Hmmmm... "One product that will be released imminently is Suse Linux 9.0. The latest version of this product, which is largely aimed at home users, will be available tomorrow, 30 September, Burger revealed exclusively to IT Week." http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143941 Tomorrow? Do the stores know this? Do the SuSE websites know this? Or does Burger not know what he's talking about? Hmmmm... Joe -- Now Playing: Anthrax - Got The Time [From Persistence Of Time (1990)] (0:50/2:44) Powered by XMMS and SuSE Linux 8.2 Pro
Joe Sullivan wrote:
Hmmmm... "One product that will be released imminently is Suse Linux 9.0. The latest version of this product, which is largely aimed at home users, will be available tomorrow, 30 September, Burger revealed exclusively to IT Week."
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143941 Tomorrow? Do the stores know this? Do the SuSE websites know this? Or does Burger not know what he's talking about?
Hmmmm... Joe Kind of makes sense to me based on the slow down of Linux development of new software or version upgrades. Hopefully this will also offer SuSE time to fix bugs or over sight and allow for more QC..
Just think maybe even time to settle the directory location of source downloaded programs between software writers and distro folks. -- 73 de Donn Washburn __ " http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 a MSDOS Virus "Free Zone" OS Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org Info: http://www.knoppix.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday September 29 2003 08:28, Donn aka n5xwb Washburn wrote:
Joe Sullivan wrote:
Hmmmm... "One product that will be released imminently is Suse Linux 9.0. The latest version of this product, which is largely aimed at home users, will be available tomorrow, 30 September, Burger revealed exclusively to IT Week."
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143941 Tomorrow? Do the stores know this? Do the SuSE websites know this? Or does Burger not know what he's talking about?
Hmmmm... Joe
Kind of makes sense to me based on the slow down of Linux development of new software or version upgrades. Hopefully this will also offer SuSE time to fix bugs or over sight and allow for more QC..
Just think maybe even time to settle the directory location of source downloaded programs between software writers and distro folks.
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully. What I'm trying to say it anything that has a "x.0" (e.g. 7.0, 8.0) may present some problems. This is not to say that it will better worse or better in respects to previous versions. However, if one were to install this on a production machine/primary computer it would be wise to wait until others have used it to see what unique issue crop up and what bug fixes/patches are issued. Likewise, in this same train of thought, the 9.0 version will also have both 2.4.21-x and 2.6 kernels. This is both good and bad. Good in the sense of cutting edge and upto date offerings in base and ancillary programs. Bad in the sense the cutting edge can lead to problems. If one is looking to install an upgrade or stable/no hassle version - one should wait and see what shakes out. If one is adventurous or undaunted by the possible challenges of tweeks and by hand configurations then one might not hesitate an install of the new version. The devs work hard and long to provide the best they can. But they are on a timeline and the process of refinement is on-going and essentially perpetual. In this regard one has to think about what they need and want verses any potential drawbacks. Just a friendly heads up. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eGNwiqnGhdjCOJsRAidRAJ9c8tj7qCFToiNvpu1flNDspMipHwCcCf2x ec9vLPGwwWfAfnuZUAmdGBg= =zK2k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 29 September 2003 18.52, Curtis Rey wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully. What I'm trying to say it anything that has a "x.0" (e.g. 7.0, 8.0) may present some problems.
Haven't you noticed? Version numbers mean *nothing* these days. This is 9.0, but it could equally well be 8.3, 9, SuSE Green Amoeba or anything. It's simply lost all meaning. Besides, any upgrade of any piece of software whatever, especially a complete upgrade of the system, should be treated with a quarter metric tonne of salt. I hope you're not upgrading production servers blindly just because the version number says .2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday September 29 2003 14:01, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2003 18.52, Curtis Rey wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully. What I'm trying to say it anything that has a "x.0" (e.g. 7.0, 8.0) may present some problems.
Haven't you noticed? Version numbers mean *nothing* these days. This is 9.0, but it could equally well be 8.3, 9, SuSE Green Amoeba or anything. It's simply lost all meaning.
Besides, any upgrade of any piece of software whatever, especially a complete upgrade of the system, should be treated with a quarter metric tonne of salt. I hope you're not upgrading production servers blindly just because the version number says .2
Yes, very true. The problem I see from time to time is "upgrade fever" (as I like to call it). I too have been guilty of this as well, and learned the hardway. I was just attempting to point out that "take it with a grain of salt" attitude you mention. I am the adventurous type. I am not afraid to take the leap - though I have learned many tactics to mitigate the potential for hassles. But you might recall those post on the list from people that have not considered a more careful approach and have experienced problems related to upgrading. As far as version numbers not meaning what they used to - point taken. However one should take into account the nature of the dual kernel option. And there are newer features in 9.0 that are not in previous version. Such as modifications in which certain 3rd party kernel modules are put into a specific place/manner in the OS in order to avoid having to re-install them when kernel upgrades/patches are done (aka the ever popular nvidia kernel drivers, etc). 9.0 is a change from the previous version in many respects - all this is going in the right direction to be sure. But as you mentioned, one should do this in a thoughtful manner. I personally have never hesitated upgrading. But some may want to wait a little while to get a sense of what the newer version entails - I was just trying to give a heads up. I personally am looking forward to install 9.0 (over 8.2.99 :) lol). Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eGpUiqnGhdjCOJsRApEUAJ9zlpwP13vab0HWgPLVNZPPRx+J5gCfQSTo 5z6VgOPqZJ2JojS3tttapSc= =6sw3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 29 September 2003 18:52, Curtis Rey wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully.
Eh, most of the people on this list know what they're getting into. I've used 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 Pro versions from the times of their releases until the new version comes out, buying every other one. Each has had it's own special quirks and problems, numbers notwithstanding. There were actually more changes between 8.1 and 8.2 than what I've read about for the 8.2 to 9.0 change. Yet 8.2 has been the sweetest-running of any version I've used so far. Joe -- Now Playing: Julliet - No More Tears [From Julliet (1990)] (0:49/3:22) Powered by XMMS and SuSE Linux 8.2 Pro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday September 29 2003 14:06, Joe Sullivan wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2003 18:52, Curtis Rey wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully.
Eh, most of the people on this list know what they're getting into.
I've used 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 Pro versions from the times of their releases until the new version comes out, buying every other one. Each has had it's own special quirks and problems, numbers notwithstanding.
There were actually more changes between 8.1 and 8.2 than what I've read about for the 8.2 to 9.0 change. Yet 8.2 has been the sweetest-running of any version I've used so far.
Yes I have been very please with 8.2. I personally think of it as a hallmark in the SuSE Linux product. And the changes from 8.0/8.1/8.2 have been marked in some respects. I will install 9.0 on my other (test) machine first. The beta is not indicative of the final product in many many ways. I found this to be true in the 8.2 beta and expect it to hold as well to this version. The changes in 9.0 may not be a numerous but may present with a unique turn for some. I expect this version to rock IMHO. But I just thought it might help the less experienced SuSEers to consider both the potential ups and downs in this arena. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eGvtiqnGhdjCOJsRAqNXAJ4mO8C37HvWw2Z5JtSTPjw8ZZjH5QCfae4J 26XN1V9WoAIfcEAb2a6n0aU= =J5HF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 29 September 2003 12:52 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
On Monday September 29 2003 08:28, Donn aka n5xwb Washburn wrote:
Joe Sullivan wrote:
Hmmmm... "One product that will be released imminently is Suse Linux 9.0. The latest version of this product, which is largely aimed at home users, will be available tomorrow, 30 September, Burger revealed exclusively to IT Week."
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143941 Tomorrow? Do the stores know this? Do the SuSE websites know this? Or does Burger not know what he's talking about?
Hmmmm... Joe
Kind of makes sense to me based on the slow down of Linux development of new software or version upgrades. Hopefully this will also offer SuSE time to fix bugs or over sight and allow for more QC..
Just think maybe even time to settle the directory location of source downloaded programs between software writers and distro folks.
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully. What I'm trying to say it anything that has a "x.0" (e.g. 7.0, 8.0) may present some problems. This is not to say that it will better worse or better in respects to previous versions. However, if one were to install this on a production machine/primary computer it would be wise to wait until others have used it to see what unique issue crop up and what bug fixes/patches are issued.
Uhh gee.... I ran SuSE 8.0 for almost a year with no problems at all... but yet I tossed 8.1 in the trash after 4 long days of trying to get it to work ok... Sounds like you've been running too many versions of M$ software.
Likewise, in this same train of thought, the 9.0 version will also have both 2.4.21-x and 2.6 kernels. This is both good and bad. Good in the sense of cutting edge and upto date offerings in base and ancillary programs. Bad in the sense the cutting edge can lead to problems. If one is looking to install an upgrade or stable/no hassle version - one should wait and see what shakes out. If one is adventurous or undaunted by the possible challenges of tweeks and by hand configurations then one might not hesitate an install of the new version.
The devs work hard and long to provide the best they can. But they are on a timeline and the process of refinement is on-going and essentially perpetual. In this regard one has to think about what they need and want verses any potential drawbacks.
Just a friendly heads up.
Cheers, Curtis.
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 09/29/03 15:18 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "We hold these truths to be self evident: all men could be cremated equal." - Vern Parlow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Uhh gee.... I ran SuSE 8.0 for almost a year with no problems at all... but yet I tossed 8.1 in the trash after 4 long days of trying to get it to work ok...
Sounds like you've been running too many versions of M$ software.
? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eGxEiqnGhdjCOJsRAuU6AJ0fEjzhrQXLLv6Cgp1WiM7ZcelxmQCfVy4H YL+/OfyCq8F2N1yjBUwbIyk= =otl9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 29 September 2003 13:30 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
Uhh gee.... I ran SuSE 8.0 for almost a year with no problems at all... but yet I tossed 8.1 in the trash after 4 long days of trying to get it to work ok...
Sounds like you've been running too many versions of M$ software.
?
I assumed you were saying that any 'X.0' version was to be viewed with suspicion. I was disagreeing. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 09/29/03 15:38 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday September 29 2003 14:40, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2003 13:30 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
Uhh gee.... I ran SuSE 8.0 for almost a year with no problems at all... but yet I tossed 8.1 in the trash after 4 long days of trying to get it to work ok...
Sounds like you've been running too many versions of M$ software.
?
I assumed you were saying that any 'X.0' version was to be viewed with suspicion. I was disagreeing.
I was not trying to scare anyone away from an x.0 version, or make the inference that it would be unstable. I was also not directing it to the more savvy and experienced users. Moreover, there are new Linux users coming on board all the time. Some have previous experience with 'nix, some have come over from M$, or Mac, etc. I think it's easy from many of the many Linux faithful to forget that Linux noobs may not have insight into things we take for granted or as happen stance. Anders (as usual) has a good take on the situation. One should try to regard upgrades in a more deliberate manner and not just blindely upgrading an OS because of a version number or for that matter a new release. I personally have no compunction in upgrading. I have no illusions about any postive or negative effects this may have. But regarding the end users that are using this and may percieve the new version as a fix, or a set of new features, or whatever might want to consider that one should, again, try to do this in as thorough a manner as possibe. If one has data that they can't afford to loose - back it up. If one can't afford the downtime that may or may not happen then find a way to install the new version on a system that won't cause them that unwanted downtime so they can see before hand if any issues need to be addressed prior to installing the new version on a more critically needed machine. So, I not trying to suggest one needs to be suspicious rather one need to be thoughtful regarding this. Moreover the new users need to "be a"ware" of this. As I stated before, inevitably there are those posts by people that find themselves in a situation they would prefer not to be in, and this seems to peak after a new version is released - this is to whom and why I posted. Cheers, Curits :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eLxUiqnGhdjCOJsRAnOLAJsFwpHobS8/txRNxNHAF29x1xAZyQCfSuEc +JQy3fhpEqpwbKWk0IGx5gY= =tyyr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Uhh gee.... I ran SuSE 8.0 for almost a year with no problems at all... but yet I tossed 8.1 in the trash after 4 long days of trying to get it to work ok...
Sounds like you've been running too many versions of M$ software.
or redhat software, for that matter.. (when they feel like giving a minor version number) imho, suse 8.0 was more like 7.4 than a real x.0 release. I realize why they bumped it to the next major version, but the change to gcc3 in 8.1 really made the version numbers screwy.. -- trey
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:52, Curtis Rey wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully. What I'm trying to say it anything that has a "x.0" (e.g. 7.0, 8.0) may present some problems. This is not to say that it will better worse or better in respects to previous versions. However, if one were to install this on a production machine/primary computer it would be wise to wait until others have used it to see what unique issue crop up and what bug fixes/patches are issued.
But if everyone out there waits instead of trying the new version cause it could be unstable, who on the earth will use it to hammer down those possible bugs? ;) I love to live on the edge...
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully.
Why? In this case, the version number is chosen by marketers ("we mustn't fall too far behind RH/Mandrake in terms of version number") Same reason 6.4 was followed by 7.0, and 7.3 by 8.0 -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
Hmm does anyone else see a pattern in this? 6.4 to 7.0, 7.3 to 8.0, 8.2 to 9.0 There is constantly less and less "subversions" ;) Now since I've only been with SuSE (and linux for that matter) since the release of 8.1, I don't have such a great overview of the progress that has been. All I know is that 8.1 was great when I first got it but after I learned more and more about the system I discovered problems, more lately when I installed 8.1 on my server YOU would not work because it wanted a serverlist that had been moved or something. So I ended up forcing YOU to connect without checking the list first and it worked. Now I run 8.2 both on my workstation and server and has so far seen no problems. On Tuesday 30 September 2003 01:29, James Ogley wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully.
Why?
In this case, the version number is chosen by marketers ("we mustn't fall too far behind RH/Mandrake in terms of version number")
Same reason 6.4 was followed by 7.0, and 7.3 by 8.0 -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
Hmm does anyone else see a pattern in this? 6.4 to 7.0, 7.3 to 8.0, 8.2 to 9.0 There is constantly less and less "subversions" ;) Now since I've only been with SuSE (and linux for that matter) since
release of 8.1, I don't have such a great overview of the progress
This has nothing to do with a pattern. I wish SuSE could switch to more simplified and distinct naming convention e.g. SuSE-2003-1 or SuSE-03-1 or SuSE-3.03.x86. So you can easily tell the year of release and its sequential number. Just my $0.02 Alex ------------------- the that has
been. All I know is that 8.1 was great when I first got it but after I learned more and more about the system I discovered problems, more lately when I installed 8.1 on my server YOU would not work because it wanted a serverlist that had been moved or something. So I ended up forcing YOU to connect without checking the list first and it worked. Now I run 8.2 both on my workstation and server and has so far seen no problems.
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 01:29, James Ogley wrote:
I would strongly recommend taking an X.0 version carefully.
Why?
In this case, the version number is chosen by marketers ("we mustn't fall too far behind RH/Mandrake in terms of version number")
Same reason 6.4 was followed by 7.0, and 7.3 by 8.0 -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 3:32 pm, Robert Ahlskog wrote:
Hmm does anyone else see a pattern in this? 6.4 to 7.0, 7.3 to 8.0, 8.2 to 9.0 There is constantly less and less "subversions" ;)
Blame Red Hat... they went 8 to 9 with no step in between. Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 09:55, Paul Cooke wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 3:32 pm, Robert Ahlskog wrote:
Hmm does anyone else see a pattern in this? 6.4 to 7.0, 7.3 to 8.0, 8.2 to 9.0 There is constantly less and less "subversions" ;)
Blame Red Hat... they went 8 to 9 with no step in between.
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
It's all perception. Vendor "A" has ver. 8.2, vendor "B" has ver. 9.0 so vendor "B" must have a newer and better product. Even though they are both the same product. -- Ken Schneider unix user since 1989 linux user since 1994 SuSE user since 1998
On Thursday 02 October 2003 3:00 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
Will we be able to stop updating soon? Linux systems have been evolving rapidly recently, and I am sure this will carry on for some time. But when something works why change it. I look forward to the day when there is no need to update the base system every year or so. In the commercial world if you stop selling new versions your income stream is dead, but one aspect of "free" distribution is companies need to find another business model that is not dependent on cash flow from distribution. Hopefully we all benefit from more stable products. just my 2 pence worth 8-) David
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 16:29, david stevenson wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 3:00 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
Will we be able to stop updating soon?
Linux systems have been evolving rapidly recently, and I am sure this will carry on for some time. But when something works why change it. I look forward to the day when there is no need to update the base system every year or so. In the commercial world if you stop selling new versions your income stream is dead, but one aspect of "free" distribution is companies need to find another business model that is not dependent on cash flow from distribution. Hopefully we all benefit from more stable products.
I don't think we will ever stop updating, because if that happens, then we have either reached the limits of our imagination and skill, or we have reached perfection (no more bugs to fix). Both of these scenarios is impossible to reach. There will always be bugs to fix, because this is an imperfect world and we will always come up with better ideas - this is what makes us different from animals. (Well, even some animals tend to find better ways of doing things) Just my 1c PS: If any of the above states are reached on this world, I will die of boredom. :-) -- Andre Truter Software Engineer Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 AIM: trusoftzaf http://www.trusoft.za.net ~ If you are in control, you are going too slow - Mario Andretti ~ Disclaimer and Confidentiality Warning This message is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are notified that any distribution, use of or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. The views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender of this message and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of ATIO. Consequently, ATIO does not accept responsibility for such views and opinions and this message should not be read as representing the views and opinions of ATIO without subsequent written confirmation. Each page attached hereto must also be read in conjunction with this disclaimer.
Looks like some of you took my mail as if I were complaining. That is absolutely not the case, I could not* be happier with my current installation and look forward to the new since it could mean fixes and updates to the little faults that exist (ACPI for my laptop) * this is acctually an overstatement since there are problems that exist and I don't have the willpower/knowledge to get down and dirty to fix them. Damn you Micro$oft you have weakened my skills by providing fancy GUIs and non editable files. Also that I'm forced to have a Windows machine ready(I repair other computers and Linux soooooo likes writing to NTFS) until the rest of the world adapts.
On Thursday 02 October 2003 07:49, Robert Ahlskog wrote:
Looks like some of you took my mail as if I were complaining. That is absolutely not the case, I could not* be happier with my current installation and look forward to the new since it could mean fixes and updates to the little faults that exist (ACPI for my laptop)
What laptop are you running that 8.2 does not handle acpi correctly? I've found 8.2 susses out acpi on every machine I throw it on. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On 2003-10-02, John Andersen wrote:
What laptop are you running that 8.2 does not handle acpi correctly? I've found 8.2 susses out acpi on every machine I throw it on.
I've got a HP 6000 Omnibook where 8.2 won't install untill I turn the acpi off, I assumed that it wouldn't work after install either. Are you saying that it should/could? Cheers, HÖ -- /// Helgi Örn Helgason, Registered Linux User: #189958 \\\ \\\ ~~~~ SuSE 8.2 * Kernel 2.4.20-4GB * KDE 3.1.4 ~~~~ ///
On Thursday 02 October 2003 22:13, Helgi Örn Helgason wrote:
On 2003-10-02, John Andersen wrote:
What laptop are you running that 8.2 does not handle acpi correctly? I've found 8.2 susses out acpi on every machine I throw it on.
I've got a HP 6000 Omnibook where 8.2 won't install untill I turn the acpi off, I assumed that it wouldn't work after install either. Are you saying that it should/could?
Cheers, HÖ
Yeah, it should. You might install with it off, and then turn it on. SuSE enables acpi based on bios date. You can force it on or force it off with settings that are in the SuSE knowledge base. I'm on the Sony Linux list at insue.org and of all the distros that are discussed on that list SuSE is the hands down winner for compatibility with Sonys. Now HP may be differentm but try installing with it off if thats what it takes, and the adding to the end of the command line "pci=acpi" (without quotes) to force acpi on. When you say "wouldn't install till you turned if off" what were the symptoms, how did it die, etc. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On 2003-10-03, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 22:13, Helgi Örn Helgason wrote:
I've got a HP 6000 Omnibook where 8.2 won't install untill I turn the acpi off, I assumed that it wouldn't work after install either. Are you saying that it should/could?
Yeah, it should. You might install with it off, and then turn it on. SuSE enables acpi based on bios date. You can force it on or force it off with settings that are in the SuSE knowledge base.
I took a look at it in YaST after your previous mail and I activated it and it works! APM on the other hand never worked properly on my HP laptop. Now I can put it to sleep with the Sleep button and when it wakes up it still works normally, with APM I had to reboot to get everything back to normal again.
When you say "wouldn't install till you turned if off" what were the symptoms, how did it die, etc.
Istallation process never got further than starting to load the installation program into RAM, then everything just froze/locked. Cheers, HÖ -- /// Helgi Örn Helgason, Registered Linux User: #189958 \\\ \\\ ~~~~ SuSE 8.2 * Kernel 2.4.20-4GB * KDE 3.1.4 ~~~~ ///
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 01:39, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 07:49, Robert Ahlskog wrote:
Looks like some of you took my mail as if I were complaining. That is absolutely not the case, I could not* be happier with my current installation and look forward to the new since it could mean fixes and updates to the little faults that exist (ACPI for my laptop)
What laptop are you running that 8.2 does not handle acpi correctly? I've found 8.2 susses out acpi on every machine I throw it on.
-- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Try a Compaq Presario 1720, ACPI will lock up the machine instantly. And it is only 2 years old. -- Ken Schneider unix user since 1989 linux user since 1994 SuSE user since 1998
On Friday 03 October 2003 08:39, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 07:49, Robert Ahlskog wrote:
Looks like some of you took my mail as if I were complaining. That is absolutely not the case, I could not* be happier with my current installation and look forward to the new since it could mean fixes and updates to the little faults that exist (ACPI for my laptop)
What laptop are you running that 8.2 does not handle acpi correctly? I've found 8.2 susses out acpi on every machine I throw it on.
-- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Well I never ran 8.2 on my laptop which btw is a Acer TravelMate 513TE Celeron 400 192mb ram PCMCIA network card. I just gave in and installed Win2000 on it, which I must say does work but no more. I use it to sync my iPaq and keep some other win-only stuff running since its the only non Linux computer I have left. Now if I could figure what to do with this 486DX4@100Mhz that I found, I already have a server.
*** Reply to message from Andre Truter
There will always be bugs to fix, because this is an imperfect world and we will always come up with better ideas - this is what makes us different from animals. (Well, even some animals tend to find better ways of doing things)
Just my 1c
PS: If any of the above states are reached on this world, I will die of boredom. :-)
yup , me too. I can't imagine a life where all is as peaceful and unbearabley cute as some versions of "paradise" want to make it.. no need for anyone to work at anything , everything is "just there" bah! Why would we need a brain in that case... bring on the lotus to eat , and spend life asleep ???? Actually, I'm kinda jealous of the gang who will get these new boxes befoe me.. Gotta get out to the wewbsite and pre order. Once I get thru hand holding my latest client / newbie user and about to be turned into a total geek ... setting up her 8.2 on a modem connection is a bit of a pita still . <sigh> -- j nemo me impune lacesset it's just an afterthought; okay ? : I despise the pleasure of pleasing people whom I despise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday October 2 2003 09:55, Andre Truter wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 16:29, david stevenson wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 3:00 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
Will we be able to stop updating soon?
Linux systems have been evolving rapidly recently, and I am sure this will carry on for some time. But when something works why change it. I look forward to the day when there is no need to update the base system every year or so. In the commercial world if you stop selling new versions your income stream is dead, but one aspect of "free" distribution is companies need to find another business model that is not dependent on cash flow from distribution. Hopefully we all benefit from more stable products.
I don't think we will ever stop updating, because if that happens, then we have either reached the limits of our imagination and skill, or we have reached perfection (no more bugs to fix). Both of these scenarios is impossible to reach.
There will always be bugs to fix, because this is an imperfect world and we will always come up with better ideas - this is what makes us different from animals. (Well, even some animals tend to find better ways of doing things)
Just my 1c
PS: If any of the above states are reached on this world, I will die of boredom. :-)
I think another thing to consider regarding the update process in Linux is that much of the development of Linux has been done with little or no help from the OEM and ISV sector. This is changing, but one only has to look at the state of drivers for scanners. I have been following the sane project on and off and it never ceases to amaze me the stonewalling the devs get when they ask for specs from the manufacturers. This holds true to some extent with printers as well - but has and does continue to improves. I'm sure if you give it some thought you could come up with many other examples. This also extends to the software arena. What would it take to get PhotoShop ported to Linux. It has been rumored that OSX 10.3 will be using X and this has implications for ports between Mac and Linux software - but to date this is unconfirmed. And even if Mac uses X will the ISVs port? Then there's the question of functionality and usability for Linux on the Desktop. This is the main reason in my opinion that Linux continues such a vibrant and almost dizzying upgrade pace. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/fIksiqnGhdjCOJsRAor7AJ9EASaS/5RbdkxCPA3G1BP7vwhzcwCfZaBd RhcyMohP/ebrUJGMFB48Efg= =s1Bi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 02 October 2003 9:23 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday October 2 2003 09:55, Andre Truter wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 16:29, david stevenson wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 3:00 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
Will we be able to stop updating soon?
Linux systems have been evolving rapidly recently, and I am sure this will carry on for some time. But when something works why change it. I look forward to the day when there is no need to update the base system every year or so. In the commercial world if you stop selling new versions your income stream is dead, but one aspect of "free" distribution is companies need to find another business model that is not dependent on cash flow from distribution. Hopefully we all benefit from more stable products.
I don't think we will ever stop updating, because if that happens, then we have either reached the limits of our imagination and skill, or we have reached perfection (no more bugs to fix). Both of these scenarios is impossible to reach.
There will always be bugs to fix, because this is an imperfect world and we will always come up with better ideas - this is what makes us different from animals. (Well, even some animals tend to find better ways of doing things)
Just my 1c
PS: If any of the above states are reached on this world, I will die of boredom. :-)
I think another thing to consider regarding the update process in Linux is that much of the development of Linux has been done with little or no help from the OEM and ISV sector. This is changing, but one only has to look at the state of drivers for scanners. I have been following the sane project on and off and it never ceases to amaze me the stonewalling the devs get when they ask for specs from the manufacturers. This holds true to some extent with printers as well - but has and does continue to improves.
I have enough problems with my Lexmark X74 combined printer/scanner... can't even leave it connected when booting after being in windows... the thing will hang suse 8.2 at the hardware scan in the boot... but at least it gets detected when plugged in afterwards... just there's no drivers for it.
I'm sure if you give it some thought you could come up with many other examples. This also extends to the software arena. What would it take to get PhotoShop ported to Linux.
already been implemented with WINE... thanks to Disney of all firms.. :) http://www.frankscorner.org/ gives you a list of what does run on wine including photoshop <SNIP>
Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/fIksiqnGhdjCOJsRAor7AJ9EASaS/5RbdkxCPA3G1BP7vwhzcwCfZaBd RhcyMohP/ebrUJGMFB48Efg= =s1Bi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 02 October 2003 06:00, Ken Schneider wrote:
It's all perception. Vendor "A" has ver. 8.2, vendor "B" has ver. 9.0 so vendor "B" must have a newer and better product. Even though they are both the same product.
The sad part about it is the Linux compamies should know better. This is the marketing droids takeing over again. Any one even thinking of running linux usually has someone to tell them which numbers really matter. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 07:37, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 06:00, Ken Schneider wrote:
It's all perception. Vendor "A" has ver. 8.2, vendor "B" has ver. 9.0 so vendor "B" must have a newer and better product. Even though they are both the same product.
The sad part about it is the Linux compamies should know better. This is the marketing droids takeing over again.
Any one even thinking of running linux usually has someone to tell them which numbers really matter.
I am normally not very marketdroid-friendly, but in this case SuSE might be (sadly) correct to listen to the droid. If SuSE want to compete on the shelves of the computer store and want to reach the average computer user, as well as the PHB, then they have to up the version number. I have never thought of the impact of teh version number in a marketing sense, as I also prefer that the version numbers are bound to technical information, but I have heard an opinion that made me understand why RedHat and SuSE upped the numbers. A newbie made the remark that he loves SuSE 8.2, but unfortunately it is an old distro. Mandrake and RedHat is much newer. So I had to explain the whole meaning of version numbers. Unfortunately SuSE and RedHat is moving into a market where they are aiming at people who do not have access to a Linux geek. Up to now most people got introduced to Linux by a friend, or co-worker who knows linux, but that situation is changing. Linux is now sold in Computer stores and it is being included in business deals as part of a sulution. When Joe Only-knows-Windows walks into a computer store to buy the new craze - Linux, he will go for the highest version number. He has been trained to think like that. Same thing, if I would for instance propose a database solution to a customer, based on SuSE 8.3, while my competitor offers a similar solution based on RedHat 9.0, the customer will lean towards my competitor, becasue they offered newer software. Linux companies wants to enter the world of markedroids, so they have to play the game. This is the sad reality. I don't like it either. :-/ -- Andre Truter Software Engineer Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 AIM: trusoftzaf http://www.trusoft.za.net ~ If you are in control, you are going too slow - Mario Andretti ~ Disclaimer and Confidentiality Warning This message is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are notified that any distribution, use of or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. The views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender of this message and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of ATIO. Consequently, ATIO does not accept responsibility for such views and opinions and this message should not be read as representing the views and opinions of ATIO without subsequent written confirmation. Each page attached hereto must also be read in conjunction with this disclaimer.
SuSE releases two versions a year. Maybe they should name the Fall release after the coming year, i.e. 9.0 should be SuSE 2003 and the Spring release 2003.5. Buck -----Original Message----- From: John Andersen [mailto:jsa@pen.homeip.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:37 AM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.0 coming tomorrow (Sep. 30)? BEWARE On Thursday 02 October 2003 06:00, Ken Schneider wrote:
It's all perception. Vendor "A" has ver. 8.2, vendor "B" has ver. 9.0 so vendor "B" must have a newer and better product. Even though they are both the same product.
The sad part about it is the Linux compamies should know better. This is the marketing droids takeing over again. Any one even thinking of running linux usually has someone to tell them which numbers really matter. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
In a previous message, Paul Cooke
Mind you... we've got a long way to go to catch up with the version numbers used by a certain proprietary Operating System vendor...
The joy (from the seller's perspective) of using the year of release as the version number is that it makes the software appear obsolete almost as soon as it is released, so it's easier to sell the new version to the poor users. John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Valley of the Kings: ransack an ancient Egyptian tomb but beware of mummies!
Hi, Am Montag, 29. September 2003 14:47 schrieb Joe Sullivan:
"One product that will be released imminently is Suse Linux 9.0. The latest version of this product, which is largely aimed at home users, will be available tomorrow, 30 September, Burger revealed exclusively to IT Week."
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143941
Tomorrow? Do the stores know this? Do the SuSE websites know this?
No. Simply: it's wrong.
Or does Burger not know what he's talking about?
He must have been misquoted. There will be a press release tomorrow about 9.0 shipping mid October. Germany that is. Rest of Word might be a few days behind. Greetings from Bremen hartmut
On Monday 29 September 2003 20:40, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
He must have been misquoted. There will be a press release tomorrow about 9.0 shipping mid October. Germany that is. Rest of Word might be a few days behind.
Misquoted again... From http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/29/HNsuse90_1.html "SuSE Linux on Tuesday will do its bit to bridge the 34- and 64-bit worlds when it makes available its SuSE Linux 9.0 desktop operating system that supports 32- and 64-bit applications running on AMD's Athlon 64 processor." Although this article confuses it more by giving a more possible release date (Oct. 24) at the end of the article. Infoworld thinks it has two release dates! :-P However the Infoworld article has some details about what's in 9.0 that are worth a read. Including this: "Version 9.0 also includes a new feature called SuSE System Doctor, a rescue system for restoring the system after an unintentional destruction of any system-critical files." Joe -- Now Playing: Motley Crue - Home Sweet Home ('91 Remix) [From Decade Of Decadence '81-'91 (1991)] (2:04/4:01) Powered by XMMS and SuSE Linux 8.2 Pro
What you describe is the reason I did not buy 8.0 but mooched a copy.
Likely Ill do the same with 9.0 and probabily wait for 9.1 or 9.2 to buy.
Once a year is enough for me. Like Dirty Harry said a man has to know
his limitations and mine are that after only a few years self study I am
not going to beta test a whole system. I have used suse since 7.0 and
beleive me when I say the difference between that and 8.2 is as night and
day.
CWSIV
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:32:53 +0300 Robert Ahlskog
Hmm does anyone else see a pattern in this? 6.4 to 7.0, 7.3 to 8.0, 8.2 to 9.0 There is constantly less and less "subversions" ;) Now since I've only been with SuSE (and linux for that matter) since the release of 8.1, I don't have such a great overview of the progress that has been. All I know is that 8.1 was great when I first got it but after I
learned more and more about the system I discovered problems, more lately when I installed 8.1 on my server YOU would not work because it wanted a serverlist that had been moved or something. So I ended up forcing YOU
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Am Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2003 21:01 schrieb Carl William Spitzer IV:
I am not going to beta test a whole system. Am Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2003 21:01 schrieb Carl William Spitzer IV: Like Dirty Harry said a man has to know his limitations and mine are that after only a few years self study I am not going to beta test a whole system. IMHO , and from the specs 9.0 is really just 8.3, but to keep in sync with "the other distro" it's called 9.0. The real 9 will be kernel 2.6 and samba 3.0 etc. my 2c
Regards Dan -- earthbound 2.4.20-4GB 10:53am up 0:22, 6 users,
participants (22)
-
Alex Daniloff -
Anders Johansson -
Andre Truter -
Bruce Marshall -
Buck -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Curtis Rey -
Dan Am -
david stevenson -
Donn aka n5xwb Washburn -
Felipe Alfaro Solana -
Hartmut Meyer -
Helgi Örn Helgason -
James Ogley -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
Joe Sullivan -
John Andersen -
John Pettigrew -
Ken Schneider -
Paul Cooke -
Robert Ahlskog -
Trey Gruel