I sympathize, Kjell...

Having been into Unix (among other OSes) since 1975, I was cautiously
optimistic when Linux developed critical mass, hoping that it would
help normalize the Unix world. Unfortunately, Linux only added more
stories to the Tower of Babel, further fracturing the situation with
multiple variant flavors of Linux - and dramatic inconsistencies even
across releases within a single flavor.

You could attempt to report that faulty error message to IBM as a
defect. Given IBM's corporate commitment to Linux, there should be a
substantive response. However, I think that even IBM is hard pressed to
deal with all the variations in Linux as they attempt to offer a
"single" TSM client to operate on many - but not all - of them.

Being a fan of open software, it's distressing to see situations like
this develop, as so many chefs inhabit the Linux kitchen. Sadly, what
we have in this software today is like what prevailed in hardware 250
years ago, where parts made for one device of a given type would not
fit properly in another device of the same type because of a lack of
strict standardization of dimensions and fabrication. Freedom without
discipline makes for problems.

   Richard Sims

On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Kjell Kaspersen wrote:

Hm, I have trouble understanding *why* it has to be like this, but...
What does a person then do when this server crashes, and sees a golden
opportunity to install a new with a more uptodate operating system?
Files cannot be restored?