On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 11:55 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support
many additional drivers it's a different story.
Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should
complain to them. The reality is we live
I'm an enterprise user with 1500 RedHat desktops. RedHat does meet my
demands.
I would say that Wireless support is not even in the top twenty most
important things to an Enterprise user because our machine density
would make the speed of any wireless network slow to a crawl. With a
When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support
many additional drivers it's a different story.
Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should
complain to them. The reality is we live in a Microsoft world(like
nobody knew that).
I just wished
Grant Williamson wrote:
When you are deploying linux to the laptop user, and have to add/support
many additional drivers it's a different story.
Yes one can argue that its the hardware vendors fault, and you should
complain to them. The reality is we live in a Microsoft world(like
nobody knew
Grant Williamson wrote:
Thomas - You're in the minority. you must be joking.
Anyone got any troll repellent?
Thomas
___
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
Tim Burke wrote:
Grant Williamson wrote:
Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization
deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain.
Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it
was so much easier.
I really liked the kernel-unsupported package.
Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not open
source and hence conflicts with our inclusion policy.
Grant Williamson wrote:
Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson
Tim,
why do you then remove the kernel module? Is it not possible to just
leave the kernel module there, and let users decide themselves whether
they want to use it or not?
Tim Burke wrote:
Correct. We had to remove the regulatory daemon because it is not
open source and hence conflicts
Possibly to leave it would create a support ambiguity.
If something is broken, is that because of the kernel module or the
userland tools? If there is no kernel module, then anything to do with
that hardware becomes by default not a RedHat issue.
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:09 +0100, Grant
Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization
deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain.
Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it
was so much easier.
Tim Burke wrote:
Grant Williamson wrote:
Tim,
why do you then remove the kernel
Grant Williamson wrote:
Tim, I understand the reasoning behind it, but for an organization
deploying/maintaining rhel5 its a dammed pain.
Why can redhat not simply go back to a kernel-unsupported package, it
was so much easier.
I really liked the kernel-unsupported package. It provided a
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:31 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
IPW3945 is an important card, wireless is an important for the linux
desktop, redhat simply does not deliver.
It's a shame, real shame.
You should take this to Intel, the lovely developers of this binary
blob. The entire opensource
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat
kernels.
Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really
like to know
why?
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 06:16:18PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
What has ATRPMS got to do with
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the
redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5
kernel, I would really like to know why?
My best guess is that Red Hat removes everything they
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 19:36 +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat
kernels.
Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really
like to know
why?
I'm sorry that I'm so behind you, but all I see on
Axel, I agree, but I just want to hear the answer from redhat.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:36:43PM +0100, Grant Williamson wrote:
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the
redhat kernels. Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5
kernel, I
On 11/11/06, Grant Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Up until the 2.6.18-1.2739.el5 kernel ipw3945 was included in the redhat
kernels.
Redhat have removed it from the 2.6.18-1.2740.el5 kernel, I would really
like to know
why?
I would like to know where you are getting these kernels? The
17 matches
Mail list logo
