On Wednesday 15 February 2006 14:15, jdd wrote:
Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:
Rewrite... no. A decent amount of effort, sure. As I mentioned, you could lighten the install process by modifying and releasing a "light" SUSE 10, replacing YaST (at installation) with one of the other installers available. Maybe you'd remove KDE and GNOME, and have XFCE, or even Ratpoison. Whatever.
but there, why not, if there no other choice. there are other flavors of opensuse on the wiki, why not this one. But of course I won't do this alone, so if no other solution if found, will see
Those other flavors you mention, I'm assuming you mean Super and such? They are exactly what I've mentioned - a customized version of SUSE, done by a member of the community.
An updated installer that detects a great number more hardware types, larger images to be copied, a more complete and usable "expert" options, etc, etc,
well, at least usefull notes.
hardware:
as stated in an other post, for a minimal install we need only grub (on floppy) and hard drive access For ide drives it's very easy. nearly any video card runs console...
Need and want are two different things. I haven't used a floppy in years (yes, years), despite having them in every machine (except the tablet, for obvious reasons).
don't forget it's only the first bootable install that need to be achieved at this point.
large images? don't see what.
As more things get added to the kernel, it gets bigger. More hardware support, mor filesystems, etc, etc, etc. Thus, the kernel image (among other things) are larger.
expert options ? any small disk allows me to make fdisk works and it's enough.
Except its not fdisk, its a front end for fdisk to make things easier. I use fdisk fairly often, and I don't remember every number to coincide with the filesystem type. Why should I? A drop down menu in the GUI does things nicely for me, I don't want to use a more basic fdisk setup.
And I have an AMD 800 with (now) 256mb ram, running 10.0 beautifully. So whats the problem?
if things goes this way, it may not run 10.1 (9.3 asked 128Mo, 10.0 256, 10.1?) (hope it's not :-))) don't flame :-)
Not really. Again, those requirements are for use with the standard full GUI install. I know KDE or GNOME is going to be heavy, but I also know I can install it, it will run (slow as hell, but it runs), and then I can tweak and do what I need to trim it down. If I really want it light, I'd just do the most basic install, no GUI, and grab srpm's and compile what I want, how I want it, and lighten the load that way.
I really don't see the problem here - the hardware you're talking about isn't "older" or "aging", its honestly damn near ancient.
what is the matter? this harware is perfectly working, even with kde if you are not to in a hurry, even openoffice!! (not that I recommend that)
If you are not in a hurry? Of course I am, why would I do something on a computer thats slower than doing it by hand? Its a tool, and you use the right one for the job.
ands it's free, why trow it only for an install problem.
I don't know that there is a problem with the install, like I said, you should really test your hardware. You're claiming it uses too much memory because you experience a crash, and have given no further information. I don't really know that there even is an install problem, so I won't even touch that idea unless you tell me that you tested your hardware, you've checked to see how much ram is in use by the installer, found a memory leak, whatever. Until then, your claim that the installer is too memory intensive really is meaningless. I don't say that to be nasty, I say it because its true.
well.
the problem is now well defined. we must seek for solutions.
Is it? You honestly haven't convinced me of anything yet other than you had a problem installing on old hardware, and have not done any follow up to figure out why it crashed. If you have, you haven't forwarded this information to the list. So I'm going to go with "forty two" as the answer.
I would be very gratefull to the yast team if somebody could say what changes in the new yast gives problems;
Still need to define this "problem"....
not so long time ago we had yast and yast2
why not a yast and yast3 for the new things?
Because theres enough stuff most people don't use on the CD/DVD as is. People don't want to download 5 CD's, if you keep adding things to the list, do you think people would be happy about downloading 3 DVD's because its a more comprehensive installation system for every possible configuration?
could a very simple subset for minimal install be given to the community. In short, is it possible for a very casual programmer to take yast source and compile a simplified one or is this completely impossible?
Grab the source, modify as you please.
thanks jdd
Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin