Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "sloooooooow".
Did you mean:
slooooooow
2008 Oct 09
3
should !=
I expected ''should !='' to act the same as ''should_not ==''. That turned out
to be incorrect (by design?):
require ''spec''
require ''spec/rails''
describe "using ''should !=''" do
it "seems to treat != as the same as ==" do
1.should != 1 # passes
1.should != 2 # fails
end
end
2005 Aug 04
0
Several kernel problems
...on 2.6.12.3, compiled it with the patched driver. Right now
the kernel sees the ethernet card but there are three problems:
- this kernel is not the overpatched, stress tested kernel source (lots of
applications and 3rd party drivers require RH kernels) but I can live with
it
- the boot is terribly sloooooooow. at startup when udev starts the boot
process hangs for a while. That should be the version mismatch between
kernel version (2.6.12.3) and udev (latest is 0.60, CentOS/RHEL includes
0.39). As far as I've seen the changelogs and lkml archives an udev
upgrade should help. But I don't want to...