lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Lance <lbsolost@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm also confused. First of all I do recall seeing some discussion about dropping non-pae when that argument began. I abstained from the argument because I was clueless ............. I only knew that my hardware was not effected.

Please look here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1919647

Afterwards I asked two questions at Ubuntu Answers and that led to me being blasted with questions, many in PM's. so I took on the battle to get non-pae restored as the default ................ and the battle is not yet over ;^)

Regarding non-SMP I'm once again totally clueless. Someone else needs to take up this argument, but the crux of the problem comes from the "kernel-team"! AFAIK the kernel-team says it's not worth the effort they need to put into maintaining a certain kernel.

Only those working on the kernel-team would know how much stress they're under! I know on the testing level I feel stressed out ;^)

Lance

--- On Sat, 3/17/12, Paul Gorski <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Paul Gorski <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Xubuntu reverting to non-pae kernel?
To: PhillW@xxxxxxxxxx, gilir@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: lubuntu-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 11:37 AM



 I am confused.



Switch to Non-PAE to make the product more compatible with older hardware, but eliminate the non-SMP kernel and put the older hardware at a slight disadvantage?



The only difference is that the users won't have the opportunity to choose non-SMP or SMP if the SMP version results in a small performance hit.










 






Sincerely,


Paul Gorski



 






 






-----Original Message-----


From: Phill Whiteside <PhillW@xxxxxxxxxx>


To: Julien Lavergne <gilir@xxxxxxxxxx>


Cc: lubuntu-qa <lubuntu-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lubuntu-users <lubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Sent: Sat, Mar 17, 2012 9:31 am


Subject: Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Xubuntu reverting to non-pae kernel?















I think it would sense for us also, those with > 3.2GB RAM can always add PAE if they so wish.








Regards,










Phill.







On 17 March 2012 14:13, Julien Lavergne <gilir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:







I saw it also, and still thinking about it. My point to keep pae by default was because nobody else done the same. I didn't want to maintain this exception only for us, and to give work to people only for this.











Since Xubuntu switch to non-pae by default, and the change to do it for us is very small, I am starting to think that we should do the same. Or, I can't see any point to not switch to non-pae by default.






Julien Lavergne






Le 17 mars 2012 à 13:33, Lance <lbsolost@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :


















I posted a couple of links here:





http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11772755&postcount=1






If it's true I wonder if Lubuntu shouldn't do likewise. I personally think it makes sense since one of our target markets is low resource hardware.





Maybe someone could ask Colin Watson's opinion?











-- 


Lubuntu-users mailing list


Lubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users










--



Lubuntu-users mailing list



Lubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users







-- 


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw
















 





-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
Post to     : lubuntu-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



 






-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

-- 
Lubuntu-users mailing list
Lubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users