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: Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:22:18 -0700 To:

To:

Return-Path: 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,

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

I agree with Einar, I too would recommend SuSE's 64-bit Linux. We have been running SLES-8 for some months now on a dual Opteron system with no problems what so ever. Having said that, I did have issues in the beginning with corrupted file systems. My issue turned out to be one of the most basic, my VAR sold me a hardware solution that was not SLES 8 compliant, my RAID array was SATA. SATA support, to my knowledge, didn't appear in SLES until 9. Since the VAR replaced all of the SATA with PATA it has run like a dream. I have a support contract with SuSE, which was used extensively in configuring the machine. The support personnel were excellent to work with, both in their attitude and the knowledge they provided. The responses to my questions were always prompt and provided me with the information that I needed to get through my issues. Because of these reasons I do continue to recommend SuSE's SLES for all of our Linux needs, including Oracle servers. I am getting ready to test upgrading from SLES-8 to SLES-9 for our production environment. -Alain. -----Original Message----- From: einar [mailto:einar_linux@swissonline.ch] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 8:50 PM Cc: suse-amd64@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Giving up on 64-bit Linux for now 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: then when I tried to run 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