Subject: Re: YDL 2.0 and new iBook?
From: Charlie Watts (cewatts@frontier.net)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 12:50:36 MDT
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Martin von Weissenberg wrote:
> On 23.7.2001 10:49, "Charlie Watts" <cewatts@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> How does YDL handle changing network environments? I find myself
> >> jumping between two DHCP networks every day, using a modem dialup
> >> sometimes and being offline every now and then.
> >
> > Works fine. I just ifdown and ifup the ethernet and it grabs a new DHCP
> > address whether I'm at work or at home.
> >
> > The modem doesn't work yet. I don't think it works yet for anybody.
>
> I actually did a test install of YDL 2.0 last week, but found so many
> troublesome spots that I had to give up and reinstall OS X. I'll try to
> figure out solutions for some of these over the next few weeks:
>
> - Sleeping doesn't work properly; the screen backlight is never activated
> when the computer wakes up
2.4 kernel fixes this.
> - When doing a ifdown/ifup dance, DHCP doesn't always get the correct
> configuration; when it happens (every third time or so) the ifup command
> can't be aborted (not even with kill -9), so you have to wait several
> minutes for it to finish -- and then retry and just hope it doesn't screw up
> again
I don't have this problem either. Also in 2.4 ...
> - I couldn't figure out how to tune the backlight brightness
The keyboard buttons work in 2.4 ... or you can use "fblevel".
> - Localized keyboard layout doesn't work (and I didn't feel like fixing it)
This is mostly fixable ...
> - Mouse buttons!!!
Agreed. I've mapped buttons 2 and 3 to F10 and 11 instead of 11 & 12, and
that's much better - but DAMN APPLE! Mouse buttons are cheap, and very
nice in OS9, X, or other operating systems.
> >> How well do the iBook batteries hold up under YDL? Linux is quite
> >> disk intensive.
> >
> > Disk intensive? Heh ... hrm. Relative to what? It all depends on what you
> > are doing.
> >
> > I don't have precise numbers, but I would say it is not quite as good as
> > MacOS 9.
>
> I'm doing a lot of writing, mostly e-mail, LaTeX and C code, and very little
> graphical stuff (which is why I like Linux on the first place). The problem
> seems to be that most unix tools are built for continuous disk access.
> LaTeX, xdvi and gcc for example use lots of small files from a large
> directory tree.
>
> It's generally agreed that the disk cache in Linux is one of the best; maybe
> it could be tweaked to have a *really* long timeout. In conjunction with a
> lot of RAM and a journaling filesystem, it could extend battery life.
Or not. Refreshing fast RAM wears down batteries too ...
If you are at all like me, you spend 90% of your time editing and only 10%
compiling or doing anything else. You might find that it can cache the
important stuff and put the disk to sleep ...
> >> How much memory would you consider "just enough" for YDL and a
> >> windowing environment (presumably Gnome 1.4)?
> >
> > 192 will be fine. I confess to preferring KDE to Gnome, but I think it
> > would be fine with either.
> >
> > My biggest current complaints about it:
> > Only one damn mouse button. Why, Apple, Why?
> > (works fine with external meeces.)
> > Modem doesn't work. (in YDL2 as shipped, or with a new kernel)
> > Sound doesn't work. (ditto)
> >
> > In short: If you like Unix, the iBook 2 is a decent notebook to run it on.
> > Light, decent battery life, great screen, ethernet works. I don't really
> > care about the modem or sound, but they would sure be nice.
>
> Yes, it turned out that 192M really is OK for YDL, but I've already ordered
> a 256M chip anyway, taking the total to 320M.
That's what I've done as well ... memory being almost free and all ...
> The iBook 2 is really a great laptop, but YDL 2.0 doesn't really cut it yet.
> OS X supports the Apple hardware better. Upgrading to 10.1 and getting more
> RAM will probably make it easier to live with.
Perhaps. I'll postpone judgement of 10.1 until is is really out. OS X is
sure pretty, but frustratingly slow. It takes -forever- to boot, etc.
> I had an opportunity to try OS X 10.1 beta for some minutes during the
> weekend and liked the speed improvements, but the stability isn't
> there yet -- it quickly got so knotted up that I had to reset the
> computer. I guess OS X will never be as lightweight and stable as
> Linux, but it's really improving fast.
I bet it will get to the same point as 9 for general use - stable unless
you load it down with third-party stuff.
-- Charlie Watts cewatts@frontier.net Frontier Internet http://www.frontier.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 11:53:51 MDT