Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4547 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] SuSE 9.1: Skip, Retry Fail?
  • From: "Jerome R. Westrick" <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 13:14:19 +0200
  • Message-id: <1085224459.21248.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From my expirience the only thinkg I wuold avoid on 9.1
is USB/FIREWIRE disks. I don't really understand what
the new setup does, but it don't work, and causes problems.

Things that are hard to get working on linux, or are card
dependant (not suse nor version specific): SATA, and wireless.

Other than theese things I've had no problems.
I have been running 3 SuSE 9.1 systems, for weeks now.

My server, upgraded from 9.0 with no problems (after I
disconnected the SATA)

One workstation, SuSE 9.1 dual boot (with win XP pro/98)

and my laptop (an IBM A30p), clean installation.

I've found SuSE 9.1 to be a good improvement over 9.0,
and 9.0 was a great leap over 8.2.

My only complaint to SuSE is the version numbers.
It's obvious that the marketing department has taken
controll of the version numbers, which is really a pitty
since that means that the version number no longer
represent the development nor the state of the SuSE system.
Instead they represent what the marketing people wish us to
think. In other words they are a direct attempt to mislead
the customers, which I find insulting.

I know that the marketing controlled version numbers is the
way that the industry does buisness. But that is still not
an excuse I accept for the attempt misleading me.

Enough Ranting....

SuSE 9.1 (Or a beter name would be 10.0) is the first
distribution with the new 2.6 kernel. (9.0 was supposed to be
but it just was not ready. So 2.6 was only offered as a "Test"
environment). This is basically the problem, and the blessing:
New 2.6 kernel features are there and work!
but as with all major release changes some old things break.

The upgrade from SuSE 9.0 to 9.1 offers less problems than the
change from win2000 to winxp, Oh I forgot, there is no upgrade path
between the two! But you all see what I mean.


P.S. Thanks all at SuSE for there continued efforts. You are
doing a great job, (even with 9.1). But please don't allow marketing
to define your version numbers, it's costing you customers, and future

On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 12:07, expatriate wrote:
> I've been reading all I can about 9.1. I've got a hacked 8.2 system that
> I'd like to restore back to originality (some downloaded packages don't
> compile or rpm nicely anymore) or move to 9.1 and start fresh. My
> hardware is fairly new and 8.2 gave little or no trouble (I tend to
> forget bad experiences). My wife's hardware is similar but a bit newer.
> I put 9.0 on it and only the sound gave some trouble (volume control can
> only be achieved via PCM instead of Master). Anyway, my impression from
> reading all the comments is that I should avoid 9.1. My typical
> daily usage is gcc/gdb/nedit/vi, javac/java, mozilla, telnet/ftp (to my
> local machines running other OSses) OpenOffice, GIMP,
> mplayer/realplayer and others in a GNOME environment. Should embrace
> or avoid 9.1 ?

< Previous Next >