Disclaimer: This thread is going off-topic for the security list and I'd say we take any further discussion off-list. Since I fear I may have been misunderstood slightly, I'm posting this message to the list, but I'll refrain from replying to any followups (I'll try, at least).
Did anybody checked why YaST2 performs like star office :)? I think yast2 is open source.
Is that so? AFAIK, YaST isn't open source, so I assumed YaST2 wasn't open either. But I've never checked.
First of all, it takes around *half an hour* to complete on some machines of mine (again P2/266 or P2/300 w/ 128 MB RAM)
That's really bad to hear. I write this mail on a P100 with 48MB RAM. This is much more calculation power than needed to fly to the moon :) - but not enough for yast2/suse8?
This is not what I meant to say. Most YaST2 components work fine on the P90/48MB I've got, albeit in text mode. It's response times to keyboard input aren't great, though, which makes navigation somewhat, umm, suboptimal, for *my taste*. But it works. It's not as quick as YaST was, but I tend to appreciate the modular of approach YaST2 to that of YaST. I don't see why that alone should have as drastic effects on performance as I'm seeing, though, and I see considerable room for improvement here. The way it is now, I often prefer to edit rc.config (which I don't really like myself, I much prefer the /etc/sysconfig approach with lots of small configuration files) than to fire up YaST2. I find I'm often faster by hand than by using YaST2, even if it means having to modify quite a number of lines in rc.config (interface configuration, for example) and perhaps a couple of other files, too (such as /etc/route.conf). I also assume that YOU works, though I haven't tried it yet. I also wonder if it'll work, regarding the memory footprint I've observed it to have on substantially better equipped machines (memory-wise). I hope it will work and handle lack of memory gracefully, I find it hard to believe that it really *needs* over 100 MB by itself. Could be it's not freeing RAM unless it needs to, for whatever reason. I don't know, but it's got me slightly stumped. I have also observed huge differences in the time YOU takes to complete, anything from around five minutes to the thirty I mentioned. I've got a feeling that it gets slower over time, but I haven't actually performed any measurements or taken notes. I've got SuSE on a couple of lab machines, which I use every now and then, definitely not all the time, so that's another source of potential error on my part. I have also not investigated the cause of YOU's slowness throughly, though I did look in /var/log/messages for any sign of problems once. I am somewhat anxious about the reports to this list regarding YOU missing updates that are on the FTP server. If I can't trust YOU to perform a critical (IMHO) part of its job reliably, I may well have to stop using it entirely in some situations (such as security-critical ones).
Hum, sad... So SuSE droped support for all those old machines?
At least they're not going out of their way a lot for them.
Until now, I though I can upgrade if the running SuSE ist to old - neccesary, since there are no update RPMs for old distries - and now I have to exchange the servers completly (I don't think it makes sense to upgrade the RAM of P100-P233 if even 128 is too slow). Hum.
Note that 128 MB can be perfectly fine for running SuSE 7.3 in many roles, probably 8.0 as well, but I haven't installed it yet. However, YOU specifically doesn't perform all too well on 128 MB. It's noticeably worse with also 64 MB RAM, but it also works. It was considerably better on a machine that I'd equipped with 384 MB temporarily (shutting down two others, as I'd taken their RAM), however I only ran it once on that system (and see my comments that I feel that YOU's speed decrements with every time it's run). Cheers Tobias