RE: [suse-amd64] Giving up on 64-bit Linux for now
Hi, I have the same stresses: In December I bought the AMD64 and SuSE 9.0 SuSE wouldn't install and it took three months of very poor support to discover that there was a problem. So I lashed out and bought SuSE 9.1 This version installs, but... I have been unable to connect to the internet ( had to buy another PC for that) And nobody seems to be able to advise me on how to configure my system so that I can code with X Window or Xt. It is nearly 11 months of hassle. Anybody recommend SuSE? Colin Carter
Mandag den 20. september 2004 11:07 skrev Colin Carter:
Hi, I have the same stresses: In December I bought the AMD64 and SuSE 9.0 SuSE wouldn't install and it took three months of very poor support to discover that there was a problem. So I lashed out and bought SuSE 9.1 This version installs, but... I have been unable to connect to the internet ( had to buy another PC for that)
Sorry to hear about your problems ;-) Well this may have tought you to research/check things out more carefully before buying 64-bit is still early days. This said without knowing your level of skills. This becomes even more important when considering your remarks below
And nobody seems to be able to advise me on how to configure my system so that I can code with X Window or Xt. It is nearly 11 months of hassle. Anybody recommend SuSE? Colin Carter
Colin Carter <colincarter@onetel.com> writes:
Hi, I have the same stresses: In December I bought the AMD64 and SuSE 9.0 SuSE wouldn't install and it took three months of very poor support to discover that there was a problem. So I lashed out and bought SuSE 9.1 This version installs, but... I have been unable to connect to the internet ( had to buy another PC for that)
What is the problem? It works fine for others here, so I'm interested in more details.
And nobody seems to be able to advise me on how to configure my system so that I can code with X Window or Xt.
What kind of problem do you have? There shouldn't be a issue. If it's a real SUSE on AMD64 issue, feel free to ask and some of us will try to help... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
måndag 20 september 2004 11:07 skrev Colin Carter:
Hi, I have been unable to connect to the internet ( had to buy another PC for that)
Duh? That doesn't sound right, somehow ... what is the nature of your internet connection, and your problem?
Hello, yes, I do recommend SuSE. For 64bit users we are early adopters. Yet, SuSE 9.0 runs stable for me and beside hardware difficulties I had no trouble. The kernel I compiled myself solved the last minor issues about the box not shutting down cleanly. I am very happy. I consider the support provided by Mr. Kleen and Mr. Jaeger in this forum to be very good. Mind you, I am an MSDN subscriber and for this privilege I paid more than 3000 USD and I receive less support... regards, einar Colin Carter wrote:
Hi, I have the same stresses: In December I bought the AMD64 and SuSE 9.0 SuSE wouldn't install and it took three months of very poor support to discover that there was a problem. So I lashed out and bought SuSE 9.1 This version installs, but... I have been unable to connect to the internet ( had to buy another PC for that) And nobody seems to be able to advise me on how to configure my system so that I can code with X Window or Xt. It is nearly 11 months of hassle. Anybody recommend SuSE? Colin Carter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [suse-amd64] Giving up on 64-bit Linux for now From: <me@prestoncrawford.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:22:18 -0700 To: <suse-amd64@suse.com>
To: <suse-amd64@suse.com>
Return-Path: <suse-amd64-return-3633-colincarter=onetel.com@suse.com> Received: from bb-md1.onetel.net.uk (bb-md1.onetel.net.uk [212.67.120.193]) by mail05.onetel.net.uk (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id BRW30715; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:16:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from lists.suse.com (lists.suse.de [195.135.221.131]) by bb-md1.onetel.net.uk (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with SMTP id BKN08959; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:16:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 6019 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2004 22:16:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact suse-amd64-help@suse.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:suse-amd64@suse.com> List-Help: <mailto:suse-amd64-help@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:suse-amd64-unsubscribe-colincarter=onetel.com@suse.com> List-Subscribe: <mailto:suse-amd64-subscribe@suse.com> X-Mailinglist: suse-amd64 X-MIME-Notice: attachments may have been removed from this message Delivered-To: mailing list suse-amd64@suse.com Received: (qmail 6010 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2004 22:16:19 -0000 Message-ID: <8B214DEF3AF247FAB3A45F545F406878.MAI@mail.activeserverhosting.com> X-Mailer: MailEnable Web Mail 1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--=_NextPart_000_000B_10B1FCFD.EF7F43B2" X-Read: 0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at scanhost.suse.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 tagged_above=-20.0 required=5.0 tests=MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, MY_LINUX, NO_REAL_NAME
(Also posted to the main SuSE list so please excuse the lack of context regarding my previous setup)
So I went ahead and picked up an Athrlon 64. I"m much happier with it. It's much much quieter. And just as fast. There's a problem, though. I absolutely can't get 64-bit SuSE installed properly. 3 times after doing YOU updates my filesystem has been corrupted. About a dozen times I couldn't even do updates via YOU for some reason. They'd end in the middle mysteriously, then when I tried to run YOU again either the packages would still need to be installed or they wouldn't be installed and wouldn't be on the list. Either way it's been a mess. Worst of all, I rely on slrn as my newsreader (I've been trying to post to the newsgroup and can't) and it crashes when I try to post. It's a disaster, in short. I'm not sure if I'm trying to do things outside the norm or if there are generally problems with the 64-bit versions, but I"m beginning to think it's not worth my trouble for now. I have the chipset I want. I can upgrade later when these hassles go away.
FWIW, my motherboard is an MSI K8MM and my CPU is an AMD Athlon 3200+.
Someone suggested someone here may have some thoughts on what's going wrong. Any ideas given my setup?
Preston
einar <einar_linux@swissonline.ch> writes:
Hello,
yes, I do recommend SuSE. For 64bit users we are early adopters. Yet, SuSE 9.0 runs stable for me and beside hardware difficulties I had no trouble. The kernel I compiled myself solved the last minor issues about the box not shutting down cleanly. I am very happy.
I too have been quite satisfied with 9.1 as a development platform. I had a spot of trouble with a SATA card, but that would have happened in 32 bit too. A couple of things in the applications area do show that we're dealing with a "raw port" of the 32 bit version. I have noticed that texmacs and OpenOffice have issues in this version. Texmacs is just not 64 bit clean at this stage and something of a fringe application so it's probably a bit harsh on the SuSE guys to expect them to fix it. On the other hand, you might have expected them at least to note that it segfaults immediately on start... The issues with OOo take a bit more testing to find, but I can generally crash it within 5 minutes of playing with the formula editor (and given all the other things I have thrown at that box, I think hardware failure is not the likely reason). Unlike texmacs, OOo is a central piece of software for those who want a 64bit desktop, so this could be said to deserve a more dedicated effort to get rid of such bugs.
I consider the support provided by Mr. Kleen and Mr. Jaeger in this forum to be very good.
Yup. I can't help getting the feeling that they are pretty much alone on the task, though. There's not a large "back room" full of people fixing bugs or pushing reports to upstreams maintainers. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 11:43:37PM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
The issues with OOo take a bit more testing to find, but I can generally crash it within 5 minutes of playing with the formula editor
What do you mean to crash? Does it segfault? Or something else? And - does it not crash when you do the same playing on a 32bit box with the same OpenOffice version? The OpenOffice that is currently shipped in 9.1 is still 32bit. If it crashes where it won't crash on a 32bit kernel it would be a 32bit emulation bug in the kernel. But these have been pretty rare recently... If you can get me a reproducible test case I can look into it. -Andi
Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk> writes:
A couple of things in the applications area do show that we're dealing with a "raw port" of the 32 bit version. I have noticed that texmacs and OpenOffice have issues in this version. Texmacs is just not 64 bit clean at this stage and something of a fringe application so it's probably a bit harsh on the SuSE guys to expect them to fix it. On the other hand, you might have expected them at least to note that it segfaults immediately on start...
Please send me details and I create a bugreport...
The issues with OOo take a bit more testing to find, but I can generally crash it within 5 minutes of playing with the formula editor (and given all the other things I have thrown at that box, I think hardware failure is not the likely reason). Unlike texmacs, OOo is a central piece of software for those who want a 64bit desktop, so this could be said to deserve a more dedicated effort to get rid of such bugs.
OOo is a 32-bit application. It uses so much architecture dependend code that you cannot just recompile it, you need to port a lot of stuff. OOo 2.0 is supposed to run on AMD64, let's see... So, your OOo problems should occur on x86 also.
I consider the support provided by Mr. Kleen and Mr. Jaeger in this forum to be very good.
Yup. I can't help getting the feeling that they are pretty much alone on the task, though. There's not a large "back room" full of people fixing bugs or pushing reports to upstreams maintainers.
But there are some that I can throw good bugreports at ;-) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hi, I'm also a happy user of SuSE 9.1 AMD64 platform. Thank you for AMD64 people at SuSE. Currently, dual opteron 246 (2 Ghz) with 8 Gbyte memory is the fastest performer running our application, compared with Apple dual G5 (2Ghz) and dual Xeon (2.8 Ghz) by a wide margin. Tosa Peter Dalgaard wrote:
einar <einar_linux@swissonline.ch> writes:
Hello,
yes, I do recommend SuSE. For 64bit users we are early adopters. Yet, SuSE 9.0 runs stable for me and beside hardware difficulties I had no trouble. The kernel I compiled myself solved the last minor issues about the box not shutting down cleanly. I am very happy.
I too have been quite satisfied with 9.1 as a development platform. I had a spot of trouble with a SATA card, but that would have happened in 32 bit too.
-- Yasunari Tosa, Ph.D. Email: tosa@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu NMR Ctr, Mass. General Hospital TEL: 617-726-4050 Building 149, 13th Street Charlestown, MA 02129 USA
participants (8)
-
Andi Kleen -
Andreas Jaeger -
Colin Carter -
einar -
Johan Nielsen -
Peter Dalgaard -
Yasunari Tosa -
Örn Hansen