Non-PAE kernel in 12.10

[Liam Proven]

On 24 February 2013 20:46, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 16:42 +0000, Liam Proven wrote:
>> On 24 February 2013 04:07, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
>> "This kernel requires the following features not present on
>> > the CPU: Unable to boot - please use a kernel appropriate for your CPU."
>> Are you missing a word there? It does not specify what feature is missing.
>
> Er possibly. If so, the word was "PAE" :-)
>
>> However, the documented method for 12.04 with non-PAE chips is as follows:
>
> Thank you for that recipe - very useful (and to others, I'm sure).
>
>> > I would really like to be able to put Ubuntu on all this old hardware,
>> > which is by no means dead yet. T41p, T42, R50, T30 - all still going
>> > strong...
>
> I've chucked teh T21 (just too woefully slow with 11.04, which did
> install) and the T42 (which, it turned out, was, in fact, dead). Leaves
> an R50 which took an age to install, but is now working acceptably fast
> with 11.04, and a T41p, which still seems OK and will boot 11.04.

Ahh, another Thinkpad fan! :¬)

Oddly, much of Ubuntu is /developed/ on Thinkpads. Was back around
2005, I was lucky enough to go for dinner with the SABDFL and to visit
his flat for a drink afterwards. Not a desktop to be seen, but half a
dozen Thinkpads in the living-room alone.

I currently run a huge Toshiba, a small elderly Thinkpad, a very
elderly 14" Thinkpad & an Asus netbook. (And an iBook.) If I had the
money, I'd downsize to a tiny Thinkpad and a big one and that's it.
But finances, sadly, do not permit.

>> I may try a different desktop, or indeed, whole distro.
>
> Me too. The last Ubuntu that was stable and good was 10.04-1. Every
> version since then has taken one or more steps backward (admittedly
> often with steps forward as well), and has become less reliable. I am
> now boot 12.04 every couple of days - 10.04-1 was rock solid.

I have to glumly agree.

> It is
> almost certainly a gnome3/gnome-shell problem, but I would not have to
> run GNOME3 if Ubuntu properly supported a reasonable desktop (Unity is
> not reasonable).

Ah, well, I do not care for GNOME 3 at all and none of my Thinkpads
have 3D hardware so it's not an option anyway.

I spent 4 or 5 hours last night resurrecting an ancient install of
Linux Mint Debian Edition on the X31. Unused for nearly a year; I had
switched to Lubuntu.

Last night, I updated it, removed GNOME 3 and LXDE and installed
WindowMaker and a suite of NeXT-like apps to go with it. Now, it looks
absolutely lovely and runs very quickly and responsively indeed for a
9YO machine. Only once I am in Firefox 18 or Chrome can I feel the CPU
struggling a little.

LMDE is a little easier and less work than raw Debian. I may
experiment more with it.

(After 12.10 imploded, terminally, on my desktop, I wiped that
partition and put Debian 6 on it. It was several days' work to get it
to a functional level equivalent to Ubuntu out of the box. There is
still a *very* big difference between Ubuntu and its progenitor.

>> 11.10 worked but lost the ability to drive a 2nd monitor.
>
> Yep - used to work, now does, but broken.
>
>> TBH I am considering going back to 10.04!
>
> I run IPv6 training courses, and I still use 10.04 for those. It has all
> the features I need, and none of the "features" I don't.

I am so disappointed, I am even considering - the heresy! - trying
Fedora or CentOS/ScientificLinux and KDE. Since the days of RH 8, 11y
ago now, Red Hat always was the only distro family to produce a
version of KDE that wasn't eye-searingly ugly.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884