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.
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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions? Ben
Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer michael.tremer@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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@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@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@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@lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation _______________________________________________ Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@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@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@lists.ipfire.org >> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation > _______________________________________________ > Documentation mailing list > Documentation@lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
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@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@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@lists.ipfire.org > > >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Documentation mailing list > > >>>> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org > > >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Documentation mailing list > Documentation@lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation _______________________________________________ Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
OK got it
what about "substitute" or "emergency solution" or LTI (less-than-ideal) or Plan B (also well known in english spoken countries)
2012/1/23 Michael Tremer michael.tremer@ipfire.org
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@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@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@lists.ipfire.org > > >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Documentation mailing list > > >>>> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org > > >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Documentation mailing list > Documentation@lists.ipfire.org > http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation _______________________________________________ Documentation mailing list Documentation@lists.ipfire.org http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
documentation@lists.ipfire.org
-
Ben Schweikert -
Daniel Weismüller -
hilmar sandfuehr -
Michael Tremer