Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
- From: Ronny Aasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:13:59 +0100
- Message-id: <4CD7B147.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20101105194419.GH2568@talon.fglan>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20101030135936.GY5089@login1.uio.no> <email@example.com> <20101030141241.GA5089@login1.uio.no> <20101105194419.GH2568@talon.fglan>
On 05. nov. 2010 20:44, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid
>> list, then. :)
>> It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses
>> around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot
>> of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have
>> the 486 kernel to get LTSP working,
> this isn't exactly true... we have to have a -486 kernel to get LTSP working
> with the *defaults*. debian-edu could easily configure LTSP to use a -686
> kernel; it would be merely one more divergence from the LTSP defaults.
> probably the easiest would be to provide a custom ltsp-build-client plugin that
> prefers the -686 kernel.
> i've pondered making this the default, although some (relatively recent)
> thin-clients don't actually support 686 instructions. i'm not sure how widely
> used 486/586 desktop machines are anymore, but it does come up occasionally.
> both cases might be rare enough that -686 would make a better default.
most thin clients (not old pc's) that i use does not work with 686 kernel.
if we change to 686 only. Something that probably would give a boon for
diskless machines. there should be a explaination in the documentation
how to install 486 on your ltsp, and make some machines use that (or all)