Moz_FireFox 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 crashed on me over 10 times today,
certain Yahoo.COM pages would crash it everytime, IE had no such problems.

first of all, if you read the entire thread,
you would see that the reported issue
was not necessarily related to any
kernel mode drivers.

So in other words a non-priviledged application like TAR is able to
bring down the entire OS. That's some robust kernel you got there !!!

So in other words a non-priviledged application like TAR is able to
bring down the entire OS. That's some robust kernel you got there !!!

The problem wasn't with any kernel or application, nimwit.

Show us the proof.

lqualig@uku.co.uk poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:


first of all, if you read the entire thread,
you would see that the reported issue
was not necessarily related to any
kernel mode drivers.

So in other words a non-priviledged application like TAR is able to
bring down the entire OS. That's some robust kernel you got there !!!


Show us the proof. At present I have to assume you're talking out your
ass.

Show us the proof.

The bug report and the fact that they had to fix this is proof.

So what's the "big-story" here? That
kernel mode drivers are capable of
taking down a OS. Hardly news is it?

So in other words a non-priviledged
application like TAR is able to
bring down the entire OS. That's
some robust kernel you got there

So you were right (sort of) the first time.

Were you just talking out your ass
the second time? Like, being sarcastic?

/proc/kcore is like an "alias" for
the memory in your computer. Its
size is the same as the amount of
RAM you have, and if you read it
as a file, the kernel does memory reads.

DFS wrote:

Thousands of unexplainable Linux freezes shouldn't occur, but they do.



Thousands?

Tom Shelton <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> writes:

In article <pan.2005.06.09.16.11.21.771173@rapskat.com>, rapskat wrote:
begin Error Log for Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:16:51 -0700 - lqualig@uku.co.uk
caused an invalid page fault at address
1118323011.742032.307010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, details as
follows:

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD

Tried it. No BSOD. No crash. IE simply doesn't display the image with a
width and height of 9999999. Dropping a digit (999999) shows the image
but it's very slow. Dropping another digit (99999) shows the image and
scrolling is sluggish but usable.

Nice FUD though. BSOD... now that would be a lie.

How is it a "lie" when it has been confirmed by other people? Perhaps it
depends on the amount of total memory you have on your system as to
whether it actually crashes or not.

The point here is that a friggin WEB BROWSER has the capability of
potentially crashing a Windows system simply because the platform will
allocate all available memory to trying to display this massive graphic,
even to the point of taking away memory from its core components.


It's a video driver error - it has nothing to do with memory. It works on
my little 64MB nVidia card that's in this box. Sure, it slows things
down, but it doesn't crash. The problem is crappy video drivers

I most certainly don't think so. The video driver causing the BSOD is
*not* the problem, it is the symptom.

The problem is that, for the zillionth time, a bug has popped in IE
where the programmers didn't check their input, allowing IE to request
a too large amount of memory. The attempt to display a large image may
trigger other problems in the video driver causing a BSOD, but the
faulty component is most certainly IE, and therefore the Operating
System itself.

Mart

The video driver causing the BSOD is
*not* the problem, it is the symptom.

The problem is that, for the zillionth
time, a bug has popped in IE where the
programmers didn't check their input,
allowing IE to request a too large
amount of memory.

The attempt to display a large image may
trigger other problems in the video driver
causing a BSOD

but the faulty component is most certainly IE
and therefore the Operating System itself.

Tom Shelton <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> writes:

In article <pan.2005.06.09.16.11.21.771173@rapskat.com>, rapskat
wrote:
begin Error Log for Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:16:51 -0700 -
lqualig@uku.co.uk caused an invalid page fault at address
1118323011.742032.307010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, details as
follows:

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD

Tried it. No BSOD. No crash. IE simply doesn't display the image
with a width and height of 9999999. Dropping a digit (999999)
shows the image but it's very slow. Dropping another digit (99999)
shows the image and scrolling is sluggish but usable.

Nice FUD though. BSOD... now that would be a lie.

How is it a "lie" when it has been confirmed by other people?
Perhaps it depends on the amount of total memory you have on your
system as to whether it actually crashes or not.

The point here is that a friggin WEB BROWSER has the capability of
potentially crashing a Windows system simply because the platform
will allocate all available memory to trying to display this
massive graphic, even to the point of taking away memory from its
core components.


It's a video driver error - it has nothing to do with memory. It
works on my little 64MB nVidia card that's in this box. Sure, it
slows things down, but it doesn't crash. The problem is crappy
video drivers

I most certainly don't think so. The video driver causing the BSOD is
*not* the problem, it is the symptom.

The problem is that, for the zillionth time, a bug has popped in IE
where the programmers didn't check their input, allowing IE to request
a too large amount of memory.

The attempt to display a large image may
trigger other problems in the video driver causing a BSOD, but the
faulty component is most certainly IE, and therefore the Operating
System itself.

Mart

Here's a scary one from last month where Linux spontaneously rebooted:
"While running a 32 bit Java program 2.6.12-rc3 rebooted spontaneously
leaving a corrupt partition table and disk with errors. There was nothing in
dmesg (no oops/panic) except some -MARK- entries during the reboot."
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0504.3/0013.html

Linux ready for prime time? I think not.

but the faulty component is most certainly IE
and therefore the Operating System itself.

News Flash!!! Internet Explorer (IE) is NOT an operating system.

Try installing Debian "testing" (Sarge). It seems to do a thorough job of
hardware detection. If you just want a quick test, install Ubuntu.

If so, everybody's IE would crash. Mine didn't, and others didn't.

You're wrong.