On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:52 -0500, Jim Cornette wrote: > >> I guess I am glad that the non-xen kernel gives you what you wanted > >> after all (the serial port interfaces for your X11). I just assumed > that > >> you chose the xen kernel with the intent to run xen virtualization, > but > >> I am guessing that your motherboard doesn't support xen which is > >> probably the cause of the problem in the first place. > > Isn't XEN restrained to a file, has no hardware unless setup to use > real > hardware? I am not sure about xen and machine capability but I know > that > my laptop with sufficient memory would stay railed at full speed and > would not last very long with this condition. Also, on other > computers > the system memory is so low that xen would not work properly. > It sounds like the problem that happened to Gene and others is even > thinking that the xen version of the kernel would interfere with the > operation of their computer. The thought of users was probably that > they > would try out virtualization at a later date. No user would suspect > problems until they tried to setup virtualization, ---- I would agree with this assessment. ---- > When one installs virtualization, the kernel for xen should not be > the > default kernel. A normal kernel should also be installed and set to > default. ---- I would agree with this assessment too. Assume that users don't understand all of the ramifications of the choices they make at installation time. Gene is after all, a long time RHL/FC user and probably representative of a typical user that checked the box...thinking that he had heard of Xen somewhere and it may be something worthwhile to check out. Craig
