Re: [SLE] Sorry SuSE: 9.1 is Waste of time and money!
Terje J. Hanssen wrote Sat May 29 2004:
I am sorry to conclude that my upgrade from SuSE 9.0 Pro to 9.1 Pro has been waste of time and money for me, so far. The same I have to say about the free SuSE "Installation support".
The reason is that my SuSE 9.1 installation only detects 1 of my 3 SCSCI devices (as I wrote in another subject on this forum: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2004-May/3254.html)
Yamaha 4416S CDRW recorder detected HP DVD Writer 100i NOT detected Epson 1640SU scanner NOT detected
Terje J. Hanssen wrote Sun May 30 2004:
Downgraded and reinstalled SuSe 9.0 (over 9.1):
Yamaha 4416S CDRW recorder detected and works HP DVD Writer 100i detected and works Epson 1640SU scanner detected and works
SuSE 9.0 works ........ :-)
Well, I started this thread and wish to round it off from my side. My aim was not "black or white" SuSE, but a feedback and constructive criticism to get a better and working 9.1, as I would expect from SuSE! And I feel sure that this gradually will be the case; SuSe simply have to the sooner the better. The main reason I guess, has been that the hungry Linux people have called for the new 2.6 kernel, and that SuSE eagered to show that they were the first to be able to deliver. In my opinion, 9.1 is not ready for production yet and should not have official released and sold so early. It should still have been in beta and for free download some time, so that most of the arised installation and hardware issues could be uncovered and fixed. Customers buying the 9.1 upgrade from SuSE, simply expect that 9.1 works properly when replacing 9.0 on the same hardware, without paying extra support to solve initial weaknesses. If not, this should have been a new primary 10.0 release. Regarding hardware, I wish to mentione as a SuSE plus at the end that I originally bought SuSE 9.0 Pro, when it proved to install and work streamlined on my Intel N440BX/Astor server. Redhat 9.0 which I tried first to install, didn't even detect this SCSI hotswap back panel and that installer broke each attempt. Also SuSe 9.1 has now installed OK on this older plain SCSI hardware, and I haven't discovered any hardware detection issues, though I have had limited time to test it. Therefore, while working with 9.0 on my workstation, I am still waiting for a working 9.1 for my payed Pro Upgrade ........ Terje J. Hanssen
On Monday 31 May 2004 04:03 pm, Terje J. Hanssen wrote:
Well, I started this thread and wish to round it off from my side. My aim was not "black or white" SuSE, but a feedback and constructive criticism to get a better and working 9.1, as I would expect from SuSE! And I feel sure that this gradually will be the case; SuSe simply have to the sooner the better. The main reason I guess, has been that the hungry Linux people have called for the new 2.6 kernel, and that SuSE eagered to show that they were the first to be able to deliver.
I think you wrong in blaming the kernel. I've been running 2.6.4, 2.6.5, and now 2.6.6 kernels on 9.0 for quite some time now and have seen absolutely no problems. But then, SuSE seems to have a history of mucking up the vanilla kernels by patching and messing with things. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 05/31/04 16:11 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "In the first place, God made idiots; this was for practice; then He made school boards. -- Mark Twain"
On Monday 31 May 2004 21:13, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 31 May 2004 04:03 pm, Terje J. Hanssen wrote:
Well, I started this thread and wish to round it off from my side. My aim was not "black or white" SuSE, but a feedback and constructive criticism to get a better and working 9.1, as I would expect from SuSE! And I feel sure that this gradually will be the case; SuSe simply have to the sooner the better. The main reason I guess, has been that the hungry Linux people have called for the new 2.6 kernel, and that SuSE eagered to show that they were the first to be able to deliver.
I think you wrong in blaming the kernel.
I've been running 2.6.4, 2.6.5, and now 2.6.6 kernels on 9.0 for quite some time now and have seen absolutely no problems. But then, SuSE seems to have a history of mucking up the vanilla kernels by patching and messing with things.
Patching indeed SuSE does ;) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fedora-test-list&m=108465565022752&w=2 -- ____________________________________________________________________ Frederic P. Soulier frederic@wallaby.uklinux.net OpenPGP key available on http://www.keyserver.net 1024D/BA6700ED 49A6 8E8E 4230 8D41 1ADE B649 3203 1DD2 BA67 00ED _____________________________________________________________________
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 31 May 2004 04:03 pm, Terje J. Hanssen wrote:
Well, I started this thread and wish to round it off from my side. My aim was not "black or white" SuSE, but a feedback and constructive criticism to get a better and working 9.1, as I would expect from SuSE! And I feel sure that this gradually will be the case; SuSe simply have to the sooner the better. The main reason I guess, has been that the hungry Linux people have called for the new 2.6 kernel, and that SuSE eagered to show that they were the first to be able to deliver.
I think you wrong in blaming the kernel.
I've been running 2.6.4, 2.6.5, and now 2.6.6 kernels on 9.0 for quite some time now and have seen absolutely no problems. But then, SuSE seems to have a history of mucking up the vanilla kernels by patching and messing with things.
Same here, I'm running 2.6.7-rc2 on 9.1 and have been running 2.6.0-pre onwards on 9.0, 32-bit box and laptop and a 64-bit Athlon laptop. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer Linux Only Shop.
participants (4)
-
Bruce Marshall -
Frederic Soulier -
Sid Boyce -
Terje J. Hanssen