atom feed45 messages in com.ubuntu.lists.ubuntu-ukRe: [ubuntu-uk] Non-default driver
FromSent OnAttachments
RowanFeb 22, 2009 2:48 am 
Christopher SwiftFeb 22, 2009 3:42 am 
Christopher SwiftFeb 22, 2009 3:43 am 
James ThomasFeb 22, 2009 3:44 am 
RowanFeb 22, 2009 4:01 am 
RowanFeb 24, 2009 12:47 am 
Thomas IbbotsonFeb 24, 2009 8:57 am 
Christopher SwiftFeb 24, 2009 8:58 am 
RowanFeb 24, 2009 9:14 am 
RowanFeb 24, 2009 11:53 am 
Matthew DaubneyFeb 24, 2009 12:56 pm 
RowanFeb 24, 2009 1:02 pm 
Jon ReynoldsFeb 25, 2009 7:19 am 
RowanFeb 25, 2009 7:39 am 
Rob BeardFeb 25, 2009 8:08 am 
Tony TravisFeb 25, 2009 9:21 am 
RowanFeb 25, 2009 9:40 am 
RowanMar 1, 2009 8:02 pm 
Sean MillerMar 1, 2009 11:44 pm 
RowanMar 1, 2009 11:58 pm 
Sean MillerMar 2, 2009 12:08 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 12:18 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 12:37 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 12:49 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 12:54 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 12:58 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 1:13 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 1:24 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 1:39 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 2:06 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 5:59 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 6:39 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 6:49 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 6:53 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 7:07 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 7:23 am 
Tony TravisMar 2, 2009 7:23 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 7:30 am 
Tony TravisMar 2, 2009 7:31 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 7:41 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 7:58 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 8:35 am 
Tony TravisMar 2, 2009 8:47 am 
Alan PopeMar 2, 2009 8:55 am 
RowanMar 2, 2009 9:11 am 
Subject:Re: [ubuntu-uk] Non-default driver
From:Rowan (rowa@googlemail.com)
Date:Mar 2, 2009 12:18:29 am
List:com.ubuntu.lists.ubuntu-uk

Well, I'm very grateful for that explanation, Sean, I really am. I shall read it very carefully and digest it slowly - it has taken me two weeks to even boil down the question to a sufficiently succinct form to be answerable.

Tell me, do you think there is any good reason, in anybody's minds but the LinuxCertified engineers, to use a non default driver at all? Is the "instability" in the r8169 driver a matter of common knowledge, or just something they dreamed up to make life more confusing?

Sean Miller wrote:

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Rowan <rowa@googlemail.com> wrote:

I don't understand instruction 2. Is it one long line? What is the > doing there, and is it single spaced in between the two long strings? Or did it creep in when the email was transmitted?

sed 's/blacklist r8169/#blacklist r8169/' /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.bak > /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist

It's one line.

"sed" is a command in Unix/Linux which substitutes one string for another. In a shell if you do "cmd > file" it takes the output from the command and writes it to the file specified.

So, the instructions are thus :-

1. mv /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.bak

"mv" is the shell equivilant of the DOS "ren", it renames the file. So we take the file blacklist and rename it to blacklist.bak

2. sed 's/blacklist r8169/#blacklist r8169/' /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.bak > /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist

our "sed" instruction is to replace the string "blacklist r8169" in the file with "#blacklist r8169" - in other words to comment out any lines that say that (# being the comment command), "s/string1/string2" being the sed command for substitution.

we're then going to output the results to the file /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist (ie. the same as the file we renamed in 1).

Hope that is helpful.

They could, of course, have simply given you the following instructions which would do the same thing...

--> edit the file /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist and comment out using # any lines that say "blacklist r8169", then reboot. Be sure to back up the file before you start.

...but I guess that'd be too easy, eh?