SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

March 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:55:29 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
I know this is an old thread, but it hit me last night.

Troy Dawson said...
|S.L. does not support the i586 kernel, and currently has no plans to.  This is
|because RHEL does not support it.  We just don't have the manpower to deal
|with any issues that might arise with a new kernel.
|If Whitebox does it, then they could be a good choice.
|If you want to stick with Scientific Linux, one thing you could do would be to
|just run the old RedHat 9 kernel.  But then, that wouldn't give you a uniform
|enviroment, so maybe that wouldn't be the best choice.

Dumb question.  The installer takes you all the way through
the config stuff, right up to package determination (or
selection, I forget which).  To do all this, we are *already
running a kernel that supports my hardware*.  What am I missing
here?

I understand that SL is essentially a rebuild of EL, and
don't expect y'all to support a lot of unsupported stuff
(though I won't mind if you do).  I'm just not getting why
the kernel that seems to be available isn't available.
Is the kernel used at install time not the same kernel
that gets installed?

Thanks,
Miles

ATOM RSS1 RSS2