From my expirience the only thinkg I wuold avoid on 9.1 is USB/FIREWIRE disks. I don't really understand what the new setup does, but it don't work, and causes problems.
Things that are hard to get working on linux, or are card dependant (not suse nor version specific): SATA, and wireless. Other than theese things I've had no problems. I have been running 3 SuSE 9.1 systems, for weeks now. My server, upgraded from 9.0 with no problems (after I disconnected the SATA) One workstation, SuSE 9.1 dual boot (with win XP pro/98) and my laptop (an IBM A30p), clean installation. I've found SuSE 9.1 to be a good improvement over 9.0, and 9.0 was a great leap over 8.2. My only complaint to SuSE is the version numbers. It's obvious that the marketing department has taken controll of the version numbers, which is really a pitty since that means that the version number no longer represent the development nor the state of the SuSE system. Instead they represent what the marketing people wish us to think. In other words they are a direct attempt to mislead the customers, which I find insulting. I know that the marketing controlled version numbers is the way that the industry does buisness. But that is still not an excuse I accept for the attempt misleading me. Enough Ranting.... SuSE 9.1 (Or a beter name would be 10.0) is the first distribution with the new 2.6 kernel. (9.0 was supposed to be but it just was not ready. So 2.6 was only offered as a "Test" environment). This is basically the problem, and the blessing: New 2.6 kernel features are there and work! but as with all major release changes some old things break. The upgrade from SuSE 9.0 to 9.1 offers less problems than the change from win2000 to winxp, Oh I forgot, there is no upgrade path between the two! But you all see what I mean. Jerry P.S. Thanks all at SuSE for there continued efforts. You are doing a great job, (even with 9.1). But please don't allow marketing to define your version numbers, it's costing you customers, and future sales. On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 12:07, expatriate wrote:
I've been reading all I can about 9.1. I've got a hacked 8.2 system that I'd like to restore back to originality (some downloaded packages don't compile or rpm nicely anymore) or move to 9.1 and start fresh. My hardware is fairly new and 8.2 gave little or no trouble (I tend to forget bad experiences). My wife's hardware is similar but a bit newer. I put 9.0 on it and only the sound gave some trouble (volume control can only be achieved via PCM instead of Master). Anyway, my impression from reading all the comments is that I should avoid 9.1. My typical daily usage is gcc/gdb/nedit/vi, javac/java, mozilla, telnet/ftp (to my local machines running other OSses) OpenOffice, GIMP, mplayer/realplayer and others in a GNOME environment. Should embrace or avoid 9.1 ?