Nicole Schenk wrote:

> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>
> I was running Mandrake 10.1. However, it would not handle my wireless
> card, so I changed to Suse9.2.
> Extremely slow - it is like running on the CD version of Mandrake.
> I am thinking of buying the wireless card supported by Mandrake and going
> back to it.

See my cheat sheet.
http://www.gregorytoomey.com/index.p...&id=3&Itemid=2

gtoomey

Gregory Toomey wrote:

> If theres a post to multiple groups including comp.os.linux.advocacy, its
> a troll.
>
> gtoomey

Toomey.

Weren't you that weird guy in Steven King's The Langoliers ?

--
Language is a virus from outer space.
--William S. Burroughs

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:48:06 GMT, John Bailo wrote:
> Gregory Toomey wrote:
>
>> If theres a post to multiple groups including comp.os.linux.advocacy, its
>> a troll.
>>
>> gtoomey
>
> Toomey.
>
> Weren't you that weird guy in Steven King's The Langoliers ?

I was just thinking that same thing myself. Didn't he rip up paper or something?

--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
8:45PM up 19 days, 2:07, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:31:28 +0000, Nicole Schenk wrote:

> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>
>> Why is Suse 9.s so slow compared to Mandrake 10.1?
>> I migrated from Mandrake to Suse because I had heard good things about it
>> but my experience is the oppposite, suse is very slow and seems to be
>> riddled with bugs.
>> I am greatful for one thing and that is I didn't pay anything for this
>> garbage.
>> Suse should forget about trying to be everything to everyone and at least
>> release a version of Linux that works.
>> Back to Mandrake for me.
>> Chedda
> I was running Mandrake 10.1. However, it would not handle my wireless card,
> so I changed to Suse9.2.
> Extremely slow - it is like running on the CD version of Mandrake.
> I am thinking of buying the wireless card supported by Mandrake and going
> back to it.

Thant is a good description of Suse. Why is this distribution so slow
compared to other pre-packaged distributions? Persoanlly, I did not like
Mandrake because it's update/configuration system is not as good as Suse's
yast system.
Is there anything that can be done to speed up a default Suse installation?
Turning off services maybe?
Chedda

begin Amarnaut Chedda wrote:

> Why is Suse 9.s so slow compared to Mandrake 10.1?

Body slime in the circuitry again, Flatfish?

begin Amarnaut Chedda wrote:

> I am not understanding you.

Please ask your aquarium keeper for an explanation.

> What is a flatfish?

Flatfish Flat"fish`, n. (Zool.)

Any fish of the family Pleuronectid[ae]; esp., the winter
flounder (Pleuronectes Americanus). The flatfishes have the
body flattened, swim on the side, and have eyes on one side,
as the flounder, turbot, and halibut. See Flounder.

--
"[WinFS] is a brand-new data model, and it satisfies a whole class of
applications that frankly have been unsatisfied from a data model
perspective since the beginning of history."
-- Bob Muglia. Director, Windows Servers. Microsoft Corporation.

begin Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:31:28 +0000, Nicole Schenk wrote:

Another unrehearsed sock puppet skit.

In comp.os.linux.setup Gregory Toomey <nospam@bigpond.com>:
> Nicole Schenk wrote:

>> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>>
>> I was running Mandrake 10.1. However, it would not handle my wireless
>> card, so I changed to Suse9.2.
>> Extremely slow - it is like running on the CD version of Mandrake.
>> I am thinking of buying the wireless card supported by Mandrake and going
>> back to it.

> See my cheat sheet.
> http://www.gregorytoomey.com/index.p...&id=3&Itemid=2

That's comparing mdk 10 and suse 9.1.

Anyway, found suse 9.2 pretty broken and dog slow, it can't even
mount some usb mass storage device, the same device worked
without problems on suse 9.0 on the same box:

kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1]
[..]
kernel: EIP: 0060:[<e0e4bb80>] Tainted: GF VLI

No crash, but it doesn't look that great.

Dunno why the kernel is tainted at all, it's the current update
kernel (all patches applied) for suse 9.2. Looks like suse comes
with a broken (tainted) kernel per default.

$ uname -r
2.6.8-24.5-default

Strange that the automatic update wasn't able to install some
athlon kernel?

I refuse to compile a custom kernel on the box in question only
to get those simple things working and think about trying out
mandrake on the machine, perhaps this works better, then the ever
getting more annoying suse. You get blind only from the numerous
"suse"/"novell" printing, no matter where you look, the whole
system is blasted with it.

Just unsure about the mandrake (license) offers, regarding patch
download, is it free if buying the distro? I'd like a DVD, but
found the various offers quite confusing, there's a community
(DVD) version. Remains unclear what's the difference to the other
offers or if the DVD .iso is download-able?

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 416: We're out of slots on the server

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:56:42 +0000, 7 wrote:

> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>
>> Why is Suse 9.s so slow compared to Mandrake 10.1? I migrated from
>> Mandrake to Suse because I had heard good things about it but my
>> experience is the oppposite, suse is very slow and seems to be riddled
>> with bugs.
>> I am greatful for one thing and that is I didn't pay anything for this
>> garbage.
>> Suse should forget about trying to be everything to everyone and at
>> least release a version of Linux that works. Back to Mandrake for me.
>> Chedda
>
> Dear flat fish,
> Try pre-linking for speed.
> The problem is that you need to be replaced by a trained techie. Please
> resign and let management choose better staff to replace you.

No, that just slows boot/login. Anyhow Mandrakes boot/login is much faster
than SuSE's as well as applications.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:41:58 -0800, Joe Cipale wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>>
>> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:56:42 +0000, 7 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Why is Suse 9.s so slow compared to Mandrake 10.1? I migrated from
>> >>> Mandrake to Suse because I had heard good things about it but my
>> >>> experience is the oppposite, suse is very slow and seems to be
>> >>> riddled with bugs.
>> >>> I am greatful for one thing and that is I didn't pay anything for
>> >>> this garbage.
>> >>> Suse should forget about trying to be everything to everyone and at
>> >>> least release a version of Linux that works. Back to Mandrake for
>> >>> me.
>> >>> Chedda
>> >>
>> >> Dear flat fish,
>> >> Try pre-linking for speed.
>> >> The problem is that you need to be replaced by a trained techie.
>> >> Please resign and let management choose better staff to replace you.
>> >
>> > I am not understanding you. How does your answer explain why Mandrake
>> > is so much faster than Suse. I did not do a thing to Mandrake, or Suse
>> > for that matter. What is a flatfish?
>>
>> Signorita, flat fish is a fishy meal served flat side up with tartar
>> sauce.
>>
>> Yum yum.
>>
>> No I can't supply you with information about Mandrake v. Suse unless you
>> post some test results like how long it took to copy a 100Mb file for
>> instance.
>
> If you want to execute performance tests, execute bonnie++ a couple of
> times on each distro. That will give you an idea of performanace:
> perceived vs. real.

Perception is everything.

roy



>
> Joe