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.
<snip>
> 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.

Not sure about M10.1 but I ran M10 for awhile and noticed no difference in
speed between that and SuSe 9.1. I'm now running 9.2 and apps load much
faster than in 9.1 under KDE. I haven't tried any direct speed comparisons
(see this post for a request:
<1fkkrjs4n1xrs$.1qn43ead75p5h$.dlg@40tude.net> ) but imagine someone will.
Hey, I'm not stuck on SuSE, though it seems to be one of the best. My only
other Distro I am thinking of trying is Xandros, though I'll wait for 4.0
to show up.

--
kai
www.filesite.org
"i believe in what i'm doing, but what is it i'm doing here"

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:00:50 -0500, 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?

If you were in any way genuine, you would know.

--
Kier

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:43:59 -0500, Amarnaut Chedda wrote:

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

Is it? I hadn't noticed.

> 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.

Well, I was trying out a SUSE 9.2 Live CD the other day, and it was pretty
fast and stable. So the installed version shouldn't be slow, I'd assume
it would run far faster. And I encountered no bugs. I was extremely
impressed by it.

> I am greatful for one thing and that is I didn't pay anything for this
> garbage.

Why don't you get a new script? This one is so old and tired it's really
not worth peddling any more.

> Suse should forget about trying to be everything to everyone and at least
> release a version of Linux that works.

SUSE works (and I an a Mandrake user, so I'm not biased). From what I saw
on the Live CD (actually, to be strictly accurate, it was a DVD, from
Linux Format mag), if I were to contemplate switching my distro, SUSE
would be my first choice of an alternative.

> Back to Mandrake for me.

I'd be very surprised if you'd ever seen a Linux installation, let alone
actually used one.

--
Kier

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.

I tried a lot of Linux distros, and had settled on Mandrake 10 community.
Someone suggested 'upgrading' to official. Ever hear the old adage, if it
ain't broke, don't fix it? Certainly applied there! So, after meesing up
my once hreat running system, I decided Mandrake wasn't the answer either.
Have been running SuSe 9.1 since, but after seeing some of the postings
here, I think I'll stay right here, thank you! Works for me!

The only problems I have had was with changing monitors: X doesn't like
change. But a little massaging and...

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 am a SuSE user since 8.2, actually i'm running 9.2 on a recent IBM Laptop
with all the gadget on it and everything was working since first boot. It
is performant and very stable. I'm paying for my garbage and I love it.
It is not expensive for a real distro that rocks!

roy wrote:
> 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.

But everything is nothing.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:24:45 +0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

> roy wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But everything is nothing.

But nothing is real.

"Jerry Basham" <ohboy@spamontoast.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.14.19.39.43.719966@spamontoast.ne t...
>>> Perception is everything.
>>
>> But everything is nothing.
>
> But nothing is real.
>

But how would we know? If everything is nothing and nothing is real, then
perception must be flawed. If perception may be flawed then how can we trust
it?

Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
One thing that Suse does have going for it. It works. I have installed, or
tried, Mandrake 10.1, Fedora Core r3, Xandros 2.5, and Ubuntu. None of them
installed without eventually hanging to a blank screen. But no problems
with Suse. I would prefer to use a free Fedora Core, but I am still with
Suse because it works the first time every time.


> 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

Jeffrey Davidson, <jeffreyldavidson@yahoo.com>, the crinkly, useless monkey,
and scene-shifter, insisted:


> Amarnaut Chedda wrote:
> One thing that Suse does have going for it. It works. I have installed, or
> tried, Mandrake 10.1, Fedora Core r3, Xandros 2.5, and Ubuntu. None of
> them installed without eventually hanging to a blank screen. But no
> problems with Suse. I would prefer to use a free Fedora Core, but I am
> still with Suse because it works the first time every time.

Well, either your kit is total rubbish or you're a fuckwit. I am a 100%
linux n00b and had no trouble installing or running Mandrake 10.1 OE (6 CD
set), Xandros 2.0 (upgraded to 2.5 via XN), and Ubuntu Warty. Not to
mention the now quite dead yoper and jollix distros, nor my hand-rolled
gentoo stage 2. The problems stated /after/ they were installed and
running. I will not comment on FC3 because I refuse to use it.

In summary, since you use SuSE, it can't be your kit, so you must be a
fuckwit.

--
Conversations with Fuckwits:
Kadaitcha Man: "There are some people who do not... "
mlw <mlw@nospam.no>: "You are wrong. Completely wrong. 99% of people do!"