Ok, how bout SuSE 9.0?

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:04:06PM -0400, Fairlight wrote:
> With neither thought nor caution, Bill Campbell blurted:
> > On Sat, May 22, 2004, Felipe Perdomo wrote:
> > >   Doesn't seem like anyone is using 9.1.  Does anyone have filepro
> > >   running under 9.0?  Can you let me know what your
> > 
> > IHMO SuSE 9.1 is pretty bleeding edge, at least as far as the kernel is
> > concerned.  We've just installed it on one machine to do some testing, and
> > haven't had time to do much more than see if it supports a USB Wireless
> > device that we have running on SuSE 9.0 with some tweaking.
> 
> I second that on the kernel.  You're going to want to wait until about
> 2.6.18 or so before really considering it for production environments, if
> history is any indicator.  Just ask anyone that got bitten by 2.4.15, the
> "stable" kernel that wiped whole filesystems on proper shutdowns and in
> other conditions.  I generally won't consider a stable tree until about .18
> or so, as that's when 2.2 became stable at last.  If that takes six months
> or a year, so be it.
> 
> As for SuSE 9.0 and fP, fP runs flawlessly on it with -no- tweaking.  The
> system I'm thinking of had 5.0.13 put on it, and it was absolutely fine.
> Colours, keymap, graphics characters all worked with no modification to
> either fP or SuSE whatsoever.

Concur; we've got at least one production client mahcine converted to
it; no problems at all.  If this isn't fP's new target platform, it
should be.

CHeers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida        http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

        "They had engineers in my day, too."  -- Perry Vance Nelson