#$!@

[Cyber Source]

Bring it in tomorrow if you can, call me first 553-8525 and bring every 
card ya got.

Richard Hubbard wrote:

>1. do you have a burn of fc3? (i know for a fact that
>the kernel source and the kernel installed with fc3
>are in agreement)
>2. are you available on saturday?
>3. which 802.11G card should I bring?
>
>--- Cyber Source <peter at thecybersource.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I would like to have a crack at that laptop here,
>>can you bring it by 
>>our shop? If we get that going maybe you can give
>>Jesse some extra 
>>credit in his Linux class, lol, jk. Not like he
>>needs it from what I 
>>hear.....(proud Dad speakin..)
>>
>>Richard Hubbard wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>That is the problem.  I never expected different
>>>kernel versions to work together.
>>>what i expected is that if redhat issues a major
>>>release and calls it FEDORA CORE 4, then the kernel
>>>sources labeled as FC4 should match with the
>>>      
>>>
>>binaries
>>    
>>
>>>released as FC4.
>>>
>>>What I don't expect is a major release called
>>>      
>>>
>>Fedora
>>    
>>
>>>Core 4, and the kernel sources to be whatever the
>>>      
>>>
>>hell
>>    
>>
>>>version we want to pump out this week and call FC4,
>>>even though we are several release numbers away
>>>      
>>>
>>from
>>    
>>
>>>what we released when we pumped out FC4.
>>>
>>>When redhat released all of their prior Fedora Core
>>>releases, only ONE kernel version was labeled as
>>>      
>>>
>>FC#.
>>    
>>
>>>All of the others were given different numbers, but
>>>none were labeled as the 'official' fedora core
>>>version. This way, most intelligent people would be
>>>able to tell which kernel source rpm went with with
>>>kernel at a glance.
>>>
>>>With FC4, I have now stumbled over three different
>>>releases, all called FC4.  My error was assuming
>>>      
>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>redhat would stay consistant with their naming
>>>conventions.  
>>>
>>>I also expected that when I did a yum install
>>>kernel-devel, I would get the kernel number that I
>>>      
>>>
>>am
>>    
>>
>>>currently running.
>>>
>>>wrong again.
>>>
>>>I really don't want to have to recompile a kernel,
>>>just so I can get some !!@#$$%@#$%@#$&^#$%^#&
>>>      
>>>
>>wireless
>>    
>>
>>>network card to run, simply because redhat refuses
>>>      
>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>supply the source code for the kernel that they
>>>shipped with a MAJOR RELEASE of their software.
>>>      
>>>
>>(I'm
>>    
>>
>>>not running FC4test#, this is the 'gold' release.) 
>>>
>>>
>>>--- "David W. Aquilina" <david at starkindler.us>
>>>      
>>>
>>wrote:
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Slow down there. The problem you experienced is
>>>>        
>>>>
>>not
>>    
>>
>>>>specific to Red Hat / Fedora. Anything in this
>>>>wonderful world of Linux related to the kernel
>>>>itself is going to be very specific and not
>>>>        
>>>>
>>tolerant
>>    
>>
>>>>of any errors whatsoever. Kernel versions and
>>>>variants always must match exactly, and you'd have
>>>>this problem were you attempting to install the
>>>>kernel-devel package, the GFS packages, or a
>>>>commercial product such as EMC PowerPath. The
>>>>Uniprocessor kernel and SMP kernel, for these
>>>>        
>>>>
>>types
>>    
>>
>>>>of situations, are entirely different kernels. You
>>>>wouldn't expect a patch written against a 2.4
>>>>        
>>>>
>>kernel
>>    
>>
>>>>to work as is against a 2.6 kernel, would you? 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>David W. Aquilina
>>>>david at starkindler.us
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>	
>>>		
>>>      
>>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>    
>>
>>>Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
>>>      
>>>
>>relief effort.
>>    
>>
>>>http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>  
>