Re: VIA chipsets all bad? I think not.
Rob Dale (rob@nb.net)
Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:12:01 -0400
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> In message <35F2E8F4.89559962@nb.net>, Rob Dale writes:
> +-----
> | Division by Zero wrote:
> | > I agree completely. I was humiliated when the Redhat installation disk
> | > (2.0.34 I believe) would not boot on one of the machines we were selling
> | > to a customer. We ended up putting NT instead.
> |
> | Not trying to start a dist war...
> |
> | But, that might be a Redhat problem. I have been unsuccessful
> | in getting Redhat to run on any of my 6 machines.
> | Yet, Slackware (which I currently run), Debian, and Caldera
> | all work fine.
> +--->8
>
> Flip side: Debian 2.0 refuses to boot on my old DX2/66 (AMI Enterprise III
> m/b). Red Hat (v4.0, 4.2, 5.0. 5.1) works fine, as did Slackware 3.0 and
> Caldera 1.1.
Point taken. I know Redhat isn't bad considering on the
current Slashdot poll Redhat blows away second place by twice
as much.
So, what are we looking at now? Is it really the hardware, software,
choice of compiler, options made at compile time, etc?
But, then again, we are not alone. I have seen win95 not work at
all on many machines (one of them mine). I'm not even going
to get in NT - that has the least hardware support.
--
Robert Dale
"arrest this man he talks in maths"
RADIOHEAD OK COMPUTER
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html