On a Xen Dom0, I needed to apply a kernel upgrade (from 2.6.18-92something to 2.6.18-128something) and as a result, a reboot. At this point you should memorize that the old kernel worked quite fine and all I did was a yum update followed by a reboot. A procedure I did on quite a number of Dom0 machines in the past weeks.

Well, the reboot this time didn’t work, the kernel halted after printing:
request_module: runaway loop modprobe binfmt-464c

Well, reboot again, select old kernel, systems boots fine….

What happened was that both the x86_64 and i686 versions of the old kernel was installed, so yum update updated both, probably first the x86_64 version, then the i686 version (but I didn’t check). Well, while for the old kernel, grub booted the x86_64 kernel with the x86_64 initrd, for the new kernel it tried to boot the i686 kernel with the x86_64 initrd. (verified by unpacking the initrd and the vmlinuz kernel image and running file on the binaries therein)

Now the big question is: How could the stupid yum/rpm/postinstall script system end up doing this? It is supposed to warn about conflicts if two packages ship different versions of the same file AFAICT, but there is no way the i686 and x86_64 versions of /boot/vmlinuz* could be identical. So there should have been a warning about this. And after that, how come the mkinitrd tool doesn’t even try to check wether the kernel architecture and that of the initrd binaries match? It happily packed 64bit binaries and 64bit kernel modules(sic!) when run against a 32bit kernel….

OK, enough of my frustration….
I really wished I had to maintain not RHEL/CentOS machines but Debian (based distro) machines here at work. Unfortunately, that won’t happen for various reasons…

While the bi-arch support in RHEL/CentOS is helpful in many ways, RPM and the way bi-arch works on these distros caused almost as much trouble to me already as it helped avoid.

Eddy Petrișor has a post about transitioning from lilo to grub2 (considering usage of LVM).

Romain Beauxis writes about what he dislikes about git (or probably most distributes version control systems) when it comes to team-maintained packages, to which Martin F. Krafft responded with an interesting post that puts some aspects of distributed versioning into a more balanced perspective then Romain had. After all though, I agree that there are uses to DVCSs which make sense (like being able to commit while not having any sort of connection to the “central” repository). However, I still think that relatively small “projects” like maintaining Debian packages have more to gain from the central repository then from the ability to commit while not connected. That is, at least as long as upstream doesn’t use a DVCS already, in which case there are other benefits from using the same DVCS, like easily pulling in upstream changes.

David Welton posted about a small script that swaps virtual desktops (please note that you will need to enable javascript to actually see the script).

While not technologically new to me, this post by David Pashley about copying files with netcat was a nice summarization of how to do it (and why it is sometime preferable over scp or rsync, plain or over ssh). One of the comments refers to mbuffer, which might also prove useful if you need really high speeds (>200MByte/s) or want some more advanced buffering options. The pv tool (alias Pipe Viewer) might be of interest to meter the throughput.

Phil Hands writes about getting an USB stick to boot (certain) ISO images with the help of grub4dos.

That’s it for now, will update the post if I find more interesting links in the next few days.

If IBM were to go bankrupt, would the government step in? Unlikely. Investors would lose (money), staff — another word for investors — would lose (jobs), but customers would win (their computers would keep working). Some customers would win more than others (especially those who had the equipment on lease); if no one is collecting, why pay?

I’m wondering here where Anand got the idea that once a company went bankrupt, that you don’t need to pay to that company anymore. When a company goes bankrupt, at least in Germany the following happens: A trustee/liquidator is selected. This liquidator is then collecting the information who owes money to the company and who still needs to get (how much) money from it. The liquidator also has to check the option of selling company assets (which might include the contracts of customers that still have to pay) to fulfill the debts of the bankrupt company. After he turned all assets into money, the money is distributed among those who still have to get money from the bankrupt company.

Anyway, regarding his main argument that the (average) customer of a company (bank in this case) should never have to pay for the failed speculations of that company, I somehow have to agree with him. Someone putting money into a regular bank account or papers with fixed interest rate should never lose his money. But there are also customers buying bank shares with a chance of higher revenue than with fixed interest rate papers. These should suffer from failure of the bank management, as they more or less explicitly wanted to be tied to the success (or failure) of the bank.

However, this is mostly irrelevant, since the failure of so many “investment banks” has side affects that might cost the average inhabitant of the affected countries even more than the discussed rescue plans. One of these effects is that the banks are now much more conservative regarding lease and mortgage plans, effectively leaving many home owners with no option to fulfill previous obligations (remaining debt after a previous mortgage expired can’t be refinanced by a new mortgage), causing them to have to sell their homes to pay the first mortgage. This is in some way stupid because this causes people who were perfectly paying their mortgage rates to loose their house, while the bank which would be giving them a new mortgage could get a new and good customer, improving their income. On the other hand, if the other side effects of the current crisis cause those “good” mortgage customers to loose their jobs, they might turn into bad customers who are unable to pay their rates. All in all, this is a spiral that could cause the whole economy to break down (a small example: The bank is not giving out mortgages, so no one will build new houses so the builders loose their jobs so they don’t pay their mortgage rates anymore,…. – over simplified, but still shows what I mean). Unless the spiral is terminated in time, before too drastic things happen.

All in all, I do understand why the politicians try to rescue those banks (or at least the customers of those banks), though I think that in an economy with slightly higher regulation, there wouldn’t be the need for such a rescue plan. I know there are some german banks affected by the crisis as well (among them Hypo Real Estate and others), but the average private customer of such banks shouldn’t loose money due to the regulations we have in place.

In general, there should be some security fund which makes sure that private customers never loose money put into regular bank accounts or fixed interest papers, vice-versa, banks should calculate mortgages so that they can be pretty sure their customers are actually able to pay off their rates – it doesn’t make sense if someone starts off having to pay 500$/month for their mortgage and has to pay over 1000$ a few years (as in 2-3 years) later, because the bank raised the interest that much. I have no problem with people loosing money from shares of banks or other companies directly or indirectly through investment funds.

Leider hat unser geschätzter Bundespräsident Köhler das Gesetz zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung unterzeichnet. Daher rufe ich hiermit jeden dazu auf, Widerstand gegen dieses Gesetz zu leisten. Wie man das (legal) machen kann, steht unter anderem auf o.g. Webseite.

Sorry AJ, your post is just the latest example of this style of post, and I really got frustrated over such posts, this is not meant as a personal attack.

Edit:
So to make my wish clear: Please, fellow bloggers, don’t assume that your readers are following your favourite web resources as closely as you do (and with the same specific interests). Explicitly say what you are writing about, reference resources needed to understand what you are doing, at least give readers a chance to find out what you did.

In AJs case, it would probably have been enough to reference the /. article or comment which inspired him.

[1]: href=”http://boincfaq.mundayweb.com/index.php?language=1&view=176
[2]: http://blog.incase.de/index.php/cpu-feature-flags-and-their-meanings/

Nice. That’s at least a pleasant way of dying: Being tickled to death.

Of course, the article itself clears up the misunderstanding: The vest is more tickling than “punching” the player, even if his game-ego is killing most ferociously.

So what should be done instead in my opinion?
I think that a DM like status is fine as part of a (possibly re-designed) NM process. Given the current NM process, I would like people been given a DM like status after they finished the T&S (tasks^IIRC and skills) part if their AM found their skills and knowledge of the policy rules sufficient to give them that status. If that is all they wanted, they can drop from the NM process at that point and stay DMs. If they want to become DDs later on, they can resume the NM process at that very step (or continue right ahead).

This would do several things:

• introduce the DM status as an alternative to full DD status
• integrate the DM status closer with the existing NM process
• take some load of the friendly sponsors who upload non-DD packages now, giving them more time to help more new contributors
• give people waiting for DD status some intermediate level at which they already can do more than before their joining of the NM queue

So I really think “more discussion” is the only valid option for me in this GR. If you want to change my mind: Please leave some feedback in my blog. Or give a precise (but brief) description why the current proposal is better than integration with the current NM process in one way or the other.

Abbreviations:

• DD = Debian Developer (a full Debian project member, includes voting rights)
• DM = Debian Maintainer (planned to be a somewhat restricted DD, among others without voting rights)
• NM = New Maintainer (should actually be: New Developer)
• GR = General Resolution (a way in Debian to create new rules or to ask the project leader or others in the project to do or refrain from doing something)

Update:
The GR even seems to contradict itself a bit. If the upload rules are applied in an AND fashion, one of these rules is superfluous (the first one), at least if I’m not mistaken:

• the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file corresponds with the owner of the key used (ie, non-developer maintainers may not sponsor uploads)
• the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or experimental includes the field “DM-Upload-Allowed: yes” in the source section of its control file
• the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or experimental lists the uploader in the Maintainer: or Uploaders: fields (ie, non-developer maintainers cannot NMU or hijack packages)

The first rules also means that no DM could ever do an upload for packages team-maintained in the fashion cyrus-imapd-2.2 is maintained (Maintainer address is the teams mailinglist address, all uploading team members are in the Uploaders field). This is IMHO a serious flaw in the proposal. If the first rule was dumped, all would be well for team maintainers.

(edit: Fix spelling of Dirk’s surname)

Recently, on planet.debian.org, there were quite a few posts relating to blood donations. I must say that I really only live thanks to people donating blood. As many might know, I had a freaking motorcycle accident about 9 years ago. Well, apart from loosing my right leg in the weeks following the accident (irreparable damages to tissues led to amputation), I also lost a lot of blood after the accident. In the six hours following the accident, I got no less than 65 blood infusions (approximately 24-30 litres or 6-8 US gallons). As you can imagine, this is about 3-4 times as much blood as my body normally carries around.

At least I can say that I didn’t receive blood without giving some before, though certainly I wasn’t able to give that much blood (I donated about 10 times, approx. 0.45 litres each time). However, due to the medication I now need, I can’t donate blood anymore. Anyhow, I strongly suggest to anyone who is capable of donating blood to do so.

And regarding Thijs comment about the frequency of donation and payment: This is highly depending on the area you live in and the organisation who manages the donations. For example, while I donated blood in Dortmund, Germany, I had two options to donate blood: German Red Cross, who would accept a donation every 6 weeks, with free sandwiches, drinks and chocolate but without payment and the city-owned hospital’s blood bank, which allowed a donation every 3 month, with free drinks and a 50DEM (approx. 25EUR/30USD) payment. This sounds as if the city-owned blood bank could attract homeless and junkies who were in for the money, but from my experience, the blood bank did far stricter pre-donation tests (I can’t tell what they did after donation for either organisation) than the red cross. And knowing how much money can be earned with the blood donated, I certainly think that payment is fair, though not strictly necessary. And the blood bank people did a much better job when applying the needle than the red cross people did, which might be because they were used to taking blood from people with bad veins (mostly patients donating blood for themselves for use in a later, planned surgery). But to be fair: I know from other people who had very good experiences with the red cross staff in this respect.

Once again: Please donate blood if you can. If you are uncomfortable with the choice you made on your first donation, check out other options for donations. For example, if you almost collapsed when donating blood, try out the plasma donation if it is offered. They usually take the plasma, but give back an equal volume of a substitution, so your circulation isn’t disturbed as much as by taking approx. 0.5 litres from it within an hour. If you feel that the person who applied the needle did a bad job, ask for someone else next time or try a different organisation altogether.

cu,
Sven

You scored as Either. You brain is neither specifically male, nor female in the way you perceive your surroundings. As bad as this may sound to some, it can easily mean that you are capable of combining both gender aspects to your advantage. Rather than being genderless you are possibly able think freely. This does not mean that you are bisexual or androgynous or indecisive, but it might.

Should you be MALE or FEMALE?*
created with QuizFarm.com

By the way: This also most likely means that I won’t buy any HD video stuff at all, since the Vista content protection stuff was mostly dictated by the big Hollywood studios.

Seems like I will be saving quite some money over the next years. (Which I actually need to do anyway.)

Other interesting links regarding Vista:

• The Inquirer – Charlie Demerjian: Microsoft Vista is not an option
• The Register – Scott Granneman: Surprises inside Microsoft Vista’s EULA
• Juha Saarinen: DRM behind lack of Windows Vista drivers… and fear the new content protection
• Techworld.com – Chris Mellor: Vista crippled by content protection
• The Register – Andrew Orlowski: Vista’s Suicide Bomb: Who gets hurt?

I said they did it all wrong because they forgot that they are selling Windows not to the content industry but to the consumers. Sure, the consumers want to see what Microsoft calls premium content, but I’m also sure that they don’t want all that content protection nonsense Microsoft built into Vista for the sake of the content providers. They lost the balance between avoiding pirated copies (which I think the content protection stuff will have no big effect on) and bothering users of legitimate copies.

Heck, I already use “pirate” copies of most of the (Windows-based) games I play because I don’t want to be bothered by their original-CD-checks, even though I own at least one legal copy of all the games I play. Would I need to download pirate copies of the HD movies I want to watch because I don’t want to be bothered by whatever side-effects VCP will have, even if I own legal copies of the same movies?

Dear Microsoft, dear Content-Industry (TimeWarner, Disney, whoever), please re-think who you want to sell your content to. I already avoid DVDs which carry additional copy protection (apart from CSS), and if they were available at all, I would prefer to buy DVDs without even CSS. The same is true for CDs (except that they obviously don’t have CSS). Consequently, I’m likely to avoid buying HD videos which impose unpleasant restrictions on me, including those that disable the S/PDIF output of my player (no matter wether PC or standalone) since I paid a lot of money for decent HIFI equipment two years ago and I sure as hell won’t want to by new equipment within the next few years. Luckily, I didn’t yet buy any HD video gear, though my notebook, when equipped with a HDDVD or Blueray drive should be capable of playing HD video – if MS and the content industry wouldn’t impose stupid restrictions.