On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:08:53 AM [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:58:05 +1000, Doug Laidlaw wrote: > > I was told that it was because I had > > a 32-bit version installed on a 64-bit capable machine. Sure enough, > > when I installed the 64-bit version, I got the desktop kernel by > > default. > > OIC. Interesting! > I've been steering clear of 64-bit installs, until there a less > problems with 64-bit apps. > > Pro tem I have converted to desktop kernels via urpmi. > > I still think the installter should have a 'server v. desktop' choice.
Maurice, the reason given was memory, as mentioned by a couple of others. I would have to check the thread again, but the thrust of it was: With a 32-bit distro on a 64-bit computer, the only kernel that can handle your RAM properly is the server kernel. You would actually be worse off with the desktop kernel. I queried whether the server kernel would be slower, and was told that it wasn't. I haven't tried to verify any of this. So, if you want to stay with 32-bit (I went back to it) the server kernel is your best choice. Doug.
