...note however, this PET can only be used with the latest Woof, as I have moved the /etc/modules/firmware.dep.18.104.22.168 file and all the firmware tarballs out of the kernel PET into Woof.
The source is here:
Comments:Posted on 6 Jun 2010, 10:34 by 8-bit
What would the kernel size have been if the modules had been included?
I ask because of just jumping through hoops to get my Realtek RCL8191SE wireless device to work with Puppy 5.00.
I ended up using ndiswrapper and a win2000 driver even though the specs on the 22.214.171.124 kernel said that wireless device had kernel support.
Posted on 6 Jun 2010, 12:11 by BarryK
Re kernel modules
The kernel modules are in the PET.
Posted on 6 Jun 2010, 23:08 by playdayz
Should it work with Lucid Puppy? The latest development/testing release uses the Woof posted on June 5. Thanks.
Posted on 6 Jun 2010, 24:17 by jemimah
I just got through reviewing your 126.96.36.199 kernel when I was building it for Fluppy. I have a couple suggestions and notes.
It appears you enabled hyperthreading support in this kernel. Thank you.
Next time you compile, could you enable support for hibernation? Since you have suspend working, you might as well have hibernation. I've got scripts for it in Fluppy and Puppeee. It works just like suspend - all the user needs to do to get it to resume is a small modification to the bootloader.
Have you considered testing with the "low latency" PREEMPT scheduler? Application performance seems noticeably faster to me. "Low Latency Desktop" seems to be a pretty fair description of what you are trying to accomplish with Puppy.
I also wonder if the rfkill issues have been fixed in 188.8.131.52. I had problems with one my my laptops on 184.108.40.206, but it doesn't work great with rfkill disabled either. If you accidentally hit the rfkill button, there's no way to bring the network back without a reboot. It's extremely convenient to have rfkill working so you can have an "airplane mode" - otherwise you need to unload modules by hand during flights. :(
Posted on 7 Jun 2010, 2:09 by BarryK
Yes, it is intended as the replacement for 220.127.116.11. I haven't done a test build yet, but the latest Woof should handle it.
I don't know about the current situation with rfkill, I just left is disabled.