P

2 2

autoyast with pre partitioned harddisk
by Mario Gzuk 30 May '06

30 May '06

Hi, i have several problems with a pre partitioned harddisk and autoyast. This is the p. section: <partitioning config:type="list"> <drive> <device>/dev/hda</device> <partitions config:type="list"> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">ntfs</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">false</format> <mount>/mnt/C</mount> <partition_nr>1</partition_nr> </partition> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">ext2</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">true</format> <mount>/boot</mount> <partition_nr>5</partition_nr> </partition> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">ext3</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">true</format> <mount>/</mount> <partition_nr>6</partition_nr> </partition> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">ext3</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">true</format> <mount>/var</mount> <partition_nr>7</partition_nr> </partition> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">swap</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">true</format> <mount>swap</mount> <partition_nr>8</partition_nr> </partition> <partition> <create config:type="boolean">false</create> <filesystem config:type="symbol">vfat</filesystem> <format config:type="boolean">true</format> <mount>/mnt/D</mount> <partition_nr>9</partition_nr> </partition> </partitions> <initialize config:type="boolean">false</initialize> </drive> </partitioning> All partitions except partition one (ntfs) are NOT mounted during the installation. So the installation fails after the ram disk is full.... Any hints? thank you. greetings mario gzuk

7 9

Fwd: [LeapList] Re: SCO v. IBM ... is this a joke? -- where SCO _may_ have IBM ...
by Bryan J. Smith 30 May '06

30 May '06

At first, I trashed SCO and thought they had _no_case_ based 100% of what I read in the IT media. But within 1 day, I realized what it might be about, since I had been anticipating Monterey for the past 4 years. That's when I actually _read_ the filing. And after reading items 1-49, I came to the "summary items" in 50-55. Then it was _completely_clear_. Which is when I posted this in 7 March 2003. Something that was not only confirmed by various posting by Cox, ESR and Linux _prior_ to May 2003, but _also_ Ransom Love (formerly of Caldera at that time) in his fall 2003 eWeek article. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> Reply-To: leaplist(a)lists.leap-cf.org To: leaplist(a)lists.leap-cf.org Subject: [LeapList]Re: SCO v. IBM ... is this a joke? -- where SCO _may_ have IBM ... Date: 07 Mar 2003 22:31:30 -0500 On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 22:23, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > They aren't a "software" company, they are a "software IP" company. The only place SCO _may_ have IBM is on Monterey. I'm sure many of you have never heard of it, but I very much followed it and the "fall out" of IBM a few years after it fizzled. Monterey was supposed to be an "unified" UNIX for 64-bit on a variety of platforms. Maybe this is where SCO has a licensing agreement with IBM, and that's why IBM isn't responding yet. IBM's big, they've got money, and SCO might actually have them, and be "in the right" on something there. Actually, Monterey would explain a _lot_ of things. E.g., I have regularly questioned why IBM ported JFS to Linux from OS/2 instead of AIX, as the former lacked a lot of UNIX interfaces that the latter did have. Monterey _might_ have been the reason. So settle in. Linux is fine, but IBM might lose some money to SCO, because SCO _may_ have a case in at least one area. But I don't think $0 of it is IP or technology-related, just business/partnership issues. Intel might be next ... stay tuned! [ From the SCO litigation text ... ] Project Monterey 50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey. 51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run UNIX on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC chip. 52. In furtherance of Project Monterey, SCO expended substantial amounts of money and dedicated a significant portion of SCO s development team to completion of the project. 53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff s predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors. 54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM. 55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be dead. In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

5 5

SuSE 10.1 Installer: D
by Steve Miller 30 May '06

30 May '06

Greetings, This is tough love for the folks at SuSE, who have apparently been oppressed by a bunch of suits from Novell. Or something. For the first time since SuSE 6.1 saved my 486 computer from complete uselessness eight years ago, this regular customer of SuSE Linux has just about had it. I have installed the following versions of Linux on various platforms from an obsolete 486 desktop to a 2.8 GHz Dell laptop in dual boot mode with Windows XP: 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9,2 and 10.1 (if 10.1 can count as a "successful" install). Of course, this doesn't make me an expert. Just an experienced mid-level user. The kind of guy Novell ought to try keeping as a customer since there are, for better or worse, lots of us out there. Even back in 1998 or so when I, barely even knowing what Linux is, successfully installed SuSE 6.1, I have been a fan of the relative ease of installation and use of SuSE Linux. In fact, it has been my primary operating system ever since. But if I have another "install" like the one I had today, that might change for good. Even when I installed 6.1 without knowing what I was doing, it more or less worked. Sure. I had to locate a how-to to get my zip drive working, but that was cutting-edge back then, and every installation -- until 9.2 -- configured zip drives correctly straight out of the box, much to my pleasant surprise. But with 9.2, I found myself editing fstab again to get the zip drive at home to work. "No big deal," I thought. "Something slips through the cracks once in a while." That's what I thought until today, when I had the following extremely unusual, "Does Bill Gates have a mole at Novell?" kind of installation experience. Here it is so far. This is a system that has had no problems installing or running SuSE 8.1 or 8.2. (1) On first attempt, I checked "include add-on software". The installer installed CD 1, and then skipped CDs 2, 3, 4, and 5. (Even though it said something like "CD 2 is next" the whole time software from CD 1 was installing.) It installed the add-on software, then attempted to reboot. It failed. (2) Second attempt: I selected "repair damaged system". The installer died on an unspecified error. (3) Third attempt: I foolishly chose to "repartition based on proposal". This would have caused a reformat of my data disk, I am pretty sure. There was no way to back out, so I powered off the computer so I could start over. (4) Fourth attempt: I attempted to select the "expert" option so I could override the inane partitioning proposal the installer coughed up (because it apparently could not read my partition table). Since I did this before "evaluating package selection" was over, the installation froze and I had to start over. BTW: Why is there is there an "evaluating package selection" step that takes over five minutes when I have not made any such selection yet? This apparently happened every time aI hit this stage of the process, and every time I toggled soemthing there. (5) Fifth attempt: This time, I left unchecked the option for the "add-on CD". Only the software from CD 1 was installed. The system failed to reboot from the hard disk. If I recall earlier installs correctly, the requirement to reboot isn't too unusual. But the failure to do so is new. (6) Sixth attempt: I tried again, booting from the CD and selecting "boot installed system", an option I saw only by chance. This worked and I installed the rest of my software, save the add-on CD. (7) After waiting about 10 minutes for the YaST Online Update to configure, I selected "later" contrary to SuSE's recommendation. Later on, I found out by accident that the necessary port was blocked by the firewall anyway. *** The installer gets a "D" only because it permitted me to perform the whole process -- despite its persistent efforts -- without reformatting my data disk, and because a working Linux system resides on the other hard drive afterwards. The system has, however, the following deficiencies. There may be more, but my test driving has been somewhat, shall we say, limited.... (a) I hate automount and was expecting to have to struggle to turn it off. Instead, the same distribution that has had these things working out of the box twice in a row (and without any input on my part) fails to recognize ANY of these, my ZIP drive, my CDRW (You know, the one that I used to INSTALL the bloody thing!), my pen drive. I can probably edit fstab or something of the sort to get this functionality back, but WHY is this -- a problem that was licked long ago -- suddenly making my life difficult? (And yes, I am aware that the pen drive should have some funky name in fstab when I plug it in. If only I were so lucky! But when NOTHING appears, you can't make a soft link....) (b) I can't boot from the hard drive. I specified a partition, /dev/hda1, to be mounted as /boot. My system wants to boot off of /dev/hda2 for some reason. I have to boot from that same odious installer disk that screwed everything up in the first place, which is doing nothing for me but reminding me not to make another purchase from Novell ever again unless they get 10.2 a lot closer to the level of perfection SuSE had hit two major releases before. What happenes when I boot from the hard drive? The word "GRUB" shows up. I get lots of goofy blips on my screen. I think I'd get cobwebs if I waited long enough, but never a boot. (c) The system is a LOT slower. I use a Pentium III 450 MHz at home, so maybe this is a bit unfair, but still. This is NOTICEABLY slower than it (8.2) used to be. Really. Exactly how many novels should I be able to compose in my head while I'm waiting for Acroread 7 to start in ... FVWM? F-V-W-M for Christ's sake! Thick me finally remembered to select FVWM vice KD-freakin'-E as my default session type for root the fourth time I logged in to TRY to fix the boot loader via YaST. No joy there so far. Four attempts and counting. I'd love help with the GRUB problem, because I'm clueless there. I can take care of the "missing" block devices on my own, I am pretty sure. The pen drive might take some work if there's more to that problem than a missing module, though. But my point is this: This was by far the most unpleasant experience I have ever had installing ANY OS, Windows included. I used to brag about how much easier SuSE was to install than Windows. And besides. Isn't ease of use out of the box for things like this -- booting and accessing removable media -- a big part of why companies can make a profit off Linux in the first place? Please fix this! Years ago, SuSE 6.1 saved a poverty-stricken, recently-divorced grad student and his obsolete PC from computational oblivion, and he has been an avid fan ever since. But I have my limits. As much as I love SuSE, I can't stay if I have to fight it every step of the way. I have too much to do for this. Again. If I sound harsh, it's because I'd like to see the SuSE I came to know and love again. Expressing my extreme displeasure as long-time user is about the only thing I have the time or expertise to do towards that end. Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

SuSE 10.1/Asus Intel 865 Nasty Install Problem
by andreil1＠starlett.lv 30 May '06

30 May '06

Hi, I have 2 Celeron 2.1 GHz PCs built with Asus m/b on Intel 865 chipset, with 1 and 2 GB RAM respectively. Both have the similar sympyhoms: 1) It takes ages to boot from installation DVD 2) After successful installation, fresh system fails to boot, blue splash screen and nothing else. However, Windows installation causes no problem whatsoever. DVD media is also OK, verified. Anyone have a clue what might went wrong? Andrei

3 2

Re: [SLE] w
by kai 30 May '06

30 May '06

On Sunday 28 May 2006 12:18 pm, Per Jessen wrote: > kai wrote: > > On Sunday 28 May 2006 11:35 am, lorenzovaleri(a)libero.it wrote: > >> please removed my address from the mailing list, me arrives messages > >> without scope fills up me case email uselessly > > > > All your bases are belong to us! > > Kai, that was just too funny - I almost spilled my glass of wine on my > keyboard ... That would have been tragic! I am glad it was a near miss. :) -- k

1 0