Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3232 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] a long-time Suser compares kubuntu and Suse
- From: Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:40:33 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608210928510.3567@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, suse@xxxxxx wrote:
> Per Jessen wrote:
> > suse@xxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> Per Jessen wrote:
> >> How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of
> >> functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast
> >> improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
> >
> > No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in
> > 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on
> > even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
> >
>
> "Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new
> source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and
> install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan)
> Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad,
> but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT!
> (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't)
>
> I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key. Those people
> that have a really sweet connection to a good repo can use zen/rug.
> Those of us on the other side of the planet, not so much.
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really
quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of
those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer)
spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a
number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a
local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the
range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM
installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is
slower than it should be. There are a number of other slowdowns, some
easy to address, some much harder.
The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try.
With that said, 10.1 has been just fine for me, except I can't use my
external USB cd burners. I also don't use rug/zen, I use smart, and
maybe that helps too. If 10.2 is better in this area....
--
Carpe diem - Seize the day.
Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants!
Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Per Jessen wrote:
> > suse@xxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> Per Jessen wrote:
> >> How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of
> >> functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast
> >> improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
> >
> > No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in
> > 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on
> > even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
> >
>
> "Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new
> source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and
> install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan)
> Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad,
> but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT!
> (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't)
>
> I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key. Those people
> that have a really sweet connection to a good repo can use zen/rug.
> Those of us on the other side of the planet, not so much.
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really
quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of
those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer)
spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a
number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a
local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the
range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM
installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is
slower than it should be. There are a number of other slowdowns, some
easy to address, some much harder.
The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try.
With that said, 10.1 has been just fine for me, except I can't use my
external USB cd burners. I also don't use rug/zen, I use smart, and
maybe that helps too. If 10.2 is better in this area....
--
Carpe diem - Seize the day.
Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants!
Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| < Previous | Next > |