[PATCH/RFC]: CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 512
by Prarit Bhargava
I'd like to see the supported number of CPUs jump from 64 to 512 so that it
would be possible to run Fedora Core 5 on large CPU systems.
Covered by BZ #162570.
--- kernel-2.6.11/linux-2.6.11/.config.orig 2005-07-06 12:30:02.696189724 -0400
+++ kernel-2.6.11/linux-2.6.11/.config 2005-07-06 12:30:16.484275493 -0400
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ CONFIG_IA64_CYCLONE=y
CONFIG_IOSAPIC=y
CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER=18
CONFIG_SMP=y
-CONFIG_NR_CPUS=64
+CONFIG_NR_CPUS=512
# CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is not set
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
18 years, 9 months
Re: weird representation for FFFD
by Pádraig Brady
Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> Στις 27/Ιούν/2005, ημέρα Δευτέρα και ώρα 14:33, ο/η P(a)draigBrady.com
> έγραψε:
>
>>On my fedora core 3 gnome desktop,
>>I get a weird representation for U+FFFD.
>>Here's what it looks like for you [�].
>>
>>It's the "REPLACEMENT CHARACTER", and according
>>to the following should be question mark enclosed
>>in a solid diamond: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UFFF0.pdf
>>I've been told that this is also the representation
>>on windows and OSX.
>>
>>However I'm getting a weird comma like thing, which
>>Markus Kuhn _has_ made reference to here I think:
>>http://www.w3.org/2001/06/utf-8-wrong/UTF-8-test.html
>>In the gnome charmap applet it seems to be the nimbus
>>and schoolbook (sans and serif) fallback fonts that have
>>this weird representation. The (Misc) Fixed fonts
>>do have the question mark as expected.
>>
>>So why this weird representation?
>>I'm writing an app where I would like to display
>>characters that are invalid in the current encoding,
>>and the comma like thing it totally confusing for users.
>
>
> Hi,
> On my system (FC2), gucharmap says it's FreeSans.
> Doesn't FC3 have FreeSans/FreeSerif/FreeMono?
Right so bitstream-vera doesn't even have the FFFD char,
and the fallback nimbus has this weird comma like thing.
I don't think freefont is part of fedora.
I installed FreeSans manually and it has a
beautiful question mark respresentation as described above.
But that's not going to work for my app unless I
install a font with it, but I really don't want to
start that messing.
> Ubuntu and other distributions come with "freefont" by default, covering
> a good range of the Unicode space.
> If FC4 does not install by default freefont, you should file a bug
> report.
Right, I'mm cc'ing fedora-devel as I've found no bugs
mentioning dejavu or freefont etc.
Extending bitstream was mentioned in this thread:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-December/msg00830.html
Perhaps making freefont the default might be a better approach?
What do people think?
--
Pádraig Brady - http://www.pixelbeat.org
--
18 years, 9 months
Re: Having a copy of .torrent in the /iso dir
by Jef Spaleta
On 7/5/05, Brian Gerst <bgerst(a)didntduck.org> wrote:
> If people set up their own mirrors it's their bandwidth, their problem.
> Why do we care?
If those people end up being exactly the same admins who use to be
official mirrors....
Explain to me.. in very small words... from a mirror admin
perspective... why exactly they should choose to stagger their
release.. instead of just going rogue, grabbing a torrent and
producing a mirror from that and forsaking 'official' status?
You better make damn sure the official mirror admins are interested in
staggering, before you suggest it as a policy. Because if there is one
very good way of causing a worse mirroring bottleneck it is to have
mirrors choose to drop out of the official list.
-jef
18 years, 9 months
Having a copy of .torrent in the /iso dir
by David T Farning
I was just think that the fedora mirror system could save a little/a lot
of bandwidth if there were copies of the .torrent files found at
http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ in the /iso directories next to the
actual iso files. If these torrents were as convenient to get as the
*.iso maybe more people would use them instead of just saying 'what the
heck' and clicking on the .iso.
Politically it would be a great statement. One of the most significant
open source companies stepping up and using bit torrent for an obviously
legal purpose. But, alas I'm not a lawyers so I have no idea the legal
risks this would present.
-dtf
18 years, 9 months
Re: SPARC
by Martin Marques
El Mar 05 Jul 2005 11:52, escribió:
> On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:46, Martín Marqués wrote:
> > Is someone working on a SPARC port of Fedora Core?
>
> http://www.auroralinux.org
>
> There will find the community who works to port fedora on sparc/sparc64.
I know about Aurora Linux, but it's kind of dead.
--
12:14:25 up 2 days, 21:00, 2 users, load average: 1.55, 1.18, 0.92
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lic. Martín Marqués | select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar'
Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
18 years, 9 months
Re: Fedora Core 5 Idea -- let's drop this ...
by Bryan Smith
From: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com>
> Then stop discussing it.
Ummm ... that was my _only_ post in this thread!
I don't think my disgust for this thread is any less than yours.
So don't blame me. ;->
The last time this came up, I finally said something when some people
would not end their technical ignorance. Then I got chastized or
demonized for merely pointing out that the responses were just as bad as
the request. Which is why I stated out of this thread.
Again, while I also don't believe the Fedora team should have to deal
with this request, I also don't think some people on the Fedora team
don't have to make technical statements which just aren't true, and more
politically-aligned assumptions.
So, once again, I think it's about time that there is a "standard
response" on this issue, and whenever it comes up again, that is _all_
the team gives. Because the level of bigotry and non-truth in some of
the responses is just disgusting.
Almost as bad as the original requests.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
18 years, 9 months
Re: e: Fedora Core 5 Idea -- let's drop this ...
by Sean
On Tue, July 5, 2005 11:05 am, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> said:
> Sean wrote:
>> Huh? You're reading something between the lines that just isn't there.
>
> Dude, don't even go there. You have continually been making statements
> like:
>
> "We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop
> spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia."
>
> You have been doing it for _weeks_ now. You have singlehandedly made
> it about *1* company, which is _just_as_bad_ as the original requestors.
> That's been my _sole_point_.
You're just wrong. The simple fact is that if you want to use open
source drivers there are better options than those provided by nVidia.
If nVidia sold a card that was well supported by open source drivers, i'd
become their biggest supporter.
>
> Damn me for previously actually explaining why nVidia is the only
> solution for _some_ people. I _never_ said there is "no alternative,"
> and I am definitely _not_ a nVidia "cheerleader." But for some people,
> they can and will use nVidia, as well as ATI's proprietary source drivers,
> as well as Matrox's proprietary source drivers, etc...
>
> You have continued to _demonize_ things, and in many cases, interject
> _false_ technical information, along with a few, select others. This is
> the problem with most "agendas," they tend to go past fact and into
> false assumptions for political reasons, not technical reality.
>
> That's the _only_ "problem" I've had.
No, the problem you've had is in failing to recognize that the brand
doesn't matter. All i'm saying is buy the best card you can that runs
open source drivers. You haven't said once that nVidia open source
drivers are superior to other offerings. That's because cards from other
vendors have _better_ open source drivers. Please try to understand this
once and for all so we can stop this thread.
> Actually, I was the one that use the phrase "let it go," shortly after
> Rahul's. I futher refined that into coming up with a standard response
> with Rahul most excellently delivered, and I think that does the job.
What you want is the last word. You should have just let it die when
Rahul asked it to die.
>
> Now I don't have any "weight" here, and I don't assume to have any
> either. But I've seen other people who aren't exactly "contributors"
> throwing their weight, history and other credentials around, and
> doing it a way that I would consider borderline "bigotry" (and
> depending on how far people have been "explaining" things, some
> might even qualify as "libel" but I doubt nVidia cares at this point)
> on holding nVidia to one standard, but other companies to another.
>
> And that would include yourself -- very much so -- because you have
> singlehandedly associated "proprietary" with _only_ nVidia, and even
> gone so far to stretch the notion to blame even ATI's moves on nVidia,
> when the reasons were quite different. ATI closed up the specifications
> for many reasons (several of my good colleagues that I used to work
> with in the semiconductor industry are now at ATI).
Wrong again. I'm just dealing with the reality that the best open source
supported cards don't come from nVidia today. I'd be just as happy as
anyone else if that changed.
> I think Rahul hit-it-on-the-nose with his post:
>> Would people stop discussing merits and demerits of particular
>> brands of video cards and their drivers and market share in the
>> Fedora development list. This is definitely off topic for this list.
>> Kindly stop
>
> Now at what point do you concede you are one of the biggest
> hypocrites with regards to this response to me, given the context
> I, Rahul and others have made?
>
> Oh, nevermind, I forgot I was an nVidia cheerleader, so I might be
> one of the people that are hurting open source.
>
> Bigotry starts with labeling and intolerance driven by an agenda.
> Again, I am so damn sorry I tried to explain things earlier from a
> "middle ground," all while saying the Fedora Project should _never_
> support proprietary source drivers, I have _never_ said otherwise.
You've been decidedly intolerant of anyone who stands up and says, use
open source solutions instead of binary only solutions. All you hear is
an attack on nVidia instead of a support for open source solutions.
There are some very good graphic cards available today that are supported
by open source. Unfortunately they don't come from your favorite
supplier.
>
> You, however, seem to be solely fixated on nVidia. While you
> might claim that is the issue, because of your frustration with
> others who buy nVidia's product and use nVidia's drivers while
> seeking support here, it does _not_ mean you can blame nVidia
> for it all, and make statements that just are _not_ true. Be
> objective, be considerate and stop the "reverse agenda," because
> you too are making very vedor-blind statements. ;->
>
That's because it is only nVidia cheerleaders who are constantly telling
people (usually without reservation or caution) to embrace binary only
drivers. If more of you would tone down your support for binary only
solutions, you might get a different reaction.
> And don't assume we all use nVidia's drivers, or only buy nVidia
> products. I only use their products+drivers if I absolutely need
> them for an applpication today, and cannot wait 3-5 years. And
> _no_, it is _not_ for gaming. Otherwise I typically go with Intel,
> rewarding them for their efforts, or just use the MIT X11 "nv"
> driver with the UtahGLX for older nVidia products that work well
> enough.
>
Well i'm glad to hear that; you should really spend more time telling
people that open source solutions are preferable because you seem to spend
way more energy justifying binary drivers.
Cheers,
Sean
18 years, 9 months
SPARC
by Martin Marques
Is someone working on a SPARC port of Fedora Core?
--
11:45:58 up 2 days, 20:31, 2 users, load average: 1.40, 0.96, 0.56
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lic. Martín Marqués | select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar'
Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
18 years, 9 months
