Re: RHEL 6 Beta available for public download

[Michael Simpson <mikie.simpson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 May 2010 10:39, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 11:48 PM, Ron Loftin wrote:
>>
>> What would be the proper way to request such a thing?
>
> s/request/offer to do this/ and its game on.
>
> Open an issue at bugs.centos.org, with the details, and we can help from
> there on.
>
> - KB

Whilst it may be that CentOS as a community can pull together to offer
a non-PAE kernel (presumably as a CentOS-Plus) it seems odd that RH
would have insist on something that has been present since the Pentium
Pro (ffs) but which isn't part of the first 2 iterations of the
pentium M (i believe the post dothan CPUs that went with the sonoma
chipset was the first to have pae "enabled").
 The idea that they are doing this deliberatly to ensure newish
hardware is poppycock (sorry about the swearing).
 What happens if intel decide to ship new supa-budget chips which also
have no pae or emt-64? Why make it a i386 kernel (with pae) rather
than a i686 without or are there some 80(2/3/4)86 revisions with pae
that i don't know of?
It just seems to be a bad engineering decision.

Anyways
wrong place for a rant
never liked Mondays

On a more useful note:
I would be more than happy to help out in any effort to provide a
non-pae kernel for CentOS 6
:)

mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos