[conspire] Upcoming meeting dates
daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Sat Oct 29 18:41:25 PDT 2005
Oops again: make that two more:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:37:13 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> One more SuSE page I should have mentioned:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:59:35 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Here are a couple of selected relevant quotes from the SuSE website:
>> What's the Difference Between the CD and DVD Edition
>> The DVD edition contains the complete 64-bit version of SUSE Linux 10.0 as
>> well as a streamlined 32bit version of the software. The CD edition
>> contains a complete 32-bit version of SUSE Linux 10.0. Approximately 450
>> additional packages not available on the 32-bit version included on the
>> downloadable DVD image. These additional packages are mostly language
>> packages for applications and development versions of various software
>> SUSE Linux 10.0 Eval version
>> Alternatively, download the Eval DVD ISO image. It includes an installable
>> evaluation version that can be later upgraded to the complete product.
>> One major problem with installing SuSE 10 is that the ide-generic driver
>> is built as a module, both in the installer and in the installed system.
>> This is a driver needed on quite a few systems to see the CD drive to
>> install from, and it is not autoloaded. One must use a kernel argument
>> when booting the installer, such as insmod=ide-generic, to get it to
>> install at all, and once it's installed, it won't boot until you rebuild
>> the initrd for the stock kernel with that module included.
>> Installing from the 5 downloaded CDs on such a system, an added problem
>> appeared: When it asked for the second CD, it wouldn't recognize the
>> second CD upon insertion even though the md5sum matched, making it
>> impossible to complete the installation.
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:24:35 -0700, Adrien Lamothe wrote:
>>> Hi Peter and Rick,
>>> Yes, I was very unimpressed with the "Eval" SuSE 10.0,
>>> it was very bad. Thankfully, it didn't mess up my SuSE
>>> 9.3 installation.
>>> I'm not convinced that the "Eval" 10.0 is the same as
>>> the packaged version (available at Fry's for $59.95.)
>>> The "Eval" lacked decent fonts while installing, I
>>> have a hard time believing it has taken such a step
>>> It appears SuSE went to version 10.0 because of the
>>> new community process. None of the software components
>>> are significantly newer than in 9.3. I'm very happy
>>> with 9.3 and plan on staying with it for a long time.
>>> I'm looking forward to KDE 4.0 (will be based on QT
>>> 4.0), but it looks to be at least one year away.
>>> Regarding multimedia, I think it is a problem with
>>> Linux in general, especially on older hardware. On my
>>> dual-boot system, Winamp sounds much better under
>>> Windows than it does under Linux, it is the same old
>>> driver issue.
>>> Adrien Lamothe
>>> "The revolution will not be televised. The monkeys
>>> will be removed from the thrones and placed back into
>>> their cages."
>>> --- Peter Knaggs <peter.knaggs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/05, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>>> > Adrian tried out SUSE Linux 10.0 Eval Edition for
>>>> i386 (5 CDs), one of
>>>> > two successors to SUSE Linux 9.3 Professional
>>>> Edition, but so far has
>>>> > been very unimpressed by its quality control
>>>> during installation to his
>>>> > laptop.
>>>> I also tried SuSE 10.0 (RC1 at the time) on
>>>> a Toshiba Tecra 9000 laptop, and found it to
>>>> still have quite a few of rough edges
>>>> compared to SuSE 9.3 on the same machine.
>>>> At the time, apt support for 10.0 isn't there
>>>> yet, so to get any audio or video would have
>>>> involved a lot of building from source, as
>>>> SuSE 10.0 seems to be sticking with the
>>>> no-multimedia policy.
>>>> I intrepidly tried a YOU update, to get
>>>> a security update, but the result was a broken
>>>> Wireless and software suspend worked,
>>>> but not as well as they work in Debian-based
>>>> Kanotix 2005_03, which is still what the
>>>> laptop feels happiest running.
>>>> > Don't be nervous: If you for some reason are
>>>> considering RHEL, you probably want CentOS instead:
>>>> Indeed. Especially if you want timely
>>>> support for things oracle databases tend
>>>> to need, like the asmlib kernel module.
>>>> The following page provided asmlib for
>>>> CentOS more than three months before it was
>>>> available for the "real" RHEL4.
More information about the conspire