In article ssarkar@alnitak.usc.edu (Subrata Sarkar) writes: > >In booting we also see him 0 drives (0 disks and 0 tapes) detected. >Why might this be? This is the SCSI initialization code, and only reflects SCSI disks

linux-activists - Drew Eckhardt - May 26 1992 - 00:25

Some motherboards require that you fill out a "bank" before it will work right. For some a "bank" is 4MB. -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@apple.com 801/538-0177 "This is the final task I will ever give you, and it goes

linux-activists - Ed Carp - Oct 7 1992 - 11:02

Hi I had similar problems when I upgraded from 4 MB to 12 MB on a 386sx Board (20 MHz, 32kB Cache). The solution was to disable the cache RAM via the BIOS-setup. :-( Now my machine is much slower (really) but Linux works again. This Problem hasn't

linux-activists - Gerald Heim - Oct 8 1992 - 15:46

Sorry to make you vomit, lads, but my 486DX/33 with 8Mb RAM did a complete 0.99 compilation in the background in 11 minutes, whilst running X! :-) -- -- Tim Cutts /~\ ---- (

linux-activists - T.J.R. Cutts - Dec 22 1992 - 10:31

tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk (T.J.R. Cutts) writes: >Sorry to make you vomit, lads, but my 486DX/33 with 8Mb RAM did a complete 0.99 >compilation in the background in 11 minutes, whilst running X! :-) I got the same performance on my 486DX/33 w/8Mb... 12

linux-activists - Rick Miller, Linux Device Registrar - Dec 22 1992 - 12:23

To whom it may matter/be of interest: Linux src 0.99, pl 1 on: 486/DX 33, 8MB RAM, 8MB of swap on Maxtor 210MB IDE hard drive MAKE CLEAN date = Thu Dec 24 18:37:17 1992 make all # date = Thu Dec 24 18:47:40 1992

linux-activists - David Dave Nuttall - Dec 24 1992 - 21:00

In article <1992Dec22.143145.24737@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk (T.J.R. Cutts) writes: > Sorry to make you vomit, lads, but my 486DX/33 with 8Mb RAM did a > complete 0.99 compilation in the background in 11 minutes, whilst > running X! :-)

linux-activists - Terje Vernly - Jan 3 1993 - 16:12

I believe that atof() is broken. I've had the same experience and I have a 387 in my Linux box. A simple work-around is to replace blab=atof(blabula); by sscanf(blabula,"%lf",&blab); Inelegant, I admit, but it works. I don't know the

linux-activists - Britt Park - Jan 9 1993 - 19:43

In article <1993Jan9.144510.9590@walter.cray.com>, rsocia@alberti.cray.com (Rick Socia) writes: > I compiled the following program: > > main(int argc, char *argv) > { > double f; > > f = atof(argv[1]); > printf("The answere is %f\n

linux-activists - Lasse verlier - Jan 9 1993 - 20:08

rsocia@alberti.cray.com (Rick Socia) writes: >I compiled the following program: >main(int argc, char *argv) >{ > double f; > f = atof(argv[1]); > printf("The answere is %f\n", f); >} >The core dumps. (passing an argument of "0.50")

linux-activists - James Michael Chacon - Jan 9 1993 - 22:50

britt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Britt Park) writes: >I believe that atof() is broken. I've had the same experience and I have a >387 in my Linux box. A simple work-around is to replace >blab=atof(blabula); >Inelegant, I admit, but it works

linux-activists - James Michael Chacon - Jan 9 1993 - 22:52

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:14:16 GMT, jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle) said: JL> In article alsaggaf@athena.mit.edu (M. Saggaf) writes: > >Declare argv as *argv[] as it should be declared and the

linux-activists - M. Saggaf - Jan 10 1993 - 15:58

In article <1993Jan9.144510.9590@walter.cray.com> rsocia@alberti.cray.com (Rick Socia) writes: >I compiled the following program: > >main(int argc, char *argv) >{ > double f; > > f = atof(argv[1]); > printf("The answere is %f\n", f); >} > >

linux-activists - Drew Eckhardt - Jan 11 1993 - 04:10

In <1ite1tINNo5j@escargot.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> rcopg@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Paul Gortmaker) writes: >That's why I have 3 different C compilers on line --- I just don't trust >myself!!! Too bad they are on the DOS partition. ;-) Well, I usually look at the

linux-activists - Kristian Koehntopp - Jan 14 1993 - 09:04

I have just the same problem that you have encountered...not been able to fix it....because I cannot even install Linux (those errors at boot). I did ask help (my article: PROBLEMS: Installing Linux with SCSI..) and I got it (Really nice persons

linux-activists - Tommi Manttari - Feb 16 1993 - 12:30

In article , rice@ecn.purdue.edu (Ken Rice) writes: |> In article , rice@ecn.purdue.edu (Ken Rice) writes: (...) |> Oh, BTW, I haven't tried to boot without the Sound Blaster in

linux-activists - Ken Rice - Mar 3 1993 - 09:42

Hi all, Got it. Appreciate all the responses I got. Support wise, this has got to be the GREATEST OS I have ever used. Try getting responses this quick from MS or IBM!!! --

linux-activists - Steve Goyette - Mar 18 1993 - 03:41

Hi I just started to play around with recompiling the kernal and found that even though I specified the root dev in the Makefile it didn't matter. The way I fixed this is after I compiled the kernal I used rdev to write the rootdev into the kernal.

linux-activists - Tarek El Hassani - Mar 22 1993 - 20:06

In article <1993Apr4.174917.630@r-node.hub.org> marc@r-node.hub.org (Marc G Fournier) writes: > Why do I get the above error? And which partition is doing >it? :( Well, I've had the same error with extfs. Posted about this for a couple of weeks

linux-activists - Juha Laiho - Apr 7 1993 - 00:44

I should mention this also, now that I've noticed it; my ext2fs apparently ran out of space, at least for normal users, just before the crash. Taylor uucp is taking up 17 megs of disk space! How absurd. Has ext2fs been tested extensively

linux-activists - Frederick W. Umminger - Apr 14 1993 - 02:23