[Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]

Hello you 2,

I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.

We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
an important reason.

 -Michael

P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Daniel Weismüller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

Hi!
Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary 
to use different kernels.

Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686 
non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for 
the i686 architecture.

Daniel

Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> Hello you 2,
>
> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
>
> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
> an important reason.
>
>   -Michael
>
> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1520 bytes --]

Hey Daniel,

thank you for your reply.

Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?

I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
i686 box. But there may be better names around.

Michael

P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
subscribed to this list.

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> Hi!
> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary 
> to use different kernels.
> 
> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686 
> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for 
> the i686 architecture.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > Hello you 2,
> >
> > I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> > kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
> >
> > We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> > way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
> > an important reason.
> >
> >   -Michael
> >
> > P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Documentation mailing list
> > Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Daniel Weismüller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1646 bytes --]

Hi

Why you just name it "without-PAE"

Daniel

Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> Hey Daniel,
>
> thank you for your reply.
>
> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
>
> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
>
> Michael
>
> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> subscribed to this list.
>
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
>> Hi!
>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
>> to use different kernels.
>>
>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for
>> the i686 architecture.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>>> Hello you 2,
>>>
>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
>>>
>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
>>> an important reason.
>>>
>>>    -Michael
>>>
>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Documentation mailing list
>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>> _______________________________________________
>> Documentation mailing list
>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

Hey,

I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
came up with the following idea:

Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one of the features
it comes with and is the default one. It would be much better to call if
the default kernel. Nothing else.

That would imply that we need to rename the other version, which is a
bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and cheesy name that
is to the point. Any suggestions?

 -Michael

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > Hey Daniel,
> >
> > thank you for your reply.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
> >
> > I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> > i686 box. But there may be better names around.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> > subscribed to this list.
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
> >> to use different kernels.
> >>
> >> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
> >> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for
> >> the i686 architecture.
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> >>> Hello you 2,
> >>>
> >>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> >>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
> >>>
> >>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> >>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
> >>> an important reason.
> >>>
> >>>    -Michael
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Documentation mailing list
> >>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Documentation mailing list
> >> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Ben Schweikert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2484 bytes --]

What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
Ben



Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:

> Hey,
> 
> I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
> came up with the following idea:
> 
> Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one of the features
> it comes with and is the default one. It would be much better to call if
> the default kernel. Nothing else.
> 
> That would imply that we need to rename the other version, which is a
> bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and cheesy name that
> is to the point. Any suggestions?
> 
> -Michael
> 
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>>> Hey Daniel,
>>> 
>>> thank you for your reply.
>>> 
>>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
>>> 
>>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
>>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
>>> subscribed to this list.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
>>>> to use different kernels.
>>>> 
>>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
>>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for
>>>> the i686 architecture.
>>>> 
>>>> Daniel
>>>> 
>>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>>>>> Hello you 2,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
>>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
>>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
>>>>> an important reason.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -Michael
>>>>> 
>>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Documentation mailing list
>>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Documentation mailing list
>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> 

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2942 bytes --]

Hey,

I do not think that -rrf is quite intuitive.

 -Michael

P.S. Please subscribe to the list if you reply to mails. I won't approve
mails any longer.

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:22 +0100, Ben Schweikert wrote:
> What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
> 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
> > came up with the following idea:
> > 
> > Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one of the features
> > it comes with and is the default one. It would be much better to call if
> > the default kernel. Nothing else.
> > 
> > That would imply that we need to rename the other version, which is a
> > bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and cheesy name that
> > is to the point. Any suggestions?
> > 
> > -Michael
> > 
> > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> 
> >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
> >> 
> >> Daniel
> >> 
> >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> >>> Hey Daniel,
> >>> 
> >>> thank you for your reply.
> >>> 
> >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
> >>> 
> >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
> >>> 
> >>> Michael
> >>> 
> >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> >>> subscribed to this list.
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> >>>> Hi!
> >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
> >>>> to use different kernels.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
> >>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for
> >>>> the i686 architecture.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>> 
> >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> >>>>> Hello you 2,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> >>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> >>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
> >>>>> an important reason.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   -Michael
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Documentation mailing list
> >>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Documentation mailing list
> >>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> > 

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3657 bytes --]

I think I got it:

What do you think about "-legacy"? A good German translation would be
"Altlast" and that's exactly what it is without sounding too bad.

If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would want to
install it and I think a legacy kernel is not too bad.

 -Michael

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I do not think that -rrf is quite intuitive.
> 
>  -Michael
> 
> P.S. Please subscribe to the list if you reply to mails. I won't approve
> mails any longer.
> 
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:22 +0100, Ben Schweikert wrote:
> > What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
> > Ben
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
> > 
> > > Hey,
> > > 
> > > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
> > > came up with the following idea:
> > > 
> > > Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one of the features
> > > it comes with and is the default one. It would be much better to call if
> > > the default kernel. Nothing else.
> > > 
> > > That would imply that we need to rename the other version, which is a
> > > bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and cheesy name that
> > > is to the point. Any suggestions?
> > > 
> > > -Michael
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >> 
> > >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
> > >> 
> > >> Daniel
> > >> 
> > >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > >>> Hey Daniel,
> > >>> 
> > >>> thank you for your reply.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
> > >>> 
> > >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> > >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Michael
> > >>> 
> > >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> > >>> subscribed to this list.
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> > >>>> Hi!
> > >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
> > >>>> to use different kernels.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
> > >>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel for
> > >>>> the i686 architecture.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Daniel
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > >>>>> Hello you 2,
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> > >>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> > >>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or missed
> > >>>>> an important reason.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>   -Michael
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Documentation mailing list
> > >>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> > >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Documentation mailing list
> > >>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> > >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> > > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5556 bytes --]

Well, at first we do not want users to use this kernel if they do not
need to. Hopefully, they all are stable, but this kernel has *serious*
security issues and we do not approve that.

Michael

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 16:25 +0100, hilmar sandfuehr wrote:
> hope i got the point right,
> but why not call it in a positive way ?
> 
> 
> like "stable"  "approved" or "established" - or "RELIABLE" ?
> (a german translation for it would be "bewährt")
> 
> 
> hilmar
> 
> 
> 2012/1/21 Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
>         I think I got it:
>         
>         What do you think about "-legacy"? A good German translation
>         would be
>         "Altlast" and that's exactly what it is without sounding too
>         bad.
>         
>         If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would
>         want to
>         install it and I think a legacy kernel is not too bad.
>         
>          -Michael
>         
>         On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
>         > Hey,
>         >
>         > I do not think that -rrf is quite intuitive.
>         >
>         >  -Michael
>         >
>         > P.S. Please subscribe to the list if you reply to mails. I
>         won't approve
>         > mails any longer.
>         >
>         > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:22 +0100, Ben Schweikert wrote:
>         > > What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
>         > > Ben
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer
>         <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
>         > >
>         > > > Hey,
>         > > >
>         > > > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was
>         talking to Arne, he
>         > > > came up with the following idea:
>         > > >
>         > > > Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one
>         of the features
>         > > > it comes with and is the default one. It would be much
>         better to call if
>         > > > the default kernel. Nothing else.
>         > > >
>         > > > That would imply that we need to rename the other
>         version, which is a
>         > > > bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and
>         cheesy name that
>         > > > is to the point. Any suggestions?
>         > > >
>         > > > -Michael
>         > > >
>         > > > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller
>         wrote:
>         > > >> Hi
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Daniel
>         > > >>
>         > > >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>         > > >>> Hey Daniel,
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> thank you for your reply.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the
>         "default" kernel?
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by
>         "default" on any
>         > > >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> Michael
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well,
>         because they have not
>         > > >>> subscribed to this list.
>         > > >>>
>         > > >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller
>         wrote:
>         > > >>>> Hi!
>         > > >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand
>         why it is necessary
>         > > >>>> to use different kernels.
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to
>         name the "i686
>         > > >>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our
>         default kernel for
>         > > >>>> the i686 architecture.
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Daniel
>         > > >>>>
>         > > >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
>         > > >>>>> Hello you 2,
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have
>         written about the
>         > > >>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at
>         http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to
>         do things in this
>         > > >>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get
>         anything wrong or missed
>         > > >>>>> an important reason.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>>   -Michael
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
>         > > >>>>>
>         > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>         > > >>>>> Documentation mailing list
>         > > >>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > > >>>>>
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         > > >>>> _______________________________________________
>         > > >>>> Documentation mailing list
>         > > >>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > > >>>>
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         > > >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Documentation mailing list
>         > Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Documentation mailing list
>         Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
>         http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
>         
> 
>