On May 23, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Kevanf1 wrote:

This came from a Magazine comparison that I read.

A review? Please, do tell who... google doesn't tell... -- Thanks, George Best to keep your mouth closed and let people think you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:15 +0100, Kevanf1 wrote:

What's the boot up time like compared to 10? I've heard it averages out at twice as long to boot 10.1 This came from a Magazine comparison that I read.

I think that may be accurate. Mine is taking even longer. Oddly, when the nvidia kernel drivers are loaded there is also a 10 sec or so delay. I see that many more services are being started than was the case with 10.0. Like Zen. And ppp, which I do not use and did not ask for. I guess service trimming would return the boot to 10.0 times. -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems AB Ramböll Sverige AB Kapellgränd 7 P.O. Box 4205 SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden Tel: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Fax: Int +46 8-31 42 23

Kevanf1 wrote:

On 23/05/06, Chaitanya Chalasani wrote:

...

Hi,

I received my SuSE 10.1 Box yesterday through DHL. Removed the previous SuSE 10.0 installation ( after data backup ) and installed 10.1 with XFS this time. The installation went very smoothly and significantly faster than 10.0. The bugs in 10.0 that annoyed me are all gone now. Kde 3.5 is very responsive. I tried XGL but not so quick on my Intel 910GL graphics chipset. The new NetworkManager was buggy and so I moved to the traditional ifup. Thanks for SuSE team for giving this option in configurations. XEN worked pretty neatly also though I don't use it. I downloaded libdvdcss and w32codecs and the xine now plays encrypted DVD's and mp3. I choose xine engine for amarok and it plays mp3 beautiful. I could read my iPod using ipod:/ kio_slave but amarok doesn't play directly from iPod, instead i have to copy them to local folder and run them. I haven't yet checked the rest, but so far damn impressive.

---- Chaitanya Chalasani.

What's the boot up time like compared to 10? I've heard it averages out at twice as long to boot 10.1 This came from a Magazine comparison that I read.

Yes, I think that it takes longer to boot. But it may not be totally SuSE's fault- it could be the 2.6.x kernel which according to Andrew Morton (it's main maintainer) says that it has too many bugs. Linus (Torvald) agrees with him and states that perhaps it is time to stop further development and fix the bugs. See article on www.theinquirer.net dated 9/5/06 (do a search on either Torvald or Morton). Cheers. -- All answers questioned here.

Kevanf1 wrote:

On 23/05/06, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Yes, I think that it takes longer to boot.

But it may not be totally SuSE's fault- it could be the 2.6.x kernel which according to Andrew Morton (it's main maintainer) says that it has too many bugs. Linus (Torvald) agrees with him and states that perhaps it is time to stop further development and fix the bugs. See article on www.theinquirer.net dated 9/5/06 (do a search on either Torvald or Morton).

Cheers.

I've heard that about the kernel too. I've taken a look and the magazine is Linux Format but it's issue 78 which is too new to show on the website :-(

However, they claim a boot time of 50 seconds on their test PC for SuSE 10. It was nearly double that on the same PC for 10.1 Obviously it doesn't matter if you tend to leave your PC on 24/7 I don't, however :-( The main PC lives in the bedroom and I do like to get some sleep :-)))

Unbelievable - using the bedroom for sleeping. You must be over 40 years old then? :-) Cheers. -- All answers questioned here.

At 10:13 PM 5/23/2006 +1000, Basil Chupin wrote: /snip/

...

What's the boot up time like compared to 10? I've heard it averages out at twice as long to boot 10.1 This came from a Magazine comparison that I read.

Yes, I think that it takes longer to boot.

But it may not be totally SuSE's fault- it could be the 2.6.x kernel which according to Andrew Morton (it's main maintainer) says that it has too many bugs. Linus (Torvald) agrees with him and states that perhaps it is time to stop further development and fix the bugs. See article on www.theinquirer.net dated 9/5/06 (do a search on either Torvald or Morton).

AMEN! --dm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 20:26 +0100, Graham Anderson wrote:

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 11:15, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

What's the boot up time like compared to 10? I've heard it averages out at twice as long to boot 10.1 This came from a Magazine comparison that I read.

Bullshit... You heard wrong, i'd stop buying a magazine if it came up with results as innaccurate as that.

It's marginally slower as AppArmor and ZMD also initialise on boot in addition to *almost the exact same* services that a default 10.0 installation has.

But really, the difference is marginal.

I just booted both and see that in 10.0, the GUI login screen is started immediately after the network devices are up, but before all the other run level stuff is started. So, during the login, the system startup continues in the background. With 10.1 the GUI login seems to start after all the run level stuff is completed. So, perhaps the time is very similiar to get to the point when all is started. But in 10.0 the login appears earlier. -- Roger Oberholtzer