More fun in Linux La-La-Land.

On 5/29/2014 9:52 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/05/14 19:56, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I have no idea why you are having trouble doing something millions of
>>> other people have managed fine,
>>
>> I don't know why you are always so negative.
>>
>
> I am not trying to be negative - sorry if I sound that way.  (My recent
> posts in another couple of threads, from the same OP, have been worded
> rather negatively - they are based on substantial threads on other
> newsgroups, and I really do think that the OP there should be
> discouraged from his current plans.)  If I give negative comments or
> criticism, it is with the best of intentions.

It is not what you said, but how you said it.  I was going to post a 
response to your first post too but decided to read a bit before I did. 
  So now you have been informed that your post came off as a bit 
"negative".  I would even say it was rude.  Not so much because of what 
you are trying to say, but how you said it.  I think the above quote 
(the first one) sets a rude tone for the entire rest of the post.


>>> why you think kernel 3.6 is "new",
>>
>> I don't know of any stable version newer than 3.6.18
>
> For many purposes, any recent kernel, including 3.6, is likely to be
> good enough.  But the current release is 3.14.4, and I believe the
> latest with long-term support is 3.12.

Isn't that much more informative than saying you don't know 'why you 
think kernel 3.6 is "new"'?


>>> why you are posting to a Usenet group for embedded systems,
>>
>> My target is an embedded system, probably the Intel Minnow Max board
>> when it is ready.
>
> c.a.e. is mainly targeted at smaller embedded systems, with a discussion
> of hardware, software and other aspects of such systems.  Embedded Linux
> systems are, obviously, "embedded" - but they are at the limit of the
> areas of interest for this group and don't come up often.  For the most
> part, when you are using an off-the-shelf x86 based board for Linux, you
> will get best results by viewing it as a normal PC - particularly when
> you are talking about booting from a USB stick.
>
> There is also the group comp.os.linux.embedded, which might be a good
> place to look.

Again, much more helpful than, "why you are posting to a Usenet group 
for embedded systems".


>>> or why you think LILO is a good choice of bootloader in the 21st
>>> century.
>>
>> LILO is simple and good enough for me.  I don't need fancy boot options.
>
> If you had got everything booting correctly, that might be fair enough.
>   But LILO is an old bootloader - grub is much more popular and has a
> lot more features and flexibility.  When you are trying to get things
> working on a newer card, it makes sense to use the tools everyone else
> uses.  (On embedded Linux systems, especially non-x86 cards, the other
> popular choice is uboot.)

Ditto, a much better reply than your opener.


>>> I suspect you
>>> have a little knowledge of Linux from long ago, and are making things
>>> far more complicated for yourself as a result.
>>
>> True.
>
> The trouble with this is that things change - and they can change quite
> rapidly in the Linux world.  Techniques that worked well a few years ago
> can be outdated now - and sometimes you need to change to get things
> working with the latest hardware and the latest software.  I know that I
> suffer from this - and I recognize it in others.  There are times when
> the best solution is, as I said, to pretend you know nothing and do
> things the modern newbie way until you see how it fits together.

Another reply that should have been in your earlier post.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I'm just trying to point out 
how your original post came across.

-- 

Rick

On 29/05/14 19:19, rickman wrote:

> Another reply that should have been in your earlier post.
>
> I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I'm just trying to point out
> how your original post came across.
>

You (and Edward) are right - I was rude in my post, without any 
justification.  I was trying to encourage thinking rather than giving 
direct answers, but I worded it very badly.  Sometimes it is easy to do 
that on Usenet, without noticing how your posts come across - thank you 
for point it out to me.  And I hope my later post gave Edward some help 
or ideas.

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:33:15 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
> On 29/05/14 19:19, rickman wrote:

> > Another reply that should have been in your earlier post.
 
> > I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I'm just trying to point out
> > how your original post came across.
 
> You (and Edward) are right - I was rude in my post, without any 
> justification.  I was trying to encourage thinking rather than giving 
> direct answers, but I worded it very badly.  Sometimes it is easy to do 
> that on Usenet, without noticing how your posts come across - thank you 
> for point it out to me.  And I hope my later post gave Edward some help 
> or ideas.

OK, thanks.  I think i have a workaround for the moment.  The problem is that mountall and network-manager are both talking to the plymount dbus daemon.  I can't find the exact version of dbus to match the existing distribution (linuxmint 15).  I tried dbus-1.6.8 (for mint 15) and dbus-1.6.18 (for mint 17).  When i install either version of dbus, network-manager went crazy with 99% CPU time. So, i just install a new mountall without installing dbus.  Mountall probably went crazy for a short time, but all is well when it's done.  However, network-manager need to run all the time.

The new mountall does not check the root drive like the old one.  The old mountall was saying: "my current disk drive is not ready" or like "The ground i am walking on does not exist."

On 5/29/2014 5:33 PM, David Brown wrote:
> I was trying to encourage thinking rather than giving
> direct answers, but I worded it very badly.  Sometimes it is easy to do
> that on Usenet, without noticing how your posts come across -

Yes, it is easy to make a post that doesn't sound to others like it did 
to yourself when writing it.  I understand and have made the same 
mistake myself any number of times.  Maybe that is why I spotted it so 
easily, lol


> thank you
> for point it out to me.  And I hope my later post gave Edward some help
> or ideas.

I hope so too.

-- 

Rick