Brad Bourn wrote:
ditto, and I like 9.2 best for my laptop.
none previous was able to do what 9.2 does.
B-)
On Thursday 09 December 2004 06:06 am, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 11:24 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 09:55 PM 12/8/2004 -0600, James F. Pirtle wrote:
Hello list;
Thinking of moving from 9.1 Professional to 9.2 Professional. Any reasons
why
I shouldn't? Any problems that jump out of nowhere?
/snip/
I ran 9.1 for about 4 months without problems, then it crashed and burned, and I could not fix it. I ran 9.2 for about 3 weeks, and things started to go repeatedly wrong, and I gave up. The sad story is in the archives.
A number of folks said that they thought that the Novell version was half-baked, so maybe it isn't just me that was/is unhappy.
From what I have read on the list, 9.0 was a better version than
either of its descendants, but I never had that one.
I am going to try another brand shortly. (I don't think it's a hardware problem. I'm running the hated XP Windows on the same machine without difficulty.) But I do want to go back to Linux, if and when I can, and I find the ambition to go thru it all again with another set of rules.
--doug
Please report back after you've run the 'other brand' for an equal period of time.
Many of us have run 9.0, 9.1, and now 9.2 without any problems. It could be something you are doing wrong or a problem with your setup.... :-)
I would have to agree as well, as I have an Compaq/HP Evo N800w (mobile workstation) that I could not get any major distro (save knoppix live and Xandros) to work correctly. I was even able to easily get the W200 wireless working, in which there had been no drivers to date for it. Orinoco_usb has worked wonders for it, even though I have a "tainted" kernel... -- Shawn Faulkingham Director of IT Systems Indoff Incorporated http://www.indoff.com