Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!! Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?! If 2.6.8 is used, it's going to be a VERY non-standard kernel! Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 00.27, Fred Miller wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!! Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?! If 2.6.8 is used, it's going to be a VERY non-standard kernel!
It's not 2.6.8, it's 2.6.8+a ton of patches. You can see for yourself in /pub/projects/kernel on teh ftp site, which is where the suse kernel foments. Among other things, you can burn CDs as non-root, which is one of the main problems people have with 2.6.8 (well, it's the main problem I had with it) BTW, what exactly is a standard kernel, if 2.6.8 is a "non-standard" one?
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:40 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 00.27, Fred Miller wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!! Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?! If 2.6.8 is used, it's going to be a VERY non-standard kernel!
It's not 2.6.8, it's 2.6.8+a ton of patches. You can see for yourself in /pub/projects/kernel on teh ftp site, which is where the suse kernel foments. Among other things, you can burn CDs as non-root, which is one of the main problems people have with 2.6.8 (well, it's the main problem I had with it)
BTW, what exactly is a standard kernel, if 2.6.8 is a "non-standard" one?
What I meant was a highly SUSE patched kernel. Why not 2.6.7? Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 01.44, Fred Miller wrote:
What I meant was a highly SUSE patched kernel.
They're all highly patched. When did you ever see a suse kernel that *didn't* contain a ton of patches
Why not 2.6.7?
I think Philipp answered that one: to avoid comments like "why are they releasing it with ancient software"
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel? Philipp
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now. Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 20:04, Fred Miller wrote:
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
I've been running the 2.6.8.1 kernel for quite awhile now. No problems that I see. Methinks you doth protest too much... :-) -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/12/04 21:17 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "I may be fat but you're ugly, and I can lose weight."
I've been running the 2.6.8.1 kernel for quite awhile now. No problems that I see. Methinks you doth protest too much... :-)
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 20:04, Fred Miller wrote:
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
I've been running the 2.6.8.1 kernel for quite awhile now. No problems
Now that is encouraging......... -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Marshall" <bmarsh@bmarsh.com> To: "SLE" <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel. that I
see. Methinks you doth protest too much... :-)
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -+
+ Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/12/04 21:17 +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -+
"I may be fat but you're ugly, and I can lose weight."
-- 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
I also have been running the smp-2.6.8.1 x86_64 on my Sun V20z now for a while with no issues...I had to go to this kernel in order to get in-band IPMI working, as these servers have SP's which monitor the server environment... Shawn Faulkingham Director of IT Systems Indoff Inc. http://www.indoff.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Marshall [mailto:bmarsh@bmarsh.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:18 PM To: SLE Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel. On Tuesday 12 October 2004 20:04, Fred Miller wrote:
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
I've been running the 2.6.8.1 kernel for quite awhile now. No problems that I see. Methinks you doth protest too much... :-) -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/12/04 21:17 + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ "I may be fat but you're ugly, and I can lose weight." -- 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
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have!
Amen Fred. After being wholly dissapointed with Mandrake 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 for that exact reason. I was thrilled with Suse 8.2 and 9.0. The jury is still out on 9.1 for reasons you describe. 9.2 needs to be bulletproof from a server standpoint. I look to move my production system to 9.2 after the list settles down regarding little glitches. Keep stability in mind! My Mandrake 7.2 box is getting very old. -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
-- 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 Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:43:03PM -0500, David Rankin wrote:
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have!
Amen Fred. After being wholly dissapointed with Mandrake 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 for that exact reason. I was thrilled with Suse 8.2 and 9.0. The jury is still out on 9.1 for reasons you describe. 9.2 needs to be bulletproof from a server standpoint. I look to move my production system to 9.2 after the list settles down regarding little glitches. Keep stability in mind! My Mandrake 7.2 box is getting very old.
Wouldn't it make sense too run server systems on the SERVER version of SUSE? The price isn't exactly expensive, the Desktop version of RedHat costs about the same as a standard SUSE Server. I'd buy it but I don't run actual servers here, just FTP and Apache and SSH for me and sometimes friends.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
-- 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
-- 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
Wouldn't it make sense too run server systems on the SERVER version of SUSE? The price isn't exactly expensive, the Desktop version of RedHat costs about the same as a standard SUSE Server. I'd buy it but I don't run actual servers here, just FTP and Apache and SSH for me and sometimes friends.
There are probably good and bad arguments boths ways. The linux distros I have used have always been robust enough to fill the server role without a problem. The way I look at any distro is that: (1) you have the kernel, then (2) you load whatever packages you require to get the functionality you desire. The bottom line is "it's the kernel stupid" (not directed at you and no offense meant) So with regard to the thread, and the history of other distros that have suffered QA problems by rushing release # next out the door, the point to be made is -- don't short change the stability of the kernel in 9.2. Suse has done a great job with its kernels, recent growing pains aside. So I have no doubt Suse will do a good job with the 9.2 kernel, just don't forget about stability for those of us who rely on it. -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen" <gorebofh@comcast.net> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:43:03PM -0500, David Rankin wrote:
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have!
Amen Fred. After being wholly dissapointed with Mandrake 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 for that exact reason. I was thrilled with Suse 8.2 and 9.0. The jury is still out on 9.1 for reasons you describe. 9.2 needs to be bulletproof from a server standpoint. I look to move my production system to 9.2 after the list settles down regarding little glitches. Keep stability in mind! My Mandrake 7.2 box is getting very old.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004
18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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 Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:14:31PM -0500, David Rankin wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense too run server systems on the SERVER version of SUSE? The price isn't exactly expensive, the Desktop version of RedHat costs about the same as a standard SUSE Server. I'd buy it but I don't run actual servers here, just FTP and Apache and SSH for me and sometimes friends.
There are probably good and bad arguments boths ways. The linux distros I have used have always been robust enough to fill the server role without a problem. The way I look at any distro is that: (1) you have the kernel, then (2) you load whatever packages you require to get the functionality you desire. The bottom line is "it's the kernel stupid" (not directed at you and no offense meant)
None taken :) Peronally, I know SUSE Linux Professional CAN in fact handle Server loads. I use Pure FTPd on SUSE 9.1 Professional, on this box, which has 40 days of uptime, and last night it transferred 7 GB of data in a few minutes over my LAN. Stable. Heh I don't have the money for a server machine, but I do have some powerful machines.
So with regard to the thread, and the history of other distros that have suffered QA problems by rushing release # next out the door, the point to be made is -- don't short change the stability of the kernel in 9.2. Suse has done a great job with its kernels, recent growing pains aside. So I have no doubt Suse will do a good job with the 9.2 kernel, just don't forget about stability for those of us who rely on it.
Heh, I reply on SUSE more than I do most OS.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen" <gorebofh@comcast.net> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:43:03PM -0500, David Rankin wrote:
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have!
Amen Fred. After being wholly dissapointed with Mandrake 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 for that exact reason. I was thrilled with Suse 8.2 and 9.0. The jury is still out on 9.1 for reasons you describe. 9.2 needs to be bulletproof from a server standpoint. I look to move my production system to 9.2 after the list settles down regarding little glitches. Keep stability in mind! My Mandrake 7.2 box is getting very old.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004
18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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
*** Reply to message from Philipp Thomas <philipp.thomas@t-link.de> on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:58:06 +0200 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
boy, it just never ends, does it?? <g> -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit
--- jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:
*** Reply to message from Philipp Thomas <philipp.thomas@t-link.de> on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:58:06 +0200 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
boy, it just never ends, does it?? <g>
-- j -- nemo me impune lacessit
-- 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
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 12 Oct 2004 23:27, Fred Miller wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!! Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?! If 2.6.8 is used, it's going to be a VERY non-standard kernel!
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
You just can't please some people at all some times .. Ho Hummmmmmm .. Pete -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
onsdag 13 oktober 2004 02:08 skrev peter Nikolic:
On Tuesday 12 Oct 2004 23:27, Fred Miller wrote:
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
You just can't please some people at all some times ..
If you really wanna make a comparison with Porche, ya should've done it like ... comparing a real Porche, ya know the racecar one ... and then the smaller, public one that's got the Volks Wagen motor in it :-)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:46:43PM +0200, Örn Hansen wrote:
onsdag 13 oktober 2004 02:08 skrev peter Nikolic:
On Tuesday 12 Oct 2004 23:27, Fred Miller wrote:
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
You just can't please some people at all some times ..
If you really wanna make a comparison with Porche, ya should've done it like ... comparing a real Porche, ya know the racecar one ... and then the smaller, public one that's got the Volks Wagen motor in it :-)
Ah hell with Porche, Maclaren F1 beats them down so bad they can't stand up. 0-100 in 4 seconds, and I have video of one doing 391 on a long free way looking road.
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.' on Wed, Oct 13 at 18:18:
Ah hell with Porche, Maclaren F1 beats them down so bad they can't stand up. 0-100 in 4 seconds, and I have video of one doing 391 on a long free way looking road.
391Kph, maybe. I've done 196Mph in my El Camino. Man I was a dumb kid once. Anyway, the Ultima GTR will beat a Mclaren 0-100-0, costs a fraction (1/10) of the price, and you can build it yourself. www.ultimacars.com / www.ultimasports.co.uk --Danny, building more than just computers :)
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:58:27AM -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.' on Wed, Oct 13 at 18:18:
Ah hell with Porche, Maclaren F1 beats them down so bad they can't stand up. 0-100 in 4 seconds, and I have video of one doing 391 on a long free way looking road.
391Kph, maybe.
I believe it was. But it's not like anything in America will allow you too do that.
I've done 196Mph in my El Camino. Man I was a dumb kid once.
WUSSY! I've done 152 MPH in what I believe was a Moded to all hell Olds. I think it had a 502 but I'm not sure, this was quite a while ago and I was really not paying attention to the car. Couldn't, had to try and watch the road heh.The front end was picking itself up off thr ground so it was hard to go any faster, one good wind would have made it flip. Don't regret it though, it was FUN. I'd do it again. I'm not a "dumb kid" but I do know how to actually drive that fast safely and not get caugfht or killed which takes a lot of practice. Anyway, the
Ultima GTR will beat a Mclaren 0-100-0, costs a fraction (1/10) of the price, and you can build it yourself. www.ultimacars.com / www.ultimasports.co.uk
--Danny, building more than just computers :)
What the hell is that??
On Thursday 14 Oct 2004 06:58, Danny Sauer wrote:
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.' on Wed, Oct 13 at 18:18:
Ah hell with Porche, Maclaren F1 beats them down so bad they can't stand up. 0-100 in 4 seconds, and I have video of one doing 391 on a long free way looking road.
391Kph, maybe.
I've done 196Mph in my El Camino. Man I was a dumb kid once. Anyway, the Ultima GTR will beat a Mclaren 0-100-0, costs a fraction (1/10) of the price, and you can build it yourself. www.ultimacars.com / www.ultimasports.co.uk
--Danny, building more than just computers :) you want to try a DECENT Lancia Delta HF Intigrale 0-100 = 4.2 seconds ..
from 2.0 liters at that . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400, Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
In my case, no kernel before 2.6.8 worked well enough on my laptop thinkpad t42p. 2.6.8.1 with a few patches was the first kernel where everything worked including suspect to ram and suspend to disk - and reliably. I do not think we can dismiss an officially released kernel that easily. Osho
Osho GG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400, Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
In my case, no kernel before 2.6.8 worked well enough on my laptop thinkpad t42p. 2.6.8.1 with a few patches was the first kernel where everything worked including suspect to ram and suspend to disk - and reliably.
I do not think we can dismiss an officially released kernel that easily.
Osho
Well, I pre-ordered 9.2 today, so I'll find out soon enough what I think of it. :) -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
James Knott wrote:
Don Parris wrote:
Well, I pre-ordered 9.2 today, so I'll find out soon enough what I think of it. :)
Are they going to pre-ship it? ;-)
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Look, it's SUSE's own wording. :) I wish they _would_ "pre-ship" it - at least the CDs. The manuals could follow when they actually "ship" it. ;) -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
Don Parris wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Don Parris wrote:
Well, I pre-ordered 9.2 today, so I'll find out soon enough what I think of it. :)
Are they going to pre-ship it? ;-)
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Look, it's SUSE's own wording. :) I wish they _would_ "pre-ship" it - at least the CDs. The manuals could follow when they actually "ship" it. ;)
"Pre-order" reminds me of "pre-plan". How does it differ from "plan"? ;-) I've sat through enough meetings, to get more than my fill of such expressions. Another would be "solutioning" or "solutioned".
"Pre-order" reminds me of "pre-plan". How does it differ from "plan"? ;-)
sounds rather like when i used to work with the florida state government. we had "pre-meeting planning meetings" which usually ended up being a meeting to plan a meeting to plan a meeting.. i'm amazed i still have any shred of my sanity left.. .. oh, that's right.. i don't.. damn.. :( -- trey
Trey Gruel wrote:
"Pre-order" reminds me of "pre-plan". How does it differ from "plan"? ;-)
sounds rather like when i used to work with the florida state government. we had "pre-meeting planning meetings" which usually ended up being a meeting to plan a meeting to plan a meeting..
That sounds like something out of Dilbert. ;-)
*** Reply to message from Don Parris <webdev@matheteuo.org> on Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:30:46 -0400 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
add to this list of annoyances, "pre-board" an airplane ... or "check around your seat for your own *personal belongings*... " "Get on the plane..." frankly I'd rather get inside it thanks. OR "this will be a *non-stop* flight" oh nooooo, shouldn't it at least slow down as it passes our destination??? Many many appologies to George Carlin for messing w/ his routine... <VBG> -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show. Philipp
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 23.54, Philipp Thomas wrote:
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show.
No, preorder is perfectly fine English, it's not even a new construct, it's known since at least the 19th century, to mean "to order to arrange beforehand, to foreordain"
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:59:06PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 23.54, Philipp Thomas wrote:
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show.
No, preorder is perfectly fine English, it's not even a new construct, it's known since at least the 19th century, to mean "to order to arrange beforehand, to foreordain"
Du Habe AntiGerman thing? Mich is Elitar Computerindingling :) -Das Blut
-- 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 Thursday, 14 October 2004 01.15, Allen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:59:06PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 23.54, Philipp Thomas wrote:
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show.
No, preorder is perfectly fine English, it's not even a new construct, it's known since at least the 19th century, to mean "to order to arrange beforehand, to foreordain"
Du Habe AntiGerman thing?
huh? That's an interesting conclusion, how do you reach that? Nothing in the above - or in anything else I've posted for that matter - comes even close to saying that. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:26:09AM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday, 14 October 2004 01.15, Allen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:59:06PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2004 23.54, Philipp Thomas wrote:
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show.
No, preorder is perfectly fine English, it's not even a new construct, it's known since at least the 19th century, to mean "to order to arrange beforehand, to foreordain"
Du Habe AntiGerman thing?
huh? That's an interesting conclusion, how do you reach that? Nothing in the above - or in anything else I've posted for that matter - comes even close to saying that. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried
Man, it's a joke. Relax, I'm not accusing you of being a German hater. I'm playing.... You know, where someone says something to get a laugh out of others. I have noticed you are very serious, which scares me. You're either republican, or in good need of a smack on the butt and a beer or something. You're not playful at all huh? Heh, I can be more wrong, I'm a social engineer, I can amke people think a lot about me. Heh, now what may make you really scratch your head is, do I really ask questions because I don't know, or because I want to see how nice people are? :) Relax man, I wasn't trying to make you out to be a hate monger or something. Smile. Ohhh, one more thing, please let me know if this doesn't wrap text, I just finished setting up Mutt on my Slackware 10 machine, and I'm not sure if I had set up word wrap yet, so if this looks very annoying too read, please let me know on or off the list.
-- 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 Wed, 2004-10-13 at 16:54, Philipp Thomas wrote:
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:57 -0400]:
How does one "pre-order"? Either you ordered it, or you didn't.
Sigh, it's just a another case of germish. The German term is Vorbestellung for which a correct English term would have been 'advance booking', as http://dict.leo.org will show.
It's a bit odd that the use of pre-order by infomercials has been over looked.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 11:39 pm, Don Parris wrote:
Osho GG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400, Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
In my case, no kernel before 2.6.8 worked well enough on my laptop thinkpad t42p. 2.6.8.1 with a few patches was the first kernel where everything worked including suspect to ram and suspend to disk - and reliably.
I do not think we can dismiss an officially released kernel that easily.
Osho
Well, I pre-ordered 9.2 today, so I'll find out soon enough what I think of it. :)
'Will do the same tonight. Fred -- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 07:08 pm, Osho GG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400, Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
In my case, no kernel before 2.6.8 worked well enough on my laptop thinkpad t42p. 2.6.8.1 with a few patches was the first kernel where everything worked including suspect to ram and suspend to disk - and reliably.
I do not think we can dismiss an officially released kernel that easily.
Osho
Agreed. You would at least thing someone would try it before bashing it. Either that or wait till 9.3 or jump distros. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:24:18PM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 07:08 pm, Osho GG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400, Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> wrote:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
In my case, no kernel before 2.6.8 worked well enough on my laptop thinkpad t42p. 2.6.8.1 with a few patches was the first kernel where everything worked including suspect to ram and suspend to disk - and reliably.
I do not think we can dismiss an officially released kernel that easily.
Osho
Agreed. You would at least thing someone would try it before bashing it. Either that or wait till 9.3 or jump distros.
=o BLASPHEMER! SUSE and Slackware are the best of the best. How anyone would switch from SUSE is beyone me.
-- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.' on Tue, Oct 12 at 23:38:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:24:18PM -0800, John Andersen wrote: [...]
Agreed. You would at least thing someone would try it before bashing it. Either that or wait till 9.3 or jump distros.
=o
BLASPHEMER!
SUSE and Slackware are the best of the best. How anyone would switch from SUSE is beyone me.
What if they switched from SuSE to Slackware? :) --Danny
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:54:18AM -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:
Allen wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.' on Tue, Oct 12 at 23:38:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:24:18PM -0800, John Andersen wrote: [...]
Agreed. You would at least thing someone would try it before bashing it. Either that or wait till 9.3 or jump distros.
=o
BLASPHEMER!
SUSE and Slackware are the best of the best. How anyone would switch from SUSE is beyone me.
What if they switched from SuSE to Slackware? :)
Well, that would be "OK" I guess, but still! Anything else is just un-civilized.
--Danny
participants (19)
-
Allen -
Anders Johansson -
Andre Lourenco -
Bruce Marshall -
Danny Sauer -
David Rankin -
Don Parris -
Fred Miller -
James Knott -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
John Andersen -
Mike McMullin -
Osho GG -
peter Nikolic -
Philipp Thomas -
Shawn Faulkingham -
Terence McCarthy -
Trey Gruel -
Örn Hansen