Dear Pankaj,
My system developed exactly the same problem when I installed Redhat 9.0. The LoadModule fails for various modules. When I further analyzed the problem, I realized that the files containing these modules were getting erased. Then, it hit me: The filesystem was corrupted. This was further evident when I went into the directories containing the X Windows Files- doing a grep there elicited I/O errors. I tried replacing them, but it didn't work. And no, an fsck didn't help either.
All this inspite of the fact that I was using a _very_ new hardisk. I dont think its the harddisk (it'd better not be- there are some vendor necks that might get badly wrung if it is so)
I have been using Redhat Distros right frm 6.x. But none of them have given me such probs.
How old is your hard-disk?
Anyway, for the present, if you want to proceed with your trial, use Redhat 8.0 instead of 9.0, and see what happens. The Debian distros seem to be better, but since you guys might end up using Linux for commercial purposes (as opposed to hobby purposes,) I'd suggest you carry on with Redhat (though admittedly, there might be an issue with RH 9.0). In the meanwhile, I'll fish around and get in touch with other users on this and other GLUGs, and on IRC hangouts, and see if any folks have this kind of a prob. If yes, I'll package an error report and send it to out.
Other Gluggers- any comments? Have I missed out something in my line of thinking?
And yes- anybody with screwed up file systems on RH 9.0?
Yours, KZ
-----------In respo to--------------------------
Dear Sir, We are using Red Hat Linux version 9.0 personnel edition. We have installed Custom-Everything on one of our PC on trial. After every say two-three days, we have the following stated problem. Only Re-Installing Linux 9 finds the solution to us. It do not upgrade as well. : :
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 kaze@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
Redhat 8.0 instead of 9.0, and see what happens. The Debian distros seem to be better, but since you guys might end up using Linux for commercial purposes (as opposed to hobby purposes,) I'd suggest you carry on with
What's wrong with using Debian for 'commerical' purposes?
Hi,
Redhat 8.0 instead of 9.0, and see what happens. The Debian distros seem to be better, but since you guys might end up using Linux for commercial purposes (as opposed to hobby purposes,) I'd suggest you carry on with
What's wrong with using Debian for 'commerical' purposes?
Does Debian provide paid support? Not to my knowledge- somebody correct me if I am wrong.
1) In a commercial setting, you often need support on an immediate basis. With a non-commercial distro like Debian, this support is often good (have heard of correct replies coming in within 5 minutes), but not guaranteed. Sometimes it may come in minutes, sometimes in weeks. Besides, the replies may not always be given by a guy who knows what he is talking about.
However, Redhat is a large company (by Linux standards) which has established itself quite well. When you pay it for support (which ofcourse would be valid only for their distro), I have heard that you get pretty good support, in a time-bound manner. The replies are given by systematically trained staff. You might point out some exceptions, like instances when an IRC room yielded a correct respo much, much, faster than Redhat, but these are just exceptions- on an average, you have a better, more stable deal with paid support.
2)This one is dirty and political, but its a fact of life: When something goes wrong in a commercial setting, you gotta find out who is at fault. True, with any Linux Distro, when the system bombs and the management catches hold of you as the sys ad, you cant pin the blame on the software. However, if you have paid support with a distro like say Redhat, then you can redirect _some_ of the blame :-)
Remember guys, we are talking about hard commerce, where accountability and responsibility are key words.
I am aware that I may be starting off a major war. But I wanna say that opinions differ, so just use whatever suits your needs AND your circumstances. Period. And no...I ain't in Redhat's pay :-)
Yours, KZ
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 kaze@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
Does Debian provide paid support? Not to my knowledge- somebody correct me if I am wrong.
Debian doesn't need to. There are other companies that provide paid support. Hire one of them. Of course, there is the question of why you'd ever need support with Debian ;)
Hi,
Does Debian provide paid support? Not to my knowledge- somebody correct me if I am wrong.
Debian doesn't need to. There are other companies that provide paid support. Hire one of them. Of course, there is the question of why you'd ever need support with Debian ;)
Ok- I didn't know that. If other companies do provide paid support, then I guess it should be fine to have a Debian handling your moolah.
Ofcourse, there is still the question of Enterprise Linux, which is tuned for high performance, and there are claims abt Redhat Enterprise Linux being the best in the industry (dunno if its true). Wonder whether there exist Enterprise versions of Debian which can run on specialized hardware and yield high performance? Also, vendors such as Oracle, VERITAS, BEA, CA, and IBM certify their products to run properly on Enterprise versions, and such testing and certification is very important in business. Such assurances are available with Redhat, but I am not aware if the same is true with Debian...wanted to know.
Yours, KZ
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:30 -0000 (UTC) kaze@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
2)This one is dirty and political, but its a fact of life: When something goes wrong in a commercial setting, you gotta find out who is at fault. True, with any Linux Distro, when the system bombs and the management catches hold of you as the sys ad, you cant pin the blame on the software. However, if you have paid support with a distro like say Redhat, then you can redirect _some_ of the blame :-)
This one makes me laugh out loud. Read the EULA and you'll come to know the extent to which you can blame RedHat or any other software vendor. It's effectively _zero_.
Hi,
2)This one is dirty and political, but its a fact of life: When something goes wrong in a commercial setting, you gotta find out who is at fault. True, with any Linux Distro, when the system bombs and the management catches hold of you as the sys ad, you cant pin the blame on the software.
<MARK>
However, if you have paid support with a distro like say Redhat, then you can redirect _some_ of the blame :-)
This one makes me laugh out loud. Read the EULA and you'll come to know the extent to which you can blame RedHat or any other software vendor. It's effectively _zero_.
Tahir, I guess you read my post in haste. Please read it a little more carefully, and you'll realize that I've already mentioned that with any Linux distro, you can't blame the software (vendor)- refer to <MARK> above. That is to say, you can't take any legal action for compensation etc. What I wanted to say is that with paid support, you can often defend yourself _inwithin_ the company, atleast to some extent. I don't think thats too hard to figure out.
Yours, KZ
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Hashmi" code_martial@softhome.net To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Red Hat Linux 9 booting problem (why redhat for commercial)
GLUG Meeting on 13th July, 4pm at KReSIT, IIT Campusm, Powai.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:30 -0000 (UTC) kaze@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
2)This one is dirty and political, but its a fact of life: When something goes wrong in a commercial setting, you gotta find out
who
is at fault. True, with any Linux Distro, when the system bombs and the management catches hold of you as the sys ad, you cant pin the blame on the
software.
However, if you have paid support with a distro like say Redhat, then
you
can redirect _some_ of the blame :-)
This one makes me laugh out loud. Read the EULA and you'll come to know the extent to which you can blame RedHat or any other software vendor. It's effectively _zero_.
Legally, you cant transfer the blame, but if you can transfer it as far as the bosses are concerned, that would be enough.
regards Saswata
On Jun 20, 2003 at 16:03, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Legally, you cant transfer the blame, but if you can transfer it as far as the bosses are concerned, that would be enough.
That's a pretty good point. I'd like to add a data point. We use Debian. We have a few RH boxes. We have Windows boxes. But in my group, our primary OS is Debian. Of course, one of our interface guys prefers to use Windows (and you can usually hear a lot of swearing from his desk) but that's not the point right now.
We like Debian for all the usual reasons. apt-get is close to magic. Don't trot out RH's autoupdate thing. I've heard of it.
Of course, with us, support isn't an issue because we are support. I think some of the users, who get tech support from a different group, also use Debian. Our boss just switched to Debian.
OTOH, one of the support guys tried to install Debian on a box with RAID, and can't get it to work. It works fine with RH.
We like Debian for all the usual reasons. apt-get is close to magic. Don't trot out RH's autoupdate thing. I've heard of it.
You do get apt-get for RH, though (http://apt.freshrpms.net). Works quite well too. I use it on one of my home boxes (the other runs Woody) and manage to keep my distro updated reasonably well.
OTOH, one of the support guys tried to install Debian on a box with RAID, and can't get it to work. It works fine with RH.
Which kind of RAID? Using a regular RAID controller with SCSI, or IDE hardware RAID (Promise/ Highpoint) or software RAID? I'm guessing that this might be the IDE RAID thing, for which the RH default kernels provide compiled in support. Don't know about Debian, but maybe they don't have it.
Cheers,
Krishnan
Hi,
And yes- anybody with screwed up file systems on RH 9.0?
Not on Redhat but on Knoppix 3.2 I installed xfs and later reiserfs on my new m/c with a Samsung 40 GB HDD both FS gave up after approx 15 days. While xfs allowed recovery but Reiserfs just gave up.
Now I am trying out ext3. But I hv not crossed the evil 15th day yet.
By the way knoppix essentially is Debian woody unstable(for the lesser known).
No one was able to tell me what exactly the problem was.
Shashank
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:38:11PM +0530, Shashank Ashtikar wrote:
By the way knoppix essentially is Debian woody unstable(for the lesser known).
Woody is Debian Stable. SiD is Debian unstable. Knoppix is based on Debian Unstable aka SiD.
Regards
-
Dileep M. Kumar -
kaze＠sdf.lonestar.org -
Philip S Tellis -
S. Krishnan -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
Satya -
Shashank Ashtikar -
Tahir Hashmi