Difference between revisions of "Talk:ASUS Eee PC 901"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(What about the 1000/1000H?)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
--[[User:Chori|Chori]] 13:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 
--[[User:Chori|Chori]] 13:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 
There are some patches applied to the kernel source:  in particular, to the acpi driver, to the mouse driver, to the rt2860sta driver, to improve them, fix bugs, and add functionality.  It's true that you can run ArchLinux on the EEE 901 with just the stock kernel;  but it's not optimized for it, and many users have experienced problems.  Your point is well-taken, however, I'll clarify that section.
 
There are some patches applied to the kernel source:  in particular, to the acpi driver, to the mouse driver, to the rt2860sta driver, to improve them, fix bugs, and add functionality.  It's true that you can run ArchLinux on the EEE 901 with just the stock kernel;  but it's not optimized for it, and many users have experienced problems.  Your point is well-taken, however, I'll clarify that section.
 +
 +
== What about the 1000/1000H? ==
 +
 +
In all the article only the 901 model is commented. In my opinion, as all the things also apply to the 1000/1000H models (I guess) it should be corrected, for example, writing 901/1000/1000H where 901 is.

Revision as of 13:34, 7 October 2008

What dependencies do people supposedly need to recompile the stock kernel for? (section Option 1: Compile and customize the stock kernel) I didn't recompile my kernel on my 901 and everything I can think of works fine. I think this section should be changed or clarified to explain why its recommended to recompile.

--Chori 13:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT) There are some patches applied to the kernel source: in particular, to the acpi driver, to the mouse driver, to the rt2860sta driver, to improve them, fix bugs, and add functionality. It's true that you can run ArchLinux on the EEE 901 with just the stock kernel; but it's not optimized for it, and many users have experienced problems. Your point is well-taken, however, I'll clarify that section.

What about the 1000/1000H?

In all the article only the 901 model is commented. In my opinion, as all the things also apply to the 1000/1000H models (I guess) it should be corrected, for example, writing 901/1000/1000H where 901 is.