Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3767 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] harware compatibility
  • From: "Joseph M. Gaffney" <CuCullin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:54:27 -0500
  • Message-id: <200602151554.27655.CuCullin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 15:23, jdd wrote:
> > 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).
>
> let us work progressively. If I can make a very minimal
> install work, I will se what are exactly the requirements
> and what I can do with it

Go for it

> > 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.
>
> oh, these images. yes. and most of this stuff is unusefull
> at install time.

The kernel isn't useful when installing? Hardware support isn't useful when
installing? You want to specify hardware now, remove detection?

> > Except its not fdisk, its a front end for fdisk to make things easier.
>
> I don't know anything easier than fdisk for disk
> partitioning. and for that sake, partitoning can be done
> _before_ any install, why bother during install?

Because I don't have to bother doing it before the install, I can just do it
when I'm installing. That makes things easier.

> > I use
> > fdisk fairly often, and I don't remember every number to coincide with
> > the filesystem type. Why should I?
>
> just a good question: none. fdisk has nothing to do with
> filesystem.

I used the wrong word, that would be my mistake. I meant system id. However,
that said, I can partition, set the system ID, and format during install, why
would I want to add an extra step by using fdisk separately?

> > 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.
>
> I used for ages very old computer as web server/gateway
> (usually the one nobody wants), I keep the big one for my
> desktop.

Considering SUSE has way more than what you'd need for a simple web
server/gateway, again.... Why use SUSE for this at all?

> and don't forget we are not alone in the wordl and I sent
> from time to time to Africa hardware nobody wan't here and
> they like. they also deserve help.

And they are also working on the specialized distro for the OLPC project,
tweaking it to work well with the meager hardware being provided.

So again, why does SUSE need to do this? It isn't what the distro is intended
for.

> > I don't know that there is a problem with the install, like I said, you
> > should really test your hardware.
>
> please have some confidence. I have a SUSE 9.1 perfectly
> running on this machine from a year now. so the machines runs.

Some confidence in what, the hardware? I don't, its old. Old hardware breaks.
In order to come up with a solution, you need to properly define a problem.

You haven't.

> > you experience a crash, and have given no further information.
>
> it's very difficult to have infos at boot time. SUSE is good
> enough. I have console outputs: quiets. only no more input
> and the drive light blinking slowly for hours... when
> usually I have an answer in less than 20 seconds.

You also mentioned a gentoo machine building KDE for 16 hours... is KDE broken
too?

You are making a guess, plain and simple. A guess really isn't defining a
problem, its stating what you think a problem could possibly be.

> and this is not a first time problem. As an other writer
> said we have this problem with nearly any new SUSE... I
> remember me.. (too long a story)

That memory and cpu requirements go up with every new release?

We went over this already.

> > Still need to define this "problem"....
>
> why an regular encrease of memory usage day after day, and
> no luck with swap. somewhere somebody allocates for memory?
> what kind of memory don't swap... a very short answer can be
> very informative

I'm sorry... I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

> > 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?
>
> no need to be on the regular cd, ftp is nice.

You're missing my point. You've created a "problem", and believe the solution
is additional yast development, and more packages. What about other
"problems" (I put this in quote because as I said, you have yet to actually
define a problem, and I don't mean haphazard guesses), do they need to be
added to the CD's, on the ftp, in a repo, onto the DVD, etc, etc. Where does
it end?

I would like to reiterate that if you believe an "alternate" version of SUSE
should be made, then go right ahead and do it. However, this obviously is
not the goal of SUSE to run on VERY old hardware, so I couldn't possibly see
any developer without a personal interest in playing with an old machine
bothering to dedicate time to this - there are too many other areas of
importance to what SUSE's target audience actually is.

> > Grab the source, modify as you please.
>
> some sources are very easy to change, some are not. the
> owner knows for sure. it's often very difficult to figure
> just looking at.

So again, you're assuming that its difficult source without looking - thus a
guess. Or you want someone else to do it for you.

Either way, go take a look, and decide for yourself. Contact the developer if
you have questions, and hack away. Thats what F/LOSS is for.

Joseph M. Gaffney
aka CuCullin

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups