Re: RedHat 10 wishlist
From: David A. Frantz (wizard_at_eznet.net)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:38:07 -0400
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:03:16 -0700, Keith Clark wrote:
> "David A. Frantz" wrote:
>> While current performance is not there that will come just as it has with
>> previous revisions to PATA. But performance is not everything SATA
>> offers other advantages.
> Such as? A smaller cheaper cable? LOL!!! Thanks but I'll save my money and buy
> ATA-100 drives as their performance is more than adequate and I can hook 4 of them to
> a controller, vs 2 more expensive and not faster SATA drives to one
Well those cables can be and advantage if your trying to stuff alot of
electronics into a small box. Plus I believe that they use the cables on
the smaller form factor drives.
You are right that the expense could be and issue though I do believe that
this will change over time. On the other hand the interface is free on
my current mother board. While SCSI would certainly be faster and more
robust there is an even greater expense associated with these drives.
>> While I agree that compiling just the kernel is not earth shaking as
>> Redhat has become more bloated any performance advantage you can get is
>> advantageous. But I was talking about optimizations to the rest of the
>> distros, especially the command interpeters and such. Such optimizations
>> can have a very big impact.
> Yeah, I forgot about those things and I agree with you.
>> I'm currently building up a machine, so I will keep these suggestions in
>> mind. Need to get past a the Serial ATA problem so this is a slooow
>> build ;).
> Why??? Use a standard drive and you'll have no problems. Why in the world are you
> wasting money and time on S-ATA?
In my case free ports. The expense of the drives is not all that great
relative to SCSI, and even a extra PATA controller will cost me a little.
While I have to agree that the is a current cost performance issue with
SATA, it is only there due to being new technology.
>> I agree that the choice is there. The problem is htat on my old system I
>> had to abandon most of the new features in RH9 to almost return to the
>> performance I had with 7.2. This does not speak well of the distro
>> overall. At the same time with the machine I'm currently building up I
>> have to struggle to get the modern hardware to work. So we are really
>> dealing with a two edge sword here.
> ??? No way. Red Hat 9 kicks ass. Especially with an Nvidia graphics card, the 2.6
> kernel, and the Nvidia proprietary driver.
> I had ZERO struggles getting a box I built 3 weeks ago to work with RedHat 9 and
> modern hardware. I just don't use SATA drives because they're a waste of money (not
> faster + more expensive = waste of money).
Well if SATA was my only problem with 9 we wouldn't even be having this
discussion, but my ATI video card has driver issues also. Now to a
certian extent I can understand this due to both of these being new
technology. If time permits I will try this weekend to get an older ATI
driver working - so far I've seen nothing for XFree 4.3. on ATI's web
site. Bit of a shame if you ask me, at one itme I thought ATI was
supporting XFree pretty good, I geuss that not the case any more.
Considering all of the above RH9 is much snappier on my new PC even
running just the VESA server. There is a big difference moving from a
500 MHz system to a 2 GHz system with a gig of ram. On the other hand on
my old PC the move from RH7.2 to RH9 was a total shock. The performance
hit was tremendous, even ram expansion would not eliminate the issue
>> Yes I agree with this to an extent. On the other hand it does look like
>> REdhat is to wrap more stuff into its coming workstation release that I
>> find interesting.
> How about a hardened kernel suitable for a "five nines" telco environment? I think
> that would be pretty significant. I know they're working on adapting the telco
> specific changes to the kernel that Intel and others have made (currently in Monta
> Vista Linux).
>> > What would be better would be for someone else to develop it and for Red Hat to
>> > include it on the CD. It's not RedHat's job to be developing terminal
>> > emulators.
>> Wel this is where I really have to disagree, at least as to what Redhats
>> funciton is. I truely look at Redhat as a software development companie.
>> As such they should be responsive to customer needs.
> They can be responsive to needs by including a pre-existing open source terminal
> emulator that they know to be robust without wasting development resources on it
> themselves. That frees up their developer resources to make the *OS* rock solid, and
> that's where the focus should be.
Well this I ahve to admit makes sense ;)
> Screw "Blue Curve" since it's trivial to change it anyway. All Blue Cure is is a
> "theme". Go to www.themedepot.org and download themes to your heart's content. If
> you're worried about "bloat" and speed of launching applications and such go with KDE
> as your desktop (just be sure to also install Gnome as there are some excellent
> utilities and some third party applications require Gnome anyway). I prefer Gnome
> myself since to me KDE is way too much like Windows and I don't want to feel like I'm
> using a Windows machine. My 3.2 GHz CPU, Nvidia FX5600 graphics card, dual channel
> PC-3700 DDR and Ultra-160 SCSI boot drive and the 2.6 kernel make my system extremely
> responsive no matter which desktop I'm running (since I do primarily video editing on
> the machine the fast CPU is pretty much required and really it's just a 2.4 GHz P4
> that I overclocked to save money :->).
Well at this point I do have my new machine booting up (on a PATA drive)
and it is pretty responsive considering its running a vesa card driver at
the moment. This is in the standard gnome environment - I still may
switch back to windowmaker or something similar for normal usage. I like
the cleaner interface.
You are correct though that it is easy to switch environments, I currently
do this on my old machine. One simple logs out selects the new window
manager and goes from there. The way I se though is that Redhat screws
up in supplying two bloated window managers in the default install and not
supplying a low over head manager in the standard install. I fully
realize I can add my own, but as far as I'm concerned Redhat is wasting
their time with gnome.
>> I was under the impression that USB2 support wasn't there yet. If it is
>> the case that the kernel supports the standard fully then I stand
> Well, I know it's in the kernel, but I haven't done any testing with USB 2 devices
> myself. I'm sure others have, as the company I work for supports Red Hat on compact
> PCI blades with USB, so I think it's safe to say "it works" but of course "standard
> compliant" is a whole different ball game, and again, that's not a RedHat issue, but
> a kernel issue. RedHat chooses which kernel to use, but to my knowledge they don't
> specifically write kernel updates. I may be wrong of course...actually I hope I am. I
> know Adaptec supports kernel development, as does Intel and other major players...
Well I was looking at this from the standpoint that Redhat does employ
kernel hackers. In any event my understanding was that kernel just
started to support USB 2. Maybe Redhat supports USB with one of their
famous kernel patches. I really don't know, at the moment my USB
devices are all workig so that it is a good thing.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----