Hi Folks, As a loyal SuSE advocate/user since 5.1, and having purchased at least a half-dozen of every boxed set of every release since then, I'm looking at the dialog here for 10.1 and am wondering if I should sit this one out. I don't have enough time to wrestle with a broken distro. What do folks think? Is the boxed set the same as the iso? I tried installing the iso on a dual-Athlon last Thursday and had it totally wedge. I'm sure that in this case it's a hardware problem, but before it went down for the count I noticed that "Update" didn't have anything to update. Also, I saw apt mentioned here. Does this "ZenWorks" replace the old Yast update method? How would one use apt instead of the included update method? Thanks for your input, Lew Wolfgang
If I had it to do over again, I'd sit it out. 10.1 has brought me many headaches, and has added nothing new that I needed. I wish I'd stayed at 10.0. If this is an example of Novell's guidance of SuSE, SuSE is in trouble. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Lew:
I put it on my laptop which runs my ftp server and DB2 express_c which
are every day requirements for my development efforts between home and
the office. If it tells you anything I will not be putting it on any
other machines. The eye candy is a little nicer in some respects but
that Novell would ship such a totally broken product is inexcusable.
If it is a foretaste of things to come from Novell then it is time to
start looking elsewhere.
My $.02.
Chuck
On 5/28/06, Michael Nelson
If I had it to do over again, I'd sit it out. 10.1 has brought me many headaches, and has added nothing new that I needed.
I wish I'd stayed at 10.0. If this is an example of Novell's guidance of SuSE, SuSE is in trouble.
Michael
--
San Francisco, CA
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Monday 29 May 2006 04:42, Chuck Davis wrote:
Lew:
I put it on my laptop which runs my ftp server and DB2 express_c which are every day requirements for my development efforts between home and the office. If it tells you anything I will not be putting it on any other machines. The eye candy is a little nicer in some respects but that Novell would ship such a totally broken product is inexcusable.
The update system is a known issue. Is there anything else that's broken? As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0. So far the issues I've seen people report are * update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources Have I missed anything?
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 04:42, Chuck Davis wrote:
Lew:
I put it on my laptop which runs my ftp server and DB2 express_c which are every day requirements for my development efforts between home and the office. If it tells you anything I will not be putting it on any other machines. The eye candy is a little nicer in some respects but that Novell would ship such a totally broken product is inexcusable.
The update system is a known issue. Is there anything else that's broken?
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
Nope, I think that's pretty much it. 10.1 is great, aside from those two issues. So just uninstall beagle and install apt, and put small apt-get script into the daily cron and you're good to go, imho. (The one other issue, which I believe is related to the updater issue, is that YaST often has issues adding/removing sources. Apt fixes this issue, too.) It's funny, I was never an advocate of apt until SuSE 10.1 came out...
Anders Johansson wrote:
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
Agree. I'm using 10.1 for anything new.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
One thing I have noticed over the last few days is zmd (plus parse-metadata and rug and what have you) being incredibly slow and/or very CPU-intensive. There's room for improvement here, but it's by no means a show-stopper. /Per Jessen, Zürich
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
I think the point is that it should not have shipped with the broken package manager. I've bought and used every SUSE since 6.0 but if I'd bought 10.1 as a commercial offering i'd be returning it and asking for my money back I'm beginning to agree with those who are concerned as to where Novell is going with SUSE. And yes I have installed and run 10.1, but I don't want the eye candy and I hate the package manager, so what is the point. I'm keeping 10.0 , and thinking of looking elsewhere in the future. Mike
On Monday, May 29, 2006 @ 5:18 AM, Micahel Norman wrote:
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
I think the point is that it should not have shipped with the broken package manager.
Absolutely! It's one thing to have glitches in optional software, but to have these sorts of problems with what is part of the basic system itself is really inexcusable. Hard to imagine how this could have gotten by the testing process. If anything should be tested to the nth degree it is anything that has to do with basic system functionality.
I've bought and used every SUSE since 6.0 but if I'd bought 10.1 >as a commercial offering i'd be returning it and asking for my money back
I'm beginning to agree with those who are concerned as to where Novell is going with SUSE.
And yes I have installed and run 10.1, but I don't want the eye candy and I
hate the package manager, so what is the point.
I'm keeping 10.0 , and thinking of looking elsewhere in the future.
Mike
Greg Wallace
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
I think the point is that it should not have shipped with the broken package manager. I've bought and used every SUSE since 6.0 but if I'd bought 10.1 as a commercial offering i'd be returning it and asking for my money back I'm beginning to agree with those who are concerned as to where Novell is going with SUSE. And yes I have installed and run 10.1, but I don't want the eye candy and I hate the package manager, so what is the point. I'm keeping 10.0 , and thinking of looking elsewhere in the future. Mike
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 05:05 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 04:42, Chuck Davis wrote:
Lew:
I put it on my laptop which runs my ftp server and DB2 express_c which are every day requirements for my development efforts between home and the office. If it tells you anything I will not be putting it on any other machines. The eye candy is a little nicer in some respects but that Novell would ship such a totally broken product is inexcusable.
The update system is a known issue. Is there anything else that's broken?
The repair system comes to mind. I've had it bomb 4 times when booting disk 1 and opting to repair the installation. (Broke my YaST trying to fix the updater.)
As a point of reference, I've been running 10.1 both at home and in the office since around beta 8 or 9, and so far it's been working well, so calling it "totally broken" is just wrong. It's not really all that different from 10.0.
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
On Monday 29 May 2006 14:48, Mike McMullin wrote:
The repair system comes to mind. I've had it bomb 4 times when booting disk 1 and opting to repair the installation. (Broke my YaST trying to fix the updater.)
That doesn't sound good, has it been reported to bugzilla?
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 14:56 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 14:48, Mike McMullin wrote:
The repair system comes to mind. I've had it bomb 4 times when booting disk 1 and opting to repair the installation. (Broke my YaST trying to fix the updater.)
That doesn't sound good, has it been reported to bugzilla?
No it hasn't. I was too tired and out of sorts to do it. It's another wait till the weekend issue. BTW Anders this was opting for both automatic checking and expert checking. It restarted in ncurses mode both times, the system was slower than it's ever been, so slow I came back to it every 15 minutes or so to see if it required any input.
On Sunday 28 May 2006 23:05, Anders Johansson wrote:
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
I would say there are video problems when it took me about 5 days of diddling to get something to work, and then only because I used the ATI proprietary drivers. And I would say that Yast is general is a big disaster. When I was loading the system, I apparently had a dirty DVD and it came up with a missing RPM file... If I told it to RETRY or IGNORE, Yast killed the entire install with an error. No way to get by it except have perfect media. As you once mentioned, they rebuilt Yast... it needs some work.
Anders:
Isn't that enough? I don't use Linux to have something to futz around
with. I use it go get work done. SUSE10.1 does not let me get work
done unless I spend a lot of time futzzing around getting it to work.
I won't be buying any more than my one test package and I won't be
installing it on any other machines. I'll buy another test package
when 10.2 hits the shelves.
Chuck
On 5/28/06, Anders Johansson
So far the issues I've seen people report are
* update system broken * Beagle consuming too many resources
Have I missed anything?
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:39:04AM -0700, Chuck Davis wrote:
Anders:
Isn't that enough? I don't use Linux to have something to futz around with. I use it go get work done. SUSE10.1 does not let me get work done unless I spend a lot of time futzzing around getting it to work. I won't be buying any more than my one test package and I won't be installing it on any other machines. I'll buy another test package when 10.2 hits the shelves.
I have been on SuSE since one of the early 7.x releases. One thing I have noticed is that every time I upgrade to a later release, my system gets slower. Now my system sure isn't the latest and greatest hardware by a longshot (P4 1.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 96MB of Ultra 160 scsi drives), but it's not a full-blown antique either. In contrast, the other day I installed RHEL4AS (with a 30 day test license) on an old 700Mhz Celeron I have here. It has 768MB of ram and only a single old 9GB scsi drive. EVERYTHING I do is faster on that machine. I have just upgraded that machine to CentOS 4.3, and it's the same but free. I am seriously considering dumping my longstanding loyalty to SuSE and switching my main machine over to CentOS 4.3. I am trying to get employed as a Linux support / sysadmin type, and I think those interests are much better served by my running the OS that owns the commercial Linux marketplace. Since I can't afford to buy RH, the CentOS will do me fine. I realize it's downrev on versions and doesn't have the latest and greatest stuff. But I don't *need* that stuff if it slows the system down and hassles me because SuSE / Novell found yet more ways to break it. I'll eval CentOS 4.3 for a bit longer on the test box, but I do think I'll probably jump ship. I'm tired of what Novell has done to SuSE. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
On Monday 29 May 2006 14:05, Michael Nelson wrote:
In contrast, the other day I installed RHEL4AS (with a 30 day test license) on an old 700Mhz Celeron I have here. It has 768MB of ram and only a single old 9GB scsi drive.
A couple of questions.... Do you do an update from one SuSE release to another? Do you normally keep your /home between releases? (probably) When you installed RH, did you use the same /home? (prolly not) You might be viewing a long-increasing list of things that your /home has in its settings, etc... that make things slow. And you might want to go through the run-level settings to see what is getting started. I've been using SuSE as long as you have but I always do a fresh install and haven't noticed any major change in system speed.
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:26:38PM -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Do you do an update from one SuSE release to another?
Sometimes I upgrade, sometimes I wipe and do a clean install. My 10.0 was a wipe & clean, 10.1 was an upgrade from 10.0. I try to w&c about once a year.
Do you normally keep your /home between releases? (probably)
Yes, I do. I put it on a separate partition just so I can.
When you installed RH, did you use the same /home? (prolly not)
When I installed RH, I installed it on a totally different old machine that I keep around for test purposes, so no, not the same /home.
You might be viewing a long-increasing list of things that your /home has in its settings, etc... that make things slow.
Yes, that's certainly something I have considered and investigated. But I have created new, virgin test users and they have the same problem as my own user does, so I don't believe it's a problem with my user's environment.
And you might want to go through the run-level settings to see what is getting started.
Been there, done that regularly. That's not the problem either.
I've been using SuSE as long as you have but I always do a fresh install and haven't noticed any major change in system speed.
Thanks, that's an excellent data point. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Bruce Marshall wrote:
I've been using SuSE as long as you have but I always do a fresh install and haven't noticed any major change in system speed.
Like you, I never upgrade, although I keep the /home directory. My very first SUSE install was a 4.4.1, bought in Hugendubel on Marienplatz in Muenchen, then installed on an already dated 486DX2, although it might have been a 200MHz Pentium Pro. Wow, almost 10 years ago. I must be getting old ... The only major changes in speed I've noticed was 1) the change from YaST1 to YaST2 and 2) the recent introduction of Zen/Redcarpet etc. Most of my hardware is below 1GHz clock and 2) in particular is quite CPU-intensive. dupont:/home/per/ibwd # time rug remove samba-doc Waking up ZMD...Done Resolving Dependencies... The following packages will be removed: samba-doc 3.0.22-16 (system) Transaction... 100% Transaction Finished real 14m37.173s user 0m30.462s sys 0m1.152s /Per Jessen, Zürich
On 5/28/06, Michael Nelson
If I had it to do over again, I'd sit it out. 10.1 has brought me many headaches, and has added nothing new that I needed.
I wish I'd stayed at 10.0. If this is an example of Novell's guidance of SuSE, SuSE is in trouble.
I would say this: http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/40/1/ falls under the category: reasonable assessment and, a little more perspective: http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5613250391.html
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 19:18 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
As a loyal SuSE advocate/user since 5.1, and having purchased at least a half-dozen of every boxed set of every release since then, I'm looking at the dialog here for 10.1 and am wondering if I should sit this one out.
With every version of SUSE there's a whole bunch of people going "oh this is the worst release ever <insert various arguments to explain>" Our office runs SUSE on a number of desktops, and it's constantly installed on development boxes for various purposes. No version of SUSE (since I first used 6.1) have had any serious issues, and any major show-stoppers have had prompt updates available. I'm running 10.1 OSS on my notebook, with some unusual hardware, I might add, and I'm completely happy with it. Yes, there are a few new things that needs some extra polish, but nothing that would prevent me from buying the box set. In fact, I have already placed my order. Also, there is still the "dot zero release" fud going around. I don't see why. SUSE 9.0 had no major changes over 8.2 - in fact, I think they should have called it 8.3. 9.1, however, had a new kernel and everything that goes with it. Similarly, 8.1 switch to GCC3. 8.0 was incredibly sweet, 8.1 had a few issues with the GCC change - things not working as expected etc. but that was the situation for all distros moving to GCC3. 9.0, in my opinion was one of the sweetest releases. I have had not as single proble on any of the machines I installed it on. 9.1 was the beginning of a new era, I didn't like it's desktop performance, this was a "dot zero release" in my books (it was still truckloads better than any fedore or mdk release I tried). 9.2 was better, 9.3 was more better, 10, even with the move to GCC4, was, for me, the pinnacle of the 9 series. 10.1, I see as the "dot zero release" of this cycle, but even so, I have no issues with it. Get it, try it, ignore what everyone tells you and see for yourself. Hans
I don't have enough time to wrestle with a broken distro. What do folks think? Is the boxed set the same as the iso? I tried installing the iso on a dual-Athlon last Thursday and had it totally wedge. I'm sure that in this case it's a hardware problem, but before it went down for the count I noticed that "Update" didn't have anything to update.
Also, I saw apt mentioned here. Does this "ZenWorks" replace the old Yast update method? How would one use apt instead of the included update method?
Thanks for your input, Lew Wolfgang
On Tuesday, 30 May 2006 06:56, Hans du Plooy wrote:
Our office runs SUSE on a number of desktops, and it's constantly installed on development boxes for various purposes. No version of SUSE (since I first used 6.1) have had any serious issues, and any major show-stoppers have had prompt updates available.
Well said.
I'm running 10.1 OSS on my notebook, with some unusual hardware, I might add, and I'm completely happy with it. Yes, there are a few new things that needs some extra polish, but nothing that would prevent me from buying the box set. In fact, I have already placed my order.
Same here. My Ferrari 4006WLMi runs faster, and with far fewer hardware issues, than under 10.0. This is the finest SuSE release I have run, going back to 4.2 10 years ago.
Also, there is still the "dot zero release" fud going around. I don't see why. SUSE 9.0 had no major changes over 8.2 - in fact, I think they should have called it 8.3. 9.1, however, had a new kernel and everything that goes with it. Similarly, 8.1 switch to GCC3. 8.0 was incredibly sweet, 8.1 had a few issues with the GCC change - things not working as expected etc. but that was the situation for all distros moving to GCC3. 9.0, in my opinion was one of the sweetest releases. I have had not as single proble on any of the machines I installed it on. 9.1 was the beginning of a new era, I didn't like it's desktop performance, this was a "dot zero release" in my books (it was still truckloads better than any fedore or mdk release I tried). 9.2 was better, 9.3 was more better, 10, even with the move to GCC4, was, for me, the pinnacle of the 9 series. 10.1, I see as the "dot zero release" of this cycle, but even so, I have no issues with it.
Again, well said. I have had the same experiences, which is why I still run SuSE on numerous boxes at work (as servers and desktops), and my wife and I run it on every PC and laptop at home. Yes, at work we try new releases of Debian (and its offspring), *BSD (including the recent "desktop" offspring), Fedora, and CentOS, but, after all the testing, we continue to use SuSE: it "just works" for us.
Hi Hans, I agree with you 100%. It just seemed that the number of significant issues increased with 10.1. Indeed, I did try the ISO on a dual Athlon system last Thursday. Alas, it was very flakey due to, I think, bad hardware. I'll try it again on stable hardware before making a final decision. News at 11:00! Regards, Lew Hans du Plooy wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 19:18 -0700, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
As a loyal SuSE advocate/user since 5.1, and having purchased at least a half-dozen of every boxed set of every release since then, I'm looking at the dialog here for 10.1 and am wondering if I should sit this one out.
With every version of SUSE there's a whole bunch of people going "oh this is the worst release ever <insert various arguments to explain>"
Our office runs SUSE on a number of desktops, and it's constantly installed on development boxes for various purposes. No version of SUSE (since I first used 6.1) have had any serious issues, and any major show-stoppers have had prompt updates available.
I'm running 10.1 OSS on my notebook, with some unusual hardware, I might add, and I'm completely happy with it. Yes, there are a few new things that needs some extra polish, but nothing that would prevent me from buying the box set. In fact, I have already placed my order.
Also, there is still the "dot zero release" fud going around. I don't see why. SUSE 9.0 had no major changes over 8.2 - in fact, I think they should have called it 8.3. 9.1, however, had a new kernel and everything that goes with it. Similarly, 8.1 switch to GCC3. 8.0 was incredibly sweet, 8.1 had a few issues with the GCC change - things not working as expected etc. but that was the situation for all distros moving to GCC3. 9.0, in my opinion was one of the sweetest releases. I have had not as single proble on any of the machines I installed it on. 9.1 was the beginning of a new era, I didn't like it's desktop performance, this was a "dot zero release" in my books (it was still truckloads better than any fedore or mdk release I tried). 9.2 was better, 9.3 was more better, 10, even with the move to GCC4, was, for me, the pinnacle of the 9 series. 10.1, I see as the "dot zero release" of this cycle, but even so, I have no issues with it.
Get it, try it, ignore what everyone tells you and see for yourself.
Hans
I don't have enough time to wrestle with a broken distro. What do folks think? Is the boxed set the same as the iso? I tried installing the iso on a dual-Athlon last Thursday and had it totally wedge. I'm sure that in this case it's a hardware problem, but before it went down for the count I noticed that "Update" didn't have anything to update.
Also, I saw apt mentioned here. Does this "ZenWorks" replace the old Yast update method? How would one use apt instead of the included update method?
Thanks for your input, Lew Wolfgang
Ill sit this one out. I have 10.0 working fine on the P4 and I usually skip some middle versions. Ill get more memory for this old PII and put 10.0 on it soon. Bring on 10.2 with full updates this time. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
With every version of SUSE there's a whole bunch of people going "oh this is the worst release ever <insert various arguments to explain>"
Our office runs SUSE on a number of desktops, and it's constantly installed on development boxes for various purposes. No version of SUSE (since I first used 6.1) have had any serious issues, and any major show-stoppers have had prompt updates available.
Well you are right. I guess if you want to avoid computer problems you should not own one :). And yes people talk and complain and it is a lot of talk for nothing as updates become available and thinks start working the way we are used to expect. I think even in this rants there is some benefit as it points out to people what they can face and everyone can make up their own mind what to do. If I was following all the talk on the release I would have probably known that ZEN has been pushed late and I can expect problems I would also be more aware that it has some major benefits and hold on for an update patiently that will let me use them. I did not .. but I am still holding on to my box. What this talk helps though is identify the problems and make me wait a little longer for my work machine that I absolutely need functioning all the time and yes it is running SuSE 10.0 ... so there. All software is buggy and can change some does change for the better other types not. I am into this for the positive change :). george
George Stoianov wrote:
If I was following all the talk on the release I would have probably known that ZEN has been pushed late and I can expect problems I would also be more aware that it has some major benefits and hold on for an update patiently that will let me use them. I did not .. but I am still holding on to my box.
Like what? Seriously. What does Zen give us that the previous version did not. The closest I've heard is that it gives the ability to deal with "patches, patterns and even products", but what does that really mean? We know it doesn't work with delta rpms (the previous system used), which is what I always thought patches were, in this context. How is a package different from a "product"? How about a "pattern"? All I see is negatives, what's the concrete benefit?
I'm somebody who *likes* to install newer code. Got the 10.1 distribution CDs/DVD as packaged and shipped by Novell. Decided to apply it to my x86_64 system (Radeon X800 display controller), which had "happily" been running SuSE 10.0. First I booted from the DVD and ran "update the system". The update itself (10.1 on top of 10.0) gave no problems, but the resulting system went into an UNRECOVERABLE 'black screen' at the point where it was supposed to allow me to log on. This 'black screen' result was the SAME whether I booted into 'init 5' or into 'init 3', or even when doing 'failsafe boot'. What really threw me was that, looking with the rescue system, there was no footprint anywhere (/var/log, nor any other place I could think of) of things going "crook" during the boots -- all log files, etc., showed what I consider "normal" entries. So I said, "'update the system' doesn't work, I'll try a clean install of 10.1 instead". That resulted in a bootable system. BUT what was being shown on my display screen was GROSSLY "blown up". The best way I can describe it is as though the system were creating a 1280x1024 display image (that's my video resolution), but then selecting a 640x480 area from that image, and ENLARGING that selected area to occupy my whole screen. (Fonts in particular looked like sh**!) And when I tried to run 'sax2' (even from a tty, even with '-l'), the enlarged SaX window extended so much PAST my actual screen borders that none of the SaX controls (nor scrollbars) looked accessible to me to even make __use__ of SaX. [In other words, the tool that ought to take me out of the problem could not be used - *because* of the problem ! ] Maximum frustration !! -------- [Ran (using apt-get) all the 10.1 package updates I could find. Did not make any difference to the "gross" graphic session.] Don't know what I did, but by "diddling" with xorg.conf (basically I auto-defined xorg.conf with a dual_head template, then used an editor to manually delete all mention of the second head from that file) I finally got the system to use the 1280x1024 screen size. Whew. [But for hours there, I was not at all a happy camper ! ] Rightly or wrongly, I'm blaming a "poorly done port to SuSE of the Xorg 6.9 radeon driver" for my struggles with 10.1. mikus
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 23:11, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
So I said, "'update the system' doesn't work, I'll try a clean install of 10.1 instead". That resulted in a bootable system. BUT what was being shown on my display screen was GROSSLY "blown up". The best way I can describe it is as though the system were creating a 1280x1024 display image (that's my video resolution), but then selecting a 640x480 area from that image, and ENLARGING that selected area to occupy my whole screen. (Fonts in particular looked like sh**!) And when I tried to run 'sax2' (even from a tty, even with '-l'), the enlarged SaX window extended so much PAST my actual screen borders that none of the SaX controls (nor scrollbars) looked accessible to me to even make __use__ of SaX. [In other words, the tool that ought to take me out of the problem could not be used - *because* of the problem ! ] Maximum frustration !!
You're having the same ATI problems that I did... only you didn't mention hangs to the point of doing a reset boot. Every time I tried to run Sax2 or do anything at all with graphics, I would get a black screen and a totally hung system. I finally got by the problem by: 1) booting to init 3 and running sax2 -l this got me into Sax with a severely screwed up screen at 640x480 (I guess) what I was trying to do was to created an xorg.conf file which had 1600x1200 settings (my LCD resolution) but not to test that... because of the hang. 2) Run the ATI proprietary install against that xorg.conf so it could create a 1600x1200 xorg.conf of its own and then use the ATI drivers. That worked. Nothing else in the FiVe DaYs I played with it worked.
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
I'm somebody who *likes* to install newer code. Got the 10.1 distribution CDs/DVD as packaged and shipped by Novell. Decided to apply it to my x86_64 system (Radeon X800 display controller), which had "happily" been running SuSE 10.0.
First I booted from the DVD and ran "update the system". The update itself (10.1 on top of 10.0) gave no problems, but the resulting system went into an UNRECOVERABLE 'black screen' at the point where it was supposed to allow me to log on.
[big snip]
Rightly or wrongly, I'm blaming a "poorly done port to SuSE of the Xorg 6.9 radeon driver" for my struggles with 10.1.
mikus
The same thing happened to me with SuSE 10.0 on X86_64 and a different ATI card, so perhaps the problem isn't 10.1 specific. You'll find my writeup and "rant" in the Dec 2005 archives. Buddy Coffey Advanced Electromagnetics
participants (18)
-
Anders Johansson -
Bruce Marshall -
Buddy Coffey -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Chuck Davis -
George Stoianov -
Greg Wallace -
Hans du Plooy -
Lew Wolfgang -
Michael Nelson -
michael norman -
Mike McMullin -
mikus＠bga.com -
Per Jessen -
Peter Van Lone -
Sargon -
Silviu Marin-Caea -
suse＠rio.vg