[gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Dewet Diener]

Hi all

I'm wondering what the general status of gentoo-sources is compared to 
the more "stock" kernels, like vanilla and -ac?  Is it being used in 
production-class setups without hitches?  I've had only one problem 
with gentoo-sources so far, and it seemed to have been 
grsecurity-related (random processes getting killed at boot time, from 
init onwards), which disappeared as soon as I disabled it from 
building.

I'm preparing to switch a RedHat production-class system over to 
Gentoo, and have everything running in a chroot.  The only thing I 
haven't been able to test is the kernel...

Regards,
Dewet

-- 
Dewet Diener   <gentoo@dewet.org>   http://dewet.org
Professional Student, avid Gentoo user :)
Stellenbosch, South Africa (33º 55" 58.80'S  18º 51" 00.00'E)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Peter Ruskin]

On Thursday 23 Jan 2003 19:05, Dewet Diener wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm wondering what the general status of gentoo-sources is compared to
> the more "stock" kernels, like vanilla and -ac?  Is it being used in
> production-class setups without hitches?  I've had only one problem
> with gentoo-sources so far, and it seemed to have been
> grsecurity-related (random processes getting killed at boot time, from
> init onwards), which disappeared as soon as I disabled it from
> building.
>
> I'm preparing to switch a RedHat production-class system over to
> Gentoo, and have everything running in a chroot.  The only thing I
> haven't been able to test is the kernel...
>
gentoo-sources, xfs-sources and lolo-sources do not have this option:
CONFIG_ACPI_BUSMGR:
The ACPI Bus Manager enumerates devices in the ACPI namespace, and
handles PnP messages.  All ACPI devices use its services, so using them 
requires saying Y here.

Without that my USB devices are not detected, so no modem and no printer.

So I use win4lin--sources or vanilla--sources.

Peter
-- 
Gentoo-1.4.2.8 Unstable. KDE: 3.1.0 (RC6) Qt: 3.1.0
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1900+ 512MB.	Kernel: 2.4.20-win4lin-r1-pnr.	GCC 3.2.1
Linux user #275590 (http://counter.li.org/). up 1 day, 5 h, 27 min


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Kim Nielsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 383 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 07:16:43PM +0000, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Thursday 23 Jan 2003 19:05, Dewet Diener wrote:
> Without that my USB devices are not detected, so no modem and no printer.

I use USB devices with the gentoo-sources kernel and it works fine. The differnce between the vanilla and gentoo is alot of patches for things like grsecurity, freeswan etc.

/Kim
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Dewet Diener]

Op Do 23 Jan 03 21:20 skrewe Kim Nielsen:
> I use USB devices with the gentoo-sources kernel and it works fine.
> The differnce between the vanilla and gentoo is alot of patches for
> things like grsecurity, freeswan etc.

That's my question (albeit stated very badly) -- how 
reliable/tested/stable are those patches?  The case in point being the 
grsecurity issues I've seen.  What I really want to know is whether 
other people are using those features successfully, specifically 
relating to a *server*-class setup (therefore, things like USB, etc 
aren't that important).

Regards,
Dewet

-- 
Dewet Diener   <gentoo@dewet.org>   http://dewet.org
Professional Student, avid Gentoo user :)
Stellenbosch, South Africa (33º 55" 58.80'S  18º 51" 00.00'E)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Kim Nielsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 09:33:28PM +0200, Dewet Diener wrote:
> Op Do 23 Jan 03 21:20 skrewe Kim Nielsen:
> > I use USB devices with the gentoo-sources kernel and it works fine.
> > The differnce between the vanilla and gentoo is alot of patches for
> > things like grsecurity, freeswan etc.
> 
> That's my question (albeit stated very badly) -- how 
> reliable/tested/stable are those patches?  The case in point being the 
> grsecurity issues I've seen.  What I really want to know is whether 
> other people are using those features successfully, specifically 
> relating to a *server*-class setup (therefore, things like USB, etc 
> aren't that important).

The gentoo kernel is quite stable but Gentoo was never ment as a server distribution even though it serves just as well as others like Redhat or Debian. 

It was intedned for network/developer use

/Kim

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

I don't think there is any such intent.  By what I can see and know about
Gentoo, it is for any use that one sees fit.  It was never designed for any
particular application.

Now in reality ... Gentoo is bleeding edge (and I have seen bloodying on
occasion) and it is up to the administrator to make sure that gentoo changes
don't hose a production machine.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Nielsen" <kn@insecurity.dk>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels


The gentoo kernel is quite stable but Gentoo was never ment as a server
distribution even though it serves just as well as others like Redhat or
Debian.

It was intedned for network/developer use

/Kim


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Kim Nielsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 01:48:12PM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Now in reality ... Gentoo is bleeding edge (and I have seen bloodying on
> occasion) and it is up to the administrator to make sure that gentoo changes
> don't hose a production machine.

I agree, if the administrator want to run bleeding egde applikations and sometimes stability problems (Via packages that cannot compile) its up to the admin

/Kim

Ps. Don't send a message directly to me, I follow this list so I will see your message
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Addressing your postscript.  The list configuration should be changed.  If I
hit reply, it goes to just you.  If I hit reply-all, it goes to all
recipients including you and the list.  The list should be reconfigured to
change the reply-to address to that of the list.  I refuse to worry about
the recipient list for each and every reply I send to this list.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Nielsen" <kn@insecurity.dk>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

I agree, if the administrator want to run bleeding egde applikations and
sometimes stability problems (Via packages that cannot compile) its up to
the admin

/Kim

Ps. Don't send a message directly to me, I follow this list so I will see
your message


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Kim Nielsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Addressing your postscript.  The list configuration should be changed.  If I
> hit reply, it goes to just you.  If I hit reply-all, it goes to all
> recipients including you and the list.  The list should be reconfigured to
> change the reply-to address to that of the list.  I refuse to worry about
> the recipient list for each and every reply I send to this list.
> 

Doesn't you email client have a reply-group ? in mutt its shift-g

/Kim


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

No, best that I can tell, that would apply to newsgroups.  In any event, I
use Outlook Express for most of my email needs.  It works nicely with my
Linux mail server while at the same time it is compatible for work.  I don't
believe that kmail offers this either ... or mozilla.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Nielsen" <kn@insecurity.dk>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Addressing your postscript.  The list configuration should be changed.  If
I
> hit reply, it goes to just you.  If I hit reply-all, it goes to all
> recipients including you and the list.  The list should be reconfigured to
> change the reply-to address to that of the list.  I refuse to worry about
> the recipient list for each and every reply I send to this list.
>

Doesn't you email client have a reply-group ? in mutt its shift-g

/Kim


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 January 2003 21:21, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> No, best that I can tell, that would apply to newsgroups.  In any event, I
> use Outlook Express for most of my email needs.  It works nicely with my
> Linux mail server while at the same time it is compatible for work.  I
> don't believe that kmail offers this either ... or mozilla.

Kmail is perfectly compatible with my own mail server (It's just smtp), and 
with my work mailservers (IMAP + SMTP). Also it means that I do not have to 
run windows just to read/write my email.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Of course it works.  What I meant is that it doesn't offer "reply group".
At least, I never noticed it.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul de Vrieze" <gentoo-user@devrieze.net>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

On Thursday 23 January 2003 21:21, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> No, best that I can tell, that would apply to newsgroups.  In any event, I
> use Outlook Express for most of my email needs.  It works nicely with my
> Linux mail server while at the same time it is compatible for work.  I
> don't believe that kmail offers this either ... or mozilla.

Kmail is perfectly compatible with my own mail server (It's just smtp), and
with my work mailservers (IMAP + SMTP). Also it means that I do not have to
run windows just to read/write my email.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 325 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 January 2003 22:28, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Of course it works.  What I meant is that it doesn't offer "reply group".
> At least, I never noticed it.

Just press "L" instead of "R" and you will do a list reply.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

I will do that when I am using KMail, which is almost never.  Most of the
activity on this list is during the day and I use Outlook for my email
during the day (oddly, I am a Consultant the develops Microsoft solutions).
I don't have much choice in the matter what client I use much of the time.
This can probably go off list now.  I still believe the list should be
configured that way, as most existing clients on most platforms don't
usually handle this.  I am a member of other lists (TCLUG) that changes the
reply-to the list and it is not a problem for them.  I will likely take the
advice of one of the posters (Paul?) and munge it in myself with formail.

Tom Veldhouse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul de Vrieze" <gentoo-user@devrieze.net>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

On Thursday 23 January 2003 22:28, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Of course it works.  What I meant is that it doesn't offer "reply group".
> At least, I never noticed it.

Just press "L" instead of "R" and you will do a list reply.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 January 2003 21:08, Kim Nielsen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > Addressing your postscript.  The list configuration should be changed. 
> > If I hit reply, it goes to just you.  If I hit reply-all, it goes to all
> > recipients including you and the list.  The list should be reconfigured
> > to change the reply-to address to that of the list.  I refuse to worry
> > about the recipient list for each and every reply I send to this list.
>
> Doesn't you email client have a reply-group ? in mutt its shift-g
>

Just do a "man procmail" and a "man formail" and do the reply-to munging 
yourself.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Troy Dack]

Thomas T. Veldhouse said:
> Addressing your postscript.  The list configuration should be changed.
> If I hit reply, it goes to just you.  If I hit reply-all, it goes to all
> recipients including you and the list.  The list should be reconfigured
> to change the reply-to address to that of the list.  I refuse to worry
> about the recipient list for each and every reply I send to this list.
>

The list configuration should *not* be changed, see:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

In addition to the points listed in the URL, the gentoo lists have
previously been the victim of poorly configured mail clients that resulted
in the list(s) being spammed with "Joe User's Mailbox is full, please try
later".  With reply-to munging this went to the list, back to Joe User and
then bounced again, lather, rinse, repeat!

Evolution as reply-to list, as does SquirrelMail.  I believe that Mozilla
has an option to mark a folder as belonging to a mailing list and allows
you to specify a default reply-to address for that folder.

Kim Nielsen said:
> Ps. Don't send a message directly to me, I follow this list so I will
> see your message

Configure procmail appropriately on your mail server (or local box) and
you won't get the duplicates either (see:
http://www.linux.gr/cgi-bin/man2html/usr/share/man/man5/procmailex.5.gz)

-- 
     Troy Dack

     http://linux.tkdack.com



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

>
> The list configuration should *not* be changed, see:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> In addition to the points listed in the URL, the gentoo lists have
> previously been the victim of poorly configured mail clients that resulted
> in the list(s) being spammed with "Joe User's Mailbox is full, please try
> later".  With reply-to munging this went to the list, back to Joe User and
> then bounced again, lather, rinse, repeat!

I can't agree with half the chatter in that article.

As far as full mailbox responses and a few similar to that.  A *good*
mailing list managing software will recognize these types of things and
intercept them (Mailman does this and Gentoo has chosen to switch from
Mailman.  I can not speak for the capabilities of the current software).
With the current software setup, if your mailbox is full and I make a
posting to the list, your server will bounce the email and send it to ME.  I
don't want it.

Personally, I think this is silly.  If nobody wants you to email them
offlist, then why should reply-to point anywhere other than where people are
trying to reply ... THIS LIST.

Tom Veldhouse



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Mike Lundy]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1011 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 January 2003 14:33, Dewet Diener wrote:
> That's my question (albeit stated very badly) -- how
> reliable/tested/stable are those patches?  The case in point being the
> grsecurity issues I've seen.

Grsecurity gets such a bad rap, but truly, it's not a grsecurity problem. It's 
grsecurity acting as it says it does. People enabling it without reading the 
help:

CONFIG_GRKERNSEC
  If you say Y here, you will be able to configure many features that
  will enhance the security of your system.  It is highly recommended
  that you say Y here and read through the help for each option so
  you fully understand the features and can evaluate their usefulness
  for your machine.

are the ones at fault. I've been using grsecurity for months with no problems 
that aren't my fault. :)

PS Sorry that you'll get this twice, Dewet. This one's to the list as well. My 
fault.
-- 
To smash a single atom, all mankind was intent.
Now any day the atom may return the compliment.

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Peter Ruskin]

On Thursday 23 Jan 2003 19:16, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> gentoo-sources, xfs-sources and lolo-sources do not have this option:
> CONFIG_ACPI_BUSMGR:
> The ACPI Bus Manager enumerates devices in the ACPI namespace, and
> handles PnP messages.  All ACPI devices use its services, so using them
> requires saying Y here.
>
> Without that my USB devices are not detected, so no modem and no
> printer.
>
> So I use win4lin--sources or vanilla--sources.

Update:
I *can* use gentoo-sources, xfs-sources and lolo-sources if I append
"acpi=off" to the kernel command line.  "pci=noacpi" is not sufficient - 
init hangs after scsi detection.
-- 
Gentoo-1.4.2.8 Unstable. KDE: 3.1.0 (RC6) Qt: 3.1.0
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1900+ 512MB.	Kernel: 2.4.20-xfs_pre5.	GCC 3.2.1
Linux user #275590 (http://counter.li.org/). up 42 min.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources vs "stock" kernels

[Dylan Carlson]

On Thursday 23 January 2003 02:05 pm, Dewet Diener wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm wondering what the general status of gentoo-sources is compared to
> the more "stock" kernels, like vanilla and -ac?  Is it being used in
> production-class setups without hitches?  I've had only one problem
> with gentoo-sources so far, and it seemed to have been
> grsecurity-related (random processes getting killed at boot time, from
> init onwards), which disappeared as soon as I disabled it from
> building.
>
> I'm preparing to switch a RedHat production-class system over to
> Gentoo, and have everything running in a chroot.  The only thing I
> haven't been able to test is the kernel...

I've had trouble with the other kernels along 2.4.20 related to NVIDIA 
drivers... which is why I'm forced to use vanilla at the present time.  

Get everything working under vanilla first, and make sure it works 
correctly under normal usage (and it should).  That way you have a working 
config to fall back on if you have trouble with a different kernel.   It's 
also easier to troubleshoot new kernels and find out exactly what's 
breaking if you have everything working under vanilla already.

If your system doesn't require any closed-source drivers that change a lot 
(like Nvidia's) other kernels may work fine.   Always test them thoroughly 
before rolling them into production.   Put them under load and see how 
they handle it... almost any kernel will boot up a system fine.   If you 
want to see where the kernel defects are, you need to stress it under lots 
of memory and cpu load.   My bad experiences with kernels in Linux almost 
always have to do with the VM doing bizarre stuff under load.

If you don't have slack in your schedule to do that kind of testing, my 
advice is to stick with the vanilla kernel.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@pobox.com]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list