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

Sat Mar 17 17:09:49 UTC 2012

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 at gorski.info> wrote:

From: Paul Gorski <paul at gorski.info>
Subject: Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Xubuntu reverting to non-pae kernel?
To: PhillW at Ubuntu.com, gilir at ubuntu.com
Cc: lubuntu-qa at lists.launchpad.net, lubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
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 at Ubuntu.com>

To: Julien Lavergne <gilir at ubuntu.com>

Cc: lubuntu-qa <lubuntu-qa at lists.launchpad.net>; lubuntu-users <lubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>

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 at ubuntu.com> 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 at yahoo.com> 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 at lists.ubuntu.com

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

--

Lubuntu-users mailing list

Lubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com

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 at lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

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

-- 
Lubuntu-users mailing list
Lubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-users/attachments/20120317/4ce86f0a/attachment.html>