I've installed Redhat 7.3 on a raq3's disk. But fscked if I can get the
kernel in /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.18-3 to boot. It's insisting pulling the
kernel from ... somewhere else. The old cobalt kernel.
I've booted the disk with a redhat rescue CD, and installed grub on the
MBR and hda1 & hda2 (just in case). No luck. The cobalt BIOS says "Booting
Any ideas how I can get this thing to boot *my* kernel ? Anyone care to
guess how the cobalt boot process ? Google seems very quiet on the
subject of the cobalt boot process, and what is there doesn't seem to
First stage kernel: Decompressing - done
Second stage kernel: Decompressing - done
Note the descrepancy between what I want to boot, and actually booted.

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28E244137
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu,  8 Aug 2002 08:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:32:38 +0100 (IST)
from webnote.net (mail.webnote.net [193.120.211.219]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g78CGI201936 for
    <jm-ilug@JMASON.ORG>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:16:18 +0100
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    webnote.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29537 for <jm-ilug@jmason.org>;
    Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:38:53 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09753; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:38:07 +0100
from homer.jinny.ie ([193.120.171.3]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09703 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Thu,
    8 Aug 2002 11:37:54 +0100
from jlooney.jinny.ie (fw [193.120.171.2]) by homer.jinny.ie
    (8.9.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id LAA20378 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Thu,
    8 Aug 2002 11:37:23 +0100
(from john@localhost) by jlooney.jinny.ie (8.11.6/8.11.6) id
    g78Abns02539 for ilug@linux.ie; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:37:49 +0100
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Thu Aug  8 14:12:13 2002

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 11:27:59AM +0100, wintermute mentioned:
> Interesting. I've always wondered about things 'considered' to be bad.
> Example the GOTO, most languages support a goto of some sort, so are gotos really bad?
Yes. Especially in the languages he was talking about - C, Pascal and
Assembler. Goto's can be used well; there are a few used in the kernel
code to improve efficency. They are almost required in some languages
(like C) where 'break' or 'continue' can't be told how many loops/switches
to break out of.
But, in general, goto's make a mess of code.
> Is a loop or a recursive call actually any better than a goto
> or is the goto used as a kind of common enemy of
> programming syntax
> to make sure people use loops or recursion?
> <<To iterate is human, to recurse divine>>
Recursion is only truely useful if you have an infinite stack. People
that think they have an infinite stack shouldn't be let near a compiler.
> Kind of makes you wonder about things considered to be 'good'.  For
> example people bang on about polymorphism, but is there actually any
> advantage in using an overloaded function based on class inheritance?
I don't care, to be honest.
Kate
--
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie