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 <[email protected]> wrote: From: Paul Gorski <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Xubuntu reverting to non-pae kernel? To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> To: Julien Lavergne <[email protected]> Cc: lubuntu-qa <[email protected]>; lubuntu-users <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users -- Lubuntu-users mailing list [email protected] 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 : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -- Lubuntu-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
