Disgracefully,I've become a SUSE fan-boy since installing 9.2.And muttering to myself 'I am the great cornholio'. IMHO,better than 9.1.But then the apps are much improved e.g.amaroK(Gstreamer) for one. Just my 2 cents. On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:11:53 +0000, Jake wrote:

On Saturday 13 November 2004 15:09, Preston Crawford wrote:

...

After seeing all the bug reports and problems people are having I'm starting to reconsider upgrading (I'm currently running SuSE 9.1). I generally do. Both to keep current and because I like giving Linux companies my business, but I don't want to break a system that works fine right now. Is it really that bad? Or is this just a squeaky wheel thing?

By definition we tend to only hear about the problems here. I'm loving my 9.2, best yet IMHO. There are bound to be *some* glitches. I don't have any SCSI devices, so can't comment on the problems people have been having there. Why don't you install 9.2 alongside 9.1 to evaluate it? The update edition is excellent value. I've taken to always having the previous and current versions bootable sharing /home on a seperate disk altogether.

-- 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

Jake wrote:

On Saturday 13 November 2004 15:09, Preston Crawford wrote:

...

After seeing all the bug reports and problems people are having I'm starting to reconsider upgrading (I'm currently running SuSE 9.1). I generally do. Both to keep current and because I like giving Linux companies my business, but I don't want to break a system that works fine right now. Is it really that bad? Or is this just a squeaky wheel thing?

By definition we tend to only hear about the problems here. I'm loving my 9.2, best yet IMHO. There are bound to be *some* glitches. I don't have any SCSI devices, so can't comment on the problems people have been having there. Why don't you install 9.2 alongside 9.1 to evaluate it? The update edition is excellent value. I've taken to always having the previous and current versions bootable sharing /home on a seperate disk altogether.

Now it's up and running it's excellent, but I've had major battles just getting it installed. There is something about ATA100 disks it doesn't seem to like. Mysteriouly after a few hours of twiddling, I got x86_64 to install on my laptop ATA100, but the x86 was a sadder story, I had to rsync the ATA100 120G disk on to a 160G ATA133. With ATA100 it said it couldn't mount the disk, but I could go into VC02 and manually mount it and if I left it mounted, I got the same message, no way was it going to upgrade it. It's the most difficult version of Linux to upgrade/install I've encountered (for some of us), across distributions dating back to MCC, SLS, slackware, RedHat, Caldera, gentoo, Mandrake, etc. and since I downloaded the first version Linus ever put up for ftp. Pete even had problems installing it to a new hard drive I believe is ATA133, he had to start a XP install, crash it and the 9.2 install then worked, trashed the disk and started over again, wouldn't go until after XP went on partially. There is a gremlin in there somewhere and I'm going to have another go on another box, may be third try lucky. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====

I'm very happy with SUSE 9.2. I only bought it to try out suspend-to-disk. And to get all the latest packages officially supported. That's what I like about SUSE - they keep packages very up to date. I like lots of other things too, but I won't go on.

On Sunday 14 November 2004 01:34, Leendert Meyer wrote:

On Sunday 14 November 2004 00:19, Andrew Betts wrote:

...

I'm very happy with SUSE 9.2.

That's what I like about SUSE - they keep packages very up to date.

Hmm, not quite true... Mysql 4.1 is available (I was looking forward to it), but SuSE is still at 4.0.*. There was another package that was spoken about recently, but I forgot which one.

Note that suse's packages usually come heavily patched with bug fixes and sometimes even feature additions from later versions. So for instance suse's gcc 3.3 has many things from 3.4, and their kernel 2.6.8 isn't the same as kernel.org's 2.6.8, but has parts from 2.6.9, not to mention their own patches. This isn't a comment on the specific case of mysql, I'm not familiar enough with it to say, but I can say that it's frequently not enough to just look at the version number

Leendert Meyer [Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:34:16 +0100]:

Mysql 4.1 is available (I was looking forward to it),

Released at the end of October, far too late to include it in 9.2. Note that we freeze a distribution quite some time before the official release so packages released approximately less then two months before GA will in most cases not be in the distribution. Philipp

* Leendert Meyer [11-18-04 03:51]:

Who are 'we'? :)

Philipp is a SuSE employee. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:05:45 +0100 Philipp Thomas wrote:

Leendert Meyer [Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:34:16 +0100]:

...

Mysql 4.1 is available (I was looking forward to it),

Released at the end of October, far too late to include it in 9.2. Note that we freeze a distribution quite some time before the official release so packages released approximately less then two months before GA will in most cases not be in the distribution.

Philipp

What about support for Hauppauge PVR and appropriate software? I asked about this earlier and got not reply. I tried the Live DVD and couldn't see anything. - Richard. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/

On Thursday 25 November 2004 02:58, Linda A. W. wrote:

I also _really_ don't like the fact that a Windows update will work with _several_ previous versions, but a SuSE update can only work with the immediately previous release

What makes you say that? Aren't you confusing "is supported" with "can only work"? Some upgrades are trickier than others, but I've done 9.0->9.2 and 8.2->9.1 and they worked

-- I don't want to be forced to update to an unknown quality configuration every 3-6 months when it takes 1-2 months to iron out the the kinks from the previous release.

If you feel this way, then why not wait a while? Lots of people want to "let others find the bugs" before going ahead with an upgrade. Who is forcing you? Certainly not suse. Having said that, I usually install new versions as soon as I can, and with a few exceptions (the XFS thing in 9.1 was particularly annoying to me) things generally work well enough to be getting on with. But if you wait a month or two after release, you should have enough information from the forums and knowledge bases to know where the pitfalls are. That's sound procedure regardless of the OS. I wouldn't even install a new release of OS/400 (the best OS in the world, in my opinion) without seeing what's happened to other users first, unless it was on a test system where I could experiment away.

That's what I've done if I need to repair a 9.1 installation -- I boot from a 9.0 DVD or CD to repair problems...just a pain to have to keep both sets on hand and something that completely took me off guard when I first tried installing 9.1 on a friend's, now, ex-window's machine. Same friend still has some problems with his Xircom 10/100/modem card only speaking in 10Mb/s and occasional network hangs -- that he was solving by doing the windows thing: rebooting. Oivey! But trying to tell him about command line /etc/init.d/network restart or pcmcia restart (or whatever the problem was), was a bit too much for him. Sigh. I really hate to say it, but it seems Linux is becoming more like Windows in some of the not so good ways in some HW configs (though my main server is usually more reliable). Such a pain now that they've eliminated the stable tree and turned it into a development tree -- I used to like to run specially config'ed kernels/platform -- especially for my friend's laptop -- an old 266MHz PII w/192Mb memory (20G HD). He uses it with a kde desktop but kde doesn't seem to have easy ways to say "please use a minimal amount of memory and CPU". At least compiling for x686 would be a step up from x586 -- 586 was the worst fit for a x686 machine according to the gnu compiler people -- even x486 was optimized better for a i686 than the i586 -- seems like i586 was a odd-out architecture for optimizations. How many people run Pentiums w/o MMX? As I understand it, Pentiums w/MMX had the x686 core though not many were made... -l Doug McGarrett wrote:

At 05:58 PM 11/24/2004 -0800, you wrote:

t I see, what I read here, and my own experience--see my "I'm Tired" in the past week's mail--if you could find a copy of 9.0 you might be OK, but I don't think you want 9.2, and probably not 9.1. If _I_ knew where there was a copy of 9.0 I might try it. --doug

...

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 Wednesday 24 November 2004 20:37, Linda A. W. wrote:

That's what I've done if I need to

End your top-posting? Not meant to be nasty, I'm just direct. Never been any good at 'softening' the truth. <shrug> Thanks, John

How about *only* replying to the list? I don't need a second copy in my inbox! "Linda A. W." [Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:58:23 -0800]:

You mean like the linux-kernel released with last minute changes

The kernel is one of the very few exceptions to that rule.

I also _really_ don't like the fact that a Windows update will work with _several_ previous versions, but a SuSE update can only work with the immediately previous release

Oh, you would buy a version of SUSE Linux that contains only the bare OS and nothing else? You're comparing apples and oranges here, as SUSE Linux contains a lot more then only the bare OS. And it's not true that SUSE update can only work with the previous release. It's possible to update versions older then that, it's just that SUSE won't guarantee that it will work.

I don't want to be forced to update to an unknown quality configuration every 3-6 months

You aren't. Philipp

"Bottom line is, I've finally shuttered up my Windows. :)" Woohay! On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:52:29 -0500, Don Parris wrote:

On Saturday 13 November 2004 10:09, Preston Crawford wrote:

...

After seeing all the bug reports and problems people are having I'm starting to reconsider upgrading (I'm currently running SuSE 9.1). I generally do. Both to keep current and because I like giving Linux companies my business, but I don't want to break a system that works fine right now. Is it really that bad? Or is this just a squeaky wheel thing?

Preston Count me in the "very happy" crowd. For me, it was not only easier than SUSE 8.0 Pro., it was easier than a WinXP install! I can't speak for moving from 9.1 to 9.2, but for me, many things are working that didn't before. I've had some issues to work through, and have a few to resolve yet. Mostly, it's my lack of experience with (and/or knowledge of) specific aspects of GNU/Linux. Bottom line is, I've finally shuttered up my Windows. :)

Don -- DC Parris GNU Evangelist http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere!"

-- 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

pinto wrote:

On Sunday 14 November 2004 07:30, martin mcleod wrote:

...

"Bottom line is, I've finally shuttered up my Windows. :)"

___________________

~ have recently started using "dosemu" Dos Emulation.

dosemu runs that excellent dos Stock Chart Program "MetaStock" just fine. I wonder if WINE on the CD's will run the Windows version of Metastock 7.0, as I cannot just go out and buy another program as it is MIGHTY expensive. -- The NOW I'M INTERESTED in 9.2 Little Helper ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 Licenced Windows user ========================================================================

Tirsdag 16 november 2004 15:32 skrev Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC):

pinto wrote:

...

On Sunday 14 November 2004 07:30, martin mcleod wrote:

...

"Bottom line is, I've finally shuttered up my Windows. :)"

___________________

~ have recently started using "dosemu" Dos Emulation.

dosemu runs that excellent dos Stock Chart Program "MetaStock" just fine.

I wonder if WINE on the CD's will run the Windows version of Metastock 7.0, as I cannot just go out and buy another program as it is MIGHTY expensive. -- The NOW I'M INTERESTED in 9.2 Little Helper ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 Licenced Windows user ========================================================================

I will probably try and test it with wine this weekend (hopefully before). But have to install and clean up on two PC's ..... and that can become a mess as you might know ..... that's why I say weekend to be sure ;-) Johan