Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Todd, I figured it was good- and I'm not overclocking the ram or the KX7 FSB, and am running serial presence detect ram timings. That Crucial PC2700 is excellent, and is known to do much better than rated, and the Abit KX7 is known to reach a 180-190MHZ FSB. However, if I started doing that stuff, I would complicate my linux learning curve, which for me, is complicated enough. I need to know my hardware is stable, eliminating that as a source of any problems, so then I can center in on how I've messed up, or not understood some aspect of linux. I must admit though, I do like to tweak the hardware- must be left over from my gas-powered model airplane days back in the '50s, and my life-long obsession with never wasting any time. That, or I've entered my second childhood. It's ironic that I'm still using 56k dial-up- thus my desire to squeeze out every last nano second of performance. Perhaps those broadbanders have forgotten how frustrating dial-up can be? Oh yeah- I notice you're running 2.4.21pre4. I installed that too (the cooker rpm), on a fresh 9.0 install, and it seemed to work fine. I just noticed that there is a preemptive kernel patch for 2.4.21pre2- do you think that would work on a vanilla pre4 with a stock 9.0? And is Mandrake going to offer preemptive kernels before 2.6? I did do a 2.4.20 vanilla and preemptive- worked great on 9.0. Or- maybe just wait for the 9.1 release. Robert Crawford On Friday 28 February 2003 01:22 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > flacycads wrote on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:09:13AM -0500 : > > Todd, > > I thought I mentioned I had tweaked the drive before, but perhaps I just > > You may have. > > > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.45 seconds =284.44 MB/sec > > HOLY CRAP. That's smoking fast. Almost double what I get. That's the > advantage of PC2700 RAM. > > Blue skies... Todd > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 flacycads wrote on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:09:13AM -0500 : > Todd, > I thought I mentioned I had tweaked the drive before, but perhaps I just You may have. > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.45 seconds =284.44 MB/sec HOLY CRAP. That's smoking fast. Almost double what I get. That's the advantage of PC2700 RAM. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp #for great justice Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X6jNlp7v05cW2woRAjQMAKCOf2/OAXrP3AeDdW315+e8pTDyPACdGaUP cKKGYzHlz4W4VAUKCNoMQxo= =2qQ0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 09:34 pm, Carroll Grigsby wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:32 pm, Ronald J. Hall wrote: > > On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. > > > LX > > > > Or me! > > I disagree. A dual boot system can have real value. For example, I've found > that whenever I get PO'd at Linux, an hour spent with Windows will remind > me why I made the transition in the first place. If that doesn't work, I > install Windows on my backup machine. > -- cmg Yes, but can't we just put it in a museum (kiosk like) so that future generations can try it out and go "Gag" :-) -- /\ Dark< >Lord \/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 13:36, flacycads wrote: > James, > Thanks for the info on Linux memory usage- that's really good stuff to know. > And I do agree, Mandrake is very good right out of the box- it's definitely > the best distro I've used so far, and I find it ridiculous when people talk > about Mandrake's "bloated OS." Their kernel is certainly not bloated, as most > of the options are modules, and just because you have a lot of packages > installed on your hard drive doesn't mean they are all loaded at any given > time- to me, it just seems irrelevant to any concept of a "bloated OS. I just > don't get what these people mean by Mandrake is "bloated." > > I guess without thinking I got into a habit of calling the swap partition > "swapfile," as I always put the windows swapfile on it's own partition. > > I have been experimenting with preemptive/low-latency kernels a little bit, > and am gradually gaining a little knowledge on this aspect- can't wait for > the 2.6 kernel to be released. Same here for a number of reasons. If I have the numbers right they loaded and unloaded 10,000 threads in the kernel in under half a second. Whereas with the current kernel it took about 10 seconds BIG difference. > > Robert C. > > On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:20 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:59, flacycads wrote: > > > Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with > > > winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is > > > no problem with higher versions of windows. > > > > > > The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or > > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > In relation to your actual question... With RAM no tweaks are really > > needed until you get above 4gigs. ... I'd say it's safe to say most of > > us don't have near that much in the majority of our boxes. Above 1gig > > the enterprise kernel will improve performance more because it uses the > > ram more effectively. As for swap. Linux doesn't use a swapfile (it > > could but doesn't) it uses a swap partition. Dedicated to being only > > swap and never changing in size. (or on my box never being used > > either *grin*) The tweaks that seem to be the best on Linux come > > less with modifying the way it starts and more with modifying the way > > the hardware works, or in doing heavy changes to the kernel itself (Like > > low latency kernels, hyper-threading etc.) However for about 90% of the > > people/usage it's pretty darn optimized out of the box. MDK and the > > others are pretty good about making things work well together. > > > > James > > > > __ > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Todd, I thought I mentioned I had tweaked the drive before, but perhaps I just thought I did. Anyway, here's my results (2 runs), which seem fairly decent to me. This is a Maxtor 20GB ATA 100, 5400rpm drive, on an Abit KX7-333 DDR board, and Crucial PC2700 ram. /dev/hda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.45 seconds =284.44 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.27 seconds = 28.19 MB/sec /dev/hda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.44 seconds =290.91 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.27 seconds = 28.19 MB/sec Is this result normal for the hardware I have? Robert On Thursday 27 February 2003 06:33 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > flacycads wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:36:14AM -0500 : > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, > > but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do > > have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to > > perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux > > installs a little more than I presently have. > > Is hdparm installed? What's the result of 'hdparm -tT /dev/hda'? If > less than 25 MB/sec, then edit /etc/sysconfig/harddisks and uncomment > all the different modes and reboot. Run the hdparm test again. I > actually have one box where enabling all the stuff made it run _slower_, > but that's a rarity. Normally, it picks the raw read rate up from about > 8 MB/sec to 25-35 MB/sec. > > Blue skies... Todd > - -- > > | MandrakeSoft USA | Sometimes you get what you want. | > | http://www.mandrakesoft.com | Sometimes you get experience.| > | http://www.mandrakelinux.com |--unknown origin | > > Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+XqBllp7v05cW2woRAnJcAJ9TouM+8SSoJEQLz1PliKZJ1IX6jwCeKWra > u1hIPWPtkdM9epn1CWEOpk8= > =8NSb > -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:32 pm, Ronald J. Hall wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. > > LX > > Or me! I disagree. A dual boot system can have real value. For example, I've found that whenever I get PO'd at Linux, an hour spent with Windows will remind me why I made the transition in the first place. If that doesn't work, I install Windows on my backup machine. -- cmg Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
> > That's strange, I have just the opposite experience. > > Agreeing with you that 7.2 was an exceptionally good release (and can > hardly wait for 9.2 - it's the odd numbers I bet) I found that 8.2 and > higher gave much better performance on low end P166's. > > AFAIK this was mostly due to Xfree4.2 on the gui side. > Running KDE2.2 with Mandrake8.0 was already too much. > > KDE3.1 apps (not the whole desktop!) runs ever so slow.but runs on the > same machine. Without gui it's just faster than 7.2 whilst 8.0 and 8.1 > swapped themselves to a dreary death. > > Good luck, > HarM I will have to agree with you, HarM. And it's going to be even better when kernel 2.6 is out.. That preempt no-longer-to-be-patch does wonders... Damian -- -- I don't want Windows to be only for the 31173. Yes, we've come a long way from all those security holes, virii, and cryptic commands like "Edit textfile.txt" (what in the hell is that supposed to mean?) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vahur Lokk wrote on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:00:15AM +0200 : > No. The perfomance is not comparable even then. I write this mail on a > 166Mhz/48MbRAM Compaq Deskpro that was capable of giving me snappy perfomance > running MSO97 and Win95. It runs now Mdk8.2, no KDE, only XFCE, no useless No comparison. You are talking about an OS that would run in 8 Megs of RAM. Go back to RedHat 5.2 if you want to compare. Of course, then you won't have a gui office except for maybe the original star office, but then again, that's from the same era. > What more, there is still my mother doing bookkeeping on an old P90/Win95 > that was bought brandnew when such comp was a big deal. She has had no > crashes or blue screens since then and so Linux stability is not an argument > either, at least for her. I'll be the first to tell you that sometimes, there is just no need for Linux. A wise implementer will be able to judge when he's doing something good or stepping on his pecker. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com Mandrake: An amalgam of good ideas from RedHat, Debian, and MandrakeSoft. All in all, IMHO, an unbeatable combination. --Levi Ramsey on Cooker ML Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XqG3lp7v05cW2woRAv36AJ41JrnDYNyEjnaw+TTL4Cmw6gNE2ACeJPhh 48LicafxC506K74XOUYDTl8= =yjfF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 flacycads wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:36:14AM -0500 : > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different versions of > windows and Linux has always been that overall computer performance is > significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, but that's what > happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do have any windows > installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to perfection( as good as is > possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux installs a little more than I > presently have. Is hdparm installed? What's the result of 'hdparm -tT /dev/hda'? If less than 25 MB/sec, then edit /etc/sysconfig/harddisks and uncomment all the different modes and reboot. Run the hdparm test again. I actually have one box where enabling all the stuff made it run _slower_, but that's a rarity. Normally, it picks the raw read rate up from about 8 MB/sec to 25-35 MB/sec. Blue skies... Todd - -- | MandrakeSoft USA | Sometimes you get what you want. | | http://www.mandrakesoft.com | Sometimes you get experience.| | http://www.mandrakelinux.com |--unknown origin | Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XqBllp7v05cW2woRAnJcAJ9TouM+8SSoJEQLz1PliKZJ1IX6jwCeKWra u1hIPWPtkdM9epn1CWEOpk8= =8NSb -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 21:45, logic7 wrote: > I hold mdk7.2 as my personal benchmark for speed > and stability and, IMO, no other version after that can stand up to it. I > have noticed, tho, that this is not limited to just Mandrake. RedHat has > the same problem, each successive version is slower. I've been trying out > each new version of Mandrake and RH on a p166 w/64MB or 128MB of RAM just > to see That's strange, I have just the opposite experience. Agreeing with you that 7.2 was an exceptionally good release (and can hardly wait for 9.2 - it's the odd numbers I bet) I found that 8.2 and higher gave much better performance on low end P166's. AFAIK this was mostly due to Xfree4.2 on the gui side. Running KDE2.2 with Mandrake8.0 was already too much. KDE3.1 apps (not the whole desktop!) runs ever so slow.but runs on the same machine. Without gui it's just faster than 7.2 whilst 8.0 and 8.1 swapped themselves to a dreary death. Good luck, HarM Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:40, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> WineX goes a long way to getting us users completely under Linux, and in
> the process saving the developers thousands of dollars of development time.
> It helps bridge the chasm between the win world and us, giving us even
> more opportunities, choice, and strength. But it is still an imperfect
> solution. Till these things and others are worked out, many of us will be
> forced to run with the devil.
>
> LX
Lyvim,
I can stat what you're saying, especially the imperfectness of these solutions
but no-one's forcing you hereit's freedom of choice!
In comparison: If I want to drive a Ferrari instead of my ol' Honda civic
('91), I'll have to mortgage my house or my ship and "sell" my soul to the
banks.
So I happily enjoy both mortgage-free objects and the freedom that gives me
whilst being overtaken by those red gadgets on the left lane.
And loving every minute of it whilst using 'gpsdrive' to find my way
round.=:o)
Good luck,
Harm
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 02:40 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > Another thing is gaming. WineX has done invaluable and irreplaceable work > when it comes to bringing Linux into the mainstream gaming world, but there > is still a ways to go. Baldur's Gate 2 is a good example. In order to > network a game with my son, (although I can play single player OK under > LM82) I still can't network to his machine for a multiplayer session. > Therefore I am forced to boot winblows. Morrowind will not run under WineX, > AT ALL. Yet. Same for alot of other games; some companies have the > resources to make the attempt to compile their code for two OS's. Some > don't. Bioware seems to be willing to make the attempt, but their Linux > version of Neverwinter Nights seems to be almost a complete YEAR behind > their windows version. By the time linuxers (or Mandrakians) get their > copy of the linux NWN client, most of the comraderie and excitement online > has vanished, and they are treading over old ground. This is the situation > that's going to be whenever I finally see WineX run Morrowind, because I > have absolutely refused to run Morrowind under winblows. I never run games > under win anymore, unless my son wants to net a game, and then I'm forced > to do so. It's sad, but it's reality. Ditto here. Well, I refuse to dual-boot (but I'm not bashing anyone for doing it - I understand). I did dual-boot for quite some time. Once WineX did run the games we networked with regularity (hmm, started to sound like a fiber ad here! ) I ditched it. LX, you probably already know this but Linux games and the Linux Games Tomb are both reporting an update to the Neverwinter Nights Linux page, seems they are about to release the public beta. If they are being honest. I hope they are - this is one of the major releases I'm just dying to get. > WineX goes a long way to getting us users completely under Linux, and in > the process saving the developers thousands of dollars of development time. > It helps bridge the chasm between the win world and us, giving us even > more opportunities, choice, and strength. But it is still an imperfect > solution. Till these things and others are worked out, many of us will be > forced to run with the devil. > > LX Yep, that about sums it all up. :-) -- /\ Dark< >Lord \/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
James, Thanks for the info on Linux memory usage- that's really good stuff to know. And I do agree, Mandrake is very good right out of the box- it's definitely the best distro I've used so far, and I find it ridiculous when people talk about Mandrake's "bloated OS." Their kernel is certainly not bloated, as most of the options are modules, and just because you have a lot of packages installed on your hard drive doesn't mean they are all loaded at any given time- to me, it just seems irrelevant to any concept of a "bloated OS. I just don't get what these people mean by Mandrake is "bloated." I guess without thinking I got into a habit of calling the swap partition "swapfile," as I always put the windows swapfile on it's own partition. I have been experimenting with preemptive/low-latency kernels a little bit, and am gradually gaining a little knowledge on this aspect- can't wait for the 2.6 kernel to be released. Robert C. On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:20 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: > On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:59, flacycads wrote: > > Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with > > winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is > > no problem with higher versions of windows. > > > > The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or > > > Robert Crawford > > In relation to your actual question... With RAM no tweaks are really > needed until you get above 4gigs. ... I'd say it's safe to say most of > us don't have near that much in the majority of our boxes. Above 1gig > the enterprise kernel will improve performance more because it uses the > ram more effectively. As for swap. Linux doesn't use a swapfile (it > could but doesn't) it uses a swap partition. Dedicated to being only > swap and never changing in size. (or on my box never being used > either *grin*) The tweaks that seem to be the best on Linux come > less with modifying the way it starts and more with modifying the way > the hardware works, or in doing heavy changes to the kernel itself (Like > low latency kernels, hyper-threading etc.) However for about 90% of the > people/usage it's pretty darn optimized out of the box. MDK and the > others are pretty good about making things work well together. > > James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. > LX Or me! -- /\ Dark< >Lord \/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
"Well, you guys are probably a lot richer than me :o) my system: Pentium II 400 MHZ, 192 MB RAM. It's less than a whole minute only if i'm doing nothing else (i.e. there's nothing else fighting with OO over the CPU..) but it's still ~45 seconds. Damian" Not really, my 1.1GHz Duron only cost me $130 to build the system: $50 for the processor, retail pack, $29 for the ASUS K7V Raid board, and $50 for the new case and power supply. I simply moved all of my components from my old P3-450 to the new Duron and reinstalled my OS's. Anywho, I've noticed that recent versions os Mandrake are a lot slower at things than windows 2000. I hold mdk7.2 as my personal benchmark for speed and stability and, IMO, no other version after that can stand up to it. I have noticed, tho, that this is not limited to just Mandrake. RedHat has the same problem, each successive version is slower. I've been trying out each new version of Mandrake and RH on a p166 w/64MB or 128MB of RAM just to see what kind of performance I can expect on low end machines. Right now, mandrake 9 is useable with Windowmaker, BlackBox, XFCE, FWM, and IceWM. KDE and Gnome are almost useless with this configuration, especially if I only have 64MB in it. Now, some of you might ask "Why is he trying to run MDK x.x on a p166?". The answer is that a lot of my customers have these old machines. I don't sell windows and won't put my personal copy on someone else's machine. If I'm working on someone's old pc and they need an OS, I tell 'em about linux. If they go for it, I set it up, show 'em what's what, and almost never hear from 'em again. I keep RH 6.2 and Mandrake 7 for 486 around for anyone with a 486 that wants linux. It's frustrating that I can't give these people the "latest, greatest" stuff 'cause it'll run too slow. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:59, flacycads wrote: > Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with > winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is no > problem with higher versions of windows. > > The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or > slightly less, and the ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. That way, windows will > use up to 512MB before using the swap file, you will eliminate windows > booting problems, and you can still use all the ram you have over 512MB when > you boot Linux. > > Also helps to increase the spare stack pages from the windows default of 2 by > adding the line MinSPs=8 (or 12) to the 386Enh section in System.ini. There's > more of these modifications, and they definitely improve windows somewhat, at > least to the extent it can be. > > I'm new to linux, so I'm wondering if there aren't similar modifications, and > where they can be applied- I assume probably somewhere in /etc files, but I'm > really a novice. Or is it generally that Linux is already configured > correctly in the first place, and none of these type tweaks are really > needed? > > Robert Crawford In relation to your actual question... With RAM no tweaks are really needed until you get above 4gigs. ... I'd say it's safe to say most of us don't have near that much in the majority of our boxes. Above 1gig the enterprise kernel will improve performance more because it uses the ram more effectively. As for swap. Linux doesn't use a swapfile (it could but doesn't) it uses a swap partition. Dedicated to being only swap and never changing in size. (or on my box never being used either *grin*) The tweaks that seem to be the best on Linux come less with modifying the way it starts and more with modifying the way the hardware works, or in doing heavy changes to the kernel itself (Like low latency kernels, hyper-threading etc.) However for about 90% of the people/usage it's pretty darn optimized out of the box. MDK and the others are pretty good about making things work well together. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
--- tarvid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. But until > > it does go, we've got to work with it and continue to use our collective > > mental talents here to help replace it with (hopefully) Mandrake Linux. As > > we grease the rails for those peeps here trying to dual boot, we also pave > > the way for winblows to be permanently replaced. That's what I think of > > when I consider the dual booters and the resultant collateral chatter. > > > i am not so sure dual-booting is the answer > i ran dual boots from 1995 to summer 2000 > it wasn't until i dropped windows that i started making any progress on the > desktop a $200 box will do an adequate job of running either Linux or that > other OS > > Linux gets cold when it is on the other partition. > > jim tarvid I don't know about that, Jim. I think that it depends on the individual. I spend 98% of my time in Linux; but there are some things that I still can't do successfully under Linux; such as the creation of backups of copy protected CD's. The CD copy software under Linux is still not sufficiently sophisticated enough to do bit for bit backup copies of game software using newer copy protection schemes. In order to do that you really have to be in touch with the capabilities of your burner; and the Linux stuff isn't there yet, at least in LM82 it wasn't. Perhaps the newer cdrecord (v2.0) has improved. In fact, my impression is that the challenge with cdrecord up until now, at least, has been just to insure flawless replications of standard iso's and non-copy protected cd's, and to keep up with ports to other OS's such as solaris. Raw96r and Raw96p hardware burner modes are supported as of 2.0, but does cdrecord use them to advantage with copy protection schemes such as SafeDisc, SecuROM, LaserLock, or God forbid, TAGES? Won't know until I have another week to test. But I can tell you this; LM82 cdrecord could not. Another thing is gaming. WineX has done invaluable and irreplaceable work when it comes to bringing Linux into the mainstream gaming world, but there is still a ways to go. Baldur's Gate 2 is a good example. In order to network a game with my son, (although I can play single player OK under LM82) I still can't network to his machine for a multiplayer session. Therefore I am forced to boot winblows. Morrowind will not run under WineX, AT ALL. Yet. Same for alot of other games; some companies have the resources to make the attempt to compile their code for two OS's. Some don't. Bioware seems to be willing to make the attempt, but their Linux version of Neverwinter Nights seems to be almost a complete YEAR behind their windows version. By the time linuxers (or Mandrakians) get their copy of the linux NWN client, most of the comraderie and excitement online has vanished, and they are treading over old ground. This is the situation that's going to be whenever I finally see WineX run Morrowind, because I have absolutely refused to run Morrowind under winblows. I never run games under win anymore, unless my son wants to net a game, and then I'm forced to do so. It's sad, but it's reality. WineX goes a long way to getting us users completely under Linux, and in the process saving the developers thousands of dollars of development time. It helps bridge the chasm between the win world and us, giving us even more opportunities, choice, and strength. But it is still an imperfect solution. Till these things and others are worked out, many of us will be forced to run with the devil. LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
> > One full minute? Are you sure you're not exaggerating a little bit? I > > don't use OO but use Staroffice now and again and it is slow but it > > certainly doesn't take a minute. I haven't timed it yet but I would be > > suprised if it actually took more than 20 to 30 seconds tops. > > > > My system: athlon 1.1Ghz, 128M ram, MDK 9.0. > > I timed it. > > Athlon 900, 512M ram, Mdk 9.0 > > OOo 31 sec. from cold to blank document > > Anne Well, you guys are probably a lot richer than me :o) my system: Pentium II 400 MHZ, 192 MB RAM. It's less than a whole minute only if i'm doing nothing else (i.e. there's nothing else fighting with OO over the CPU..) but it's still ~45 seconds. Damian -- -- I don't want Windows to be only for the 31173. Yes, we've come a long way from all those security holes, virii, and cryptic commands like "Edit textfile.txt" (what in the hell is that supposed to mean?) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. But until > it does go, we've got to work with it and continue to use our collective > mental talents here to help replace it with (hopefully) Mandrake Linux. As > we grease the rails for those peeps here trying to dual boot, we also pave > the way for winblows to be permanently replaced. That's what I think of > when I consider the dual booters and the resultant collateral chatter. > i am not so sure dual-booting is the answer i ran dual boots from 1995 to summer 2000 it wasn't until i dropped windows that i started making any progress on the desktop a $200 box will do an adequate job of running either Linux or that other OS Linux gets cold when it is on the other partition. jim tarvid Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
--- flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 11:44 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > > Saddam Hussein is off topic. Discussions of winblows in conjunction or > > comparison with Linux are not. > > > > LX > > LX, > Point taken. > > I just thought it might not be appropriate to go into a long involved > discourse on tweaking windows here, when probably not that many people dual > boot with older windows versions- but I could be wrong. Anyway, all the > windows info is spelled out in great detail on the axcel216 site, and there > is a lot of it. > > Robert Crawford Robert, Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. But until it does go, we've got to work with it and continue to use our collective mental talents here to help replace it with (hopefully) Mandrake Linux. As we grease the rails for those peeps here trying to dual boot, we also pave the way for winblows to be permanently replaced. That's what I think of when I consider the dual booters and the resultant collateral chatter. It's always possible that collateral (winblows) chatter can get out of hand. But among a bunch of Mandrakians?(term=Carroll Grigsby) Unless we have an influx of winblows trolls again, we probably won't have those worries. ;) Best regards, LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 11:44 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > Saddam Hussein is off topic. Discussions of winblows in conjunction or > comparison with Linux are not. > > LX LX, Point taken. I just thought it might not be appropriate to go into a long involved discourse on tweaking windows here, when probably not that many people dual boot with older windows versions- but I could be wrong. Anyway, all the windows info is spelled out in great detail on the axcel216 site, and there is a lot of it. Robert Crawford > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
--- flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > et, > Win 2k or XP should handle the extra ram OK, while ME or lower won't, and > needs the file edits I mentioned to avoid boot problems. Those dual booting > with Linux can find out more about windows registry hacks and system file > edits by visiting the great axcel216 website for in-depth info, and exact > instructions on the subject. Since this is a Linux list, let's leave it at > that, and use personal emails for any more windows related stuff, so as not > to wander to far off-topic. > > Robert Crawford > Saddam Hussein is off topic. Discussions of winblows in conjunction or comparison with Linux are not. LX __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
et, Win 2k or XP should handle the extra ram OK, while ME or lower won't, and needs the file edits I mentioned to avoid boot problems. Those dual booting with Linux can find out more about windows registry hacks and system file edits by visiting the great axcel216 website for in-depth info, and exact instructions on the subject. Since this is a Linux list, let's leave it at that, and use personal emails for any more windows related stuff, so as not to wander to far off-topic. Robert Crawford On Thursday 27 February 2003 10:25 am, et wrote: > On Thursday 27 February 2003 09:59 am, flacycads wrote: > > Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with > > winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is > > no problem with higher versions of windows. > > > > The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or > > slightly less, and the ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. That way, windows > > will use up to 512MB before using the swap file, you will eliminate > > windows booting problems, and you can still use all the ram you have over > > 512MB when you boot Linux. > > > > Also helps to increase the spare stack pages from the windows default of > > 2 by adding the line MinSPs=8 (or 12) to the 386Enh section in > > System.ini. There's more of these modifications, and they definitely > > improve windows somewhat, at least to the extent it can be. > > > > I'm new to linux, so I'm wondering if there aren't similar modifications, > > and where they can be applied- I assume probably somewhere in /etc files, > > but I'm really a novice. Or is it generally that Linux is already > > configured correctly in the first place, and none of these type tweaks > > are really needed? > > > > Robert Crawford > > I really like this, thank you. I am going to put those other memsticks in > this afternoon. since i also have win 2k on the box, will I need to make > any changes to it? > As far as MDK goes, when useing either a multi CPU board or more than 1 > gig mem, there are different kernel versions (smp, and enterprise.) but > linux really uses smp and more mem much better than WIn2k. > thanks, > see I learnt something again today... life is good. > et > > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:55 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote: > > > > ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT > > > > boot with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. > > > > it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes > > > > the differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal > > > > developers to decide what really is the best optimization for the ram > > > > use. > > > > > > AFAIK, this is not entirely correct. I've known people running about > > > 768 (or something like that).. oh, no, wait. It was 1G of RAM. The > > > problem with it is that Win9X cannot use all of it. And also, any more > > > than 512MB will only make the machine slower, as Win9x kernels have a > > > memory managment so crippled that it can choke by maintaining "too > > > many" process tables and memory pages. And no matter how many programs > > > this guy loaded, memory usage was never above ~400 MB, and it would > > > even freeze due to "lack of resources" without going any further. > > > > > > Damian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 February 2003 09:59 am, flacycads wrote: > Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with > winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is no > problem with higher versions of windows. > > The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or > slightly less, and the ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. That way, windows will > use up to 512MB before using the swap file, you will eliminate windows > booting problems, and you can still use all the ram you have over 512MB > when you boot Linux. > > Also helps to increase the spare stack pages from the windows default of 2 > by adding the line MinSPs=8 (or 12) to the 386Enh section in System.ini. > There's more of these modifications, and they definitely improve windows > somewhat, at least to the extent it can be. > > I'm new to linux, so I'm wondering if there aren't similar modifications, > and where they can be applied- I assume probably somewhere in /etc files, > but I'm really a novice. Or is it generally that Linux is already > configured correctly in the first place, and none of these type tweaks are > really needed? > > Robert Crawford I really like this, thank you. I am going to put those other memsticks in this afternoon. since i also have win 2k on the box, will I need to make any changes to it? As far as MDK goes, when useing either a multi CPU board or more than 1 gig mem, there are different kernel versions (smp, and enterprise.) but linux really uses smp and more mem much better than WIn2k. thanks, see I learnt something again today... life is good. et > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:55 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote: > > > ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot > > > with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. > > > it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the > > > differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to > > > decide what really is the best optimization for the ram use. > > > > AFAIK, this is not entirely correct. I've known people running about 768 > > (or something like that).. oh, no, wait. It was 1G of RAM. The problem > > with it is that Win9X cannot use all of it. And also, any more than 512MB > > will only make the machine slower, as Win9x kernels have a memory > > managment so crippled that it can choke by maintaining "too many" process > > tables and memory pages. And no matter how many programs this guy loaded, > > memory usage was never above ~400 MB, and it would even freeze due to > > "lack of resources" without going any further. > > > > Damian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Thursday 27 Feb 2003 1:50 pm, Praedor Atrebates wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:48 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote: > [...] > > > OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute. > > > > Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some things for > > which Linux is faster, and some things for which Windows is faster. Now, > > MS Office is a VERY fast set of applications. Even if it's not pre-loaded > > (wine proves it). And OpenOffice.org is a VERY SLOW set of applications > > (regarding startup anyway. Normal operation does not differ > > almost) > > [...] > > One full minute? Are you sure you're not exaggerating a little bit? I > don't use OO but use Staroffice now and again and it is slow but it > certainly doesn't take a minute. I haven't timed it yet but I would be > suprised if it actually took more than 20 to 30 seconds tops. > > My system: athlon 1.1Ghz, 128M ram, MDK 9.0. > I timed it. Athlon 900, 512M ram, Mdk 9.0 OOo 31 sec. from cold to blank document Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is no problem with higher versions of windows. The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or slightly less, and the ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1. That way, windows will use up to 512MB before using the swap file, you will eliminate windows booting problems, and you can still use all the ram you have over 512MB when you boot Linux. Also helps to increase the spare stack pages from the windows default of 2 by adding the line MinSPs=8 (or 12) to the 386Enh section in System.ini. There's more of these modifications, and they definitely improve windows somewhat, at least to the extent it can be. I'm new to linux, so I'm wondering if there aren't similar modifications, and where they can be applied- I assume probably somewhere in /etc files, but I'm really a novice. Or is it generally that Linux is already configured correctly in the first place, and none of these type tweaks are really needed? Robert Crawford On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:55 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote: > > ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot > > with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. > > it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the > > differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to > > decide what really is the best optimization for the ram use. > > AFAIK, this is not entirely correct. I've known people running about 768 > (or something like that).. oh, no, wait. It was 1G of RAM. The problem > with it is that Win9X cannot use all of it. And also, any more than 512MB > will only make the machine slower, as Win9x kernels have a memory > managment so crippled that it can choke by maintaining "too many" process > tables and memory pages. And no matter how many programs this guy loaded, > memory usage was never above ~400 MB, and it would even freeze due to "lack > of resources" without going any further. > > Damian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
try mandrake 7.2. I still get a lot of mileage out of it. It's the version that they got right. I only wish the releases after it were as good. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vahur Lokk Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine? On Wednesday 26 February 2003 18:53, you wrote: > As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop > 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest > achievable equivalent. No. The perfomance is not comparable even then. I write this mail on a 166Mhz/48MbRAM Compaq Deskpro that was capable of giving me snappy perfomance running MSO97 and Win95. It runs now Mdk8.2, no KDE, only XFCE, no useless services running, I have really done everything I know to make it run. First start of OOo takes more than a minute. But it does not get any better later. Opening new files takes time. Even autosave of a long file means 10 sec coffee break. I have not tried Mdk7.1, maybe the difference in perfomance is really so big as you describe. Having worked with older StarOffices as well, using 5.1 would probably mean perfomance loss, not a win. > Then you will have comparable performance except you can be doing more > tasks on Mandrake. Yes that I believe. But still, the only argument that made my family company (run by my parents) change the OS was question about licences, and to the lesser degree about stability. They are convinced that Linux performance is lousy and I am not capable of showing otherwise. What more, there is still my mother doing bookkeeping on an old P90/Win95 that was bought brandnew when such comp was a big deal. She has had no crashes or blue screens since then and so Linux stability is not an argument either, at least for her. Wahur --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 06:34 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:37, Greg Meyer wrote: > ... > > > I agree with you wholeheartedly, however the point I was trying to make > > was that as we all sit around here and discuss these things, very often > > we have that discussion based on what we think a particular term, like > > beta, rc or stability mean, without acknowledging the way MandrakeSoft > > means them. I do not believe that we should not communicate with the > > company to try to get them to change their definition, or modify thier > > way of thinking. Perhaps changing the way releases are numbered, so that > > common perception aligns with reality is the way to go, but as an > > alternative to your proposal, instead of changing the MandrakeSoft > > release philosophy, change the numbering so there are no longer any point > > releases. 10 and 11 vs 9.1 and 9.2. Although this would align reality > > more with what peoples understandings of releases are, I acknowledge that > > it does not address your criticism about bug fixing. > > ... > > I think this is the most reasonable course of action; it assuages > symptoms and concerns without imposing more stress on MandrakeSoft. That > way, instead of continually re-explaining that Mandrake doesn't follow > the convention of bleeding-edge in x.0, increasing stability in x.1,2, > Mandrake and its users can simply say "it's a different release > strategy." Date-based release name is certainly one good way to imply > this philosophy, but it has a few bad marketing implications. Code names > are fun, but people will probably gripe. Sticking with the ordinal > numbers and losing the decimals is probably the best option. It also will QUICKLY run Mandrake out of viable numbers and would then need a new naming scheme. How about stop jumping full digits so semi-randomly? Since each release is virtually a new release rather than a bugfix, just go with that and use the decimal place to delimit cooker vs real release? To borrow loosely from kernel development, odd decimal numbers would be for Cooker, even for the release, ie, 8.1 is a cooker development system and 8.2 is the release that was based on 8.1 (cooker). Then it would work out that we are coming up on the next release at 8.4, as the current cooker would be 8.3. Are we really to get a Mandrake 24.0 within just a year or so? Really? The next release after that might then jump to 31.0, considering the numeric jump from 8.2 to 9.0. If you are going to use numbers to name your release, you need to conserve the significant digits or it will soon become unwieldy and ridiculous (Mandrake 105.2). praedor -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XhmXwDUPEkSvRHERAo6wAJ9S6ZTAGGyNqmMjDjuAVCuEjqL3xgCfRrdv 4AHY1bG51tcSLCkeKywKTKM= =vh2d -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:48 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote: [...] > OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute. > > Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some things for > which Linux is faster, and some things for which Windows is faster. Now, MS > Office is a VERY fast set of applications. Even if it's not pre-loaded > (wine proves it). And OpenOffice.org is a VERY SLOW set of applications > (regarding startup anyway. Normal operation does not differ almost) [...] One full minute? Are you sure you're not exaggerating a little bit? I don't use OO but use Staroffice now and again and it is slow but it certainly doesn't take a minute. I haven't timed it yet but I would be suprised if it actually took more than 20 to 30 seconds tops. My system: athlon 1.1Ghz, 128M ram, MDK 9.0. It is seemingly painfully slow but not THAT painful - 1 minute is an extremely long time. praedor -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XhfDwDUPEkSvRHERAojFAKCJtJenlzyAq2DrUeUQv9OHukkK8ACgwPvp Qejnt9O+N8sxshaRdOWE8rU= =yeMc -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:14 am, James Sparenberg wrote: > it. Boot alone took 27 minutes! (with swap under 2 minutes) Says a lot > about memory management. > > James Any chance you guys could do some snipping in these long threads? Especially when the subject starts to stray a bit. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Xgf7Gu5uuMFlL5MRAiJgAJ9v7vONEDcjKohkcfkB7wowFHLgbwCffkQR IYAd09I2R9RMDshqmc91MIc= =gYZr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
> > This is like saying that Linux is faster than Windows because Bluefish > loads faster than DreamWeaver. Put OOo on windows and do that > comparison. I am not saying "windows is faster than Linux". I'm saying "MS Office is faster then OpenOffice" and, yes, the Windows version of OO behaves pretty much like the Linux version... maybe just a bit faster... -- Damian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:01, civileme wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:13 pm, flacycads wrote: > > If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and > > my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux > > about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and > > compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on > > these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the > > best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins > > and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm > > trying to really learn about my Linux systems. > > > > I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read > > everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any > > advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can > > use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really > > helped me tremendously. > > > > I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience > > tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't > > use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini > > file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. > > This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits > > to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings > > edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying > > to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't > > seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And > > of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/file possiblities. > > > > My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load > > into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, > > of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or > > windows. > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:11 pm, et wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > > > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in > > > > > my experience. > > > > > > > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the > > > > > stairs in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes > > > > > and running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the > > > > > eye-candy, get faster response. > > > > > > > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that > > > > > won't be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the > > > > > Win32 GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is > > > > > changing with DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which > > > > > plagues NT video. Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit > > > > > flaky in my experience, which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running > > > > > a 3d program is going to produce software rendering, hardware > > > > > rendering, static across the top 3rd of my screen, or a video card > > > > > lockup (all of these have happened this week with a Voodoo3 and an > > > > > i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets the same sort of attention > > > > > that Windows drivers get, since driver debugging that goes past the > > > > > point of "it works on the primary developer's machine" is not very > > > > > fun. > > > > > > > > > > dos centavos, > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of > > > > > > words was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > > > > performance is si
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 13:27, et wrote: > I was not speaking about anyone in particular > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:13 pm, flacycads wrote: > > If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and > > my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux > > about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and > > compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on > > these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the > > best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins > > and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm > > trying to really learn about my Linux systems. > ahh go ahead and overclock and learn linux at the same time,,, nothing like > creating extra problems to get extra training on repairing them > > I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read > > everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any > > advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can > > use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really > > helped me tremendously. > > > > I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience > > tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't > > use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini > > file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. > > This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits > > to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings > > edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying > > to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't > > seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And > > of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/file possiblities. > > ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot with > more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. > it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the > differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to decide > what really is the best optimization for the ram use. > > > My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load > > into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, > > of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or > > windows. > compare the "second loading" times then, notice how much faster an application > loads the second time in Linux, then compare the comparitive app in M$win, or > even better, compare loading the app (try Adobe photoshop) in a VMware window > the second time, then compare loading it as dual boot. > > > > > > > > I bet your network is correctly setup and tweaked, and his /etc/host file > > > is empty too Wanna see something really fast? Win98 boot's in under 15 seconds when running under win4lin! > > > > __ > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 18:48, Damian Gatabria wrote: > > > > As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop > > 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest > > achievable equivalent. > > Civileme, there are few to none occasions in which i can disagree with you > or even judge your knowledge... you are simply above many of us, most of the > time, but this is one of the subjects in which you sound a little ...wishful? > > In this machine of mine, i can load windows 98, and Office will take something > like 2 seconds to start. True, most of the libs are already on memory. > > But then, i can also run Office thru wine on Linux (does Linux preload > MS Office in memory?) and it takes about 5 to 10 seconds. (this includes > the time needed to launch the wineserver, wine.bin processes, and then > MS Office. > > OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute. This is like saying that Linux is faster than Windows because Bluefish loads faster than DreamWeaver. Put OOo on windows and do that comparison. > > Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some things for which > Linux is faster, and some things for which Windows is faster. Now, MS Office > is a VERY fast set of applications. Even if it's not pre-loaded (wine proves > it). And OpenOffice.org is a VERY SLOW set of applications (regarding > startup anyway. Normal operation does not differ almost) > > > > > > > > > I amazed people at a local Computer Renaissance when loading a copy of > > Mandrake for a business customer. One of the CDs would not read on the > > target machine (media vs drive error on a brand-new drive) so I used a > > Mandrake Demonstrator there to burn a copy of the CD which would read. > > While burning, I was printing the user manual I had prepared and also > > showing someone how to connect to the internet using the machine and > > MCC And then I burned a copy of another CD (showing how backing up > > could be done). > > > > The store techs were floored. They had a hyped-up dual P4 running win2K > > server and when they were burning they could not do anything else, and they > > HAD to reset after burning or the next CD they burned would have only a > > directory and no retrievable data. > > > > Civileme > > I have tried this also. In this one you are quite right, Linux 0wnz CD-burning > and proper multitasking. :o) > > Damian > > --- > > > > __ > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 18:53, you wrote: > As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop > 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest > achievable equivalent. No. The perfomance is not comparable even then. I write this mail on a 166Mhz/48MbRAM Compaq Deskpro that was capable of giving me snappy perfomance running MSO97 and Win95. It runs now Mdk8.2, no KDE, only XFCE, no useless services running, I have really done everything I know to make it run. First start of OOo takes more than a minute. But it does not get any better later. Opening new files takes time. Even autosave of a long file means 10 sec coffee break. I have not tried Mdk7.1, maybe the difference in perfomance is really so big as you describe. Having worked with older StarOffices as well, using 5.1 would probably mean perfomance loss, not a win. > Then you will have comparable performance except you can be doing more > tasks on Mandrake. Yes that I believe. But still, the only argument that made my family company (run by my parents) change the OS was question about licences, and to the lesser degree about stability. They are convinced that Linux performance is lousy and I am not capable of showing otherwise. What more, there is still my mother doing bookkeeping on an old P90/Win95 that was bought brandnew when such comp was a big deal. She has had no crashes or blue screens since then and so Linux stability is not an argument either, at least for her. Wahur Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on samemachine?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 02:02, Vahur Lokk wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote: > > > And don't forget the obvious > > > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL > > of OpenOffice. > > Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play. Old > Pentium running Win9x and MSO is absolutely viable office conf running well > and fast. And such boxes are very much in use around here. > > Now try running Linux with OpenOffice on such a box. There is absolutely no > way to achieve comparable perfomance, whatever distro, kernel, window manager > you run. Try running win95 and OOo on one of them it's even slower OOo is a monolithic pig (but they are putting it on a diet.) > > In fact, comparing GUI loading times does not matter for me - its usually > once-a-day event. But if loading times of OOo and MSO differ in minutes not > seconds it is a showstopper. And no good explanation helps. Also suggestions > to use something else instead of OOo monster are completely useless. > > Wahur > > > > > __ > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 23:39, Vahur Lokk wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17:32, you wrote: > > What "looks" to be running faster is just a false impression. M$ > > pre-loads many of the libs, and the core of some programs at boot/login > > time. So when you double click on IE (for example), yes, it hits the > > screen much faster than Mozilla on Linux. But it's already half loaded. > > This is at the expense of the ram needed to run applications. > > > > But then M$ works under the philosophy that Ram & disks are cheap. Just > > add more. > Yep I've heard that before. But then explain why Linux generally tend to be > more memory-hungry? Its my impression that Windows perfomance relies more on > processor speed, while Linux on memory. > > Wahur Wahur, In some ways you are right. IF you include more than just RAM. Actually Linux isn't as memory hungry... it's just keeps loading as much as it can (just in case you need it fast) until Ram limit is reached or it runs out of things to load. It plays nice though... it'll unload and reload without a second thought but if you want shear speed. 2.6 is going to be blistering. From what I saw today. It's unreal. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:34, Jack Coates wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:37, Greg Meyer wrote: > ... > > I agree with you wholeheartedly, however the point I was trying to make was > > that as we all sit around here and discuss these things, very often we have > > that discussion based on what we think a particular term, like beta, rc or > > stability mean, without acknowledging the way MandrakeSoft means them. I do > > not believe that we should not communicate with the company to try to get > > them to change their definition, or modify thier way of thinking. Perhaps > > changing the way releases are numbered, so that common perception aligns with > > reality is the way to go, but as an alternative to your proposal, instead of > > changing the MandrakeSoft release philosophy, change the numbering so there > > are no longer any point releases. 10 and 11 vs 9.1 and 9.2. Although this > > would align reality more with what peoples understandings of releases are, I > > acknowledge that it does not address your criticism about bug fixing. > ... > > I think this is the most reasonable course of action; it assuages > symptoms and concerns without imposing more stress on MandrakeSoft. That > way, instead of continually re-explaining that Mandrake doesn't follow > the convention of bleeding-edge in x.0, increasing stability in x.1,2, > Mandrake and its users can simply say "it's a different release > strategy." Date-based release name is certainly one good way to imply > this philosophy, but it has a few bad marketing implications. Code names > are fun, but people will probably gripe. Sticking with the ordinal > numbers and losing the decimals is probably the best option. I'm not apposed to anything being proposed. What I would like to see is earlier testing on new items. For example tmdns and mdkkdm and ZeroConf... all are viable concepts. The intent is good. The logic is solid. But for a totally new product like this perhaps first "giving it" to the users of the current stable as a "Hey guys n gals what do you think of this?" Then when it hits' Beta it won't be such a shock to those who aren't living in the cooker. 90% of the problems have been with this kind of program Examples would be the changes to drakrpm, msec, etc. In the early forms they brought nothing but complaints and a lot of repetitive problems in this forum. But KDE 3.1 is going smooth as silk... why... because the 9.0 users beat it up for a while on a stable system. Problems were more isolated, sure to be caused by KDE3.1 and therefore easier to troubleshoot. This does two things. One gives all the longer Beta cycle they are looking for. Two, smooths out the curve on bugs by spreading them over 6 months instead of 2. Finally MDK needs to stop working so hard to be better than RH and SuSE it already is. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17:32, you wrote: > What "looks" to be running faster is just a false impression. M$ > pre-loads many of the libs, and the core of some programs at boot/login > time. So when you double click on IE (for example), yes, it hits the > screen much faster than Mozilla on Linux. But it's already half loaded. > This is at the expense of the ram needed to run applications. > > But then M$ works under the philosophy that Ram & disks are cheap. Just > add more. Yep I've heard that before. But then explain why Linux generally tend to be more memory-hungry? Its my impression that Windows perfomance relies more on processor speed, while Linux on memory. Wahur Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 12:52, et wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:34 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: > > > > > Yes, in the US, RedHat is the brand that's known and that's what we're > > trying to address. > > > > Blue skies... Todd > Ok, let us know what we can do to help. > > ET ET First thing from my limited viewpoint I've already seen you doing. Beta testing. Second. thing... Every time someone asks about Linux don't talk down others but rather talk up the fact that bar none MDK is the best Desktop Linux distro around. My personal fav is to ask people why there 1.5ghz laptop boots so much slower than my 500mhz laptop. *grin* (I use iceWM with the XP theme... In fact I've even got a LinuxXP professional edition backgroud *grin, grin, grin*) The most effective tactics have been. 1. Don't talk down another OS, talk up Linux. 2. Always answer with the honest truth. If the tool drakfoo bytes admit it. Honesty goes further than hype. But don't forget the objective of the tool and where it will go. 3. Show RH users the tools in MDK... ESPECIALLY urpmi... if there is one reason to use MDK that's the one. 4. Always wear a cheesy grin when using your computer with MDK (Makes em curious as heck.) James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 08:22, civileme wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:36 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 10:50 pm, civileme wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, > > > > > then you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting > > > > > a boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. > > > > > This should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of > > > > > the company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other > > > > > employee's paychecks and the quality of life of their families are > > > > > all at stake. In other words a little compassion and a magazine > > > > > subscription will go a long way, not just for you truly but also for > > > > > the future of everybody else involved. > > > > > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. > > > > Am I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I > > > > use downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a > > > > boxed set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an > > > > upgraded club membership. > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the > > > proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, > > > they see about $4 for out of the price. > > > > > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds > > > after covering costs. > > > > Civileme - interested from a business pov - 'covering costs' of the club? > > I imagine most of that is labour costs? Presumably there are optimum > > numbers of club members for those costs? If we get more members, would the > > 'share' received increase? > > > > Anne > > > Of course. It is a far superior purchase for both sides unless someone really > needs support, in which case a packaged product or one of the products sold > wiht extensive support (like MNF) is the customer's choice. But for many > users, Mandrake Club is the win/win situation. > > Civileme Still I hope for one thing. That this time the 9.1 boxes will be on the shelves BEFORE everyone has downloaded a copy. Yes 89 bucks for an OS and a tone of software is a heck of a deal. But it seems like less of one when you've already burned your own CD. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
> > As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop > 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest > achievable equivalent. Civileme, there are few to none occasions in which i can disagree with you or even judge your knowledge... you are simply above many of us, most of the time, but this is one of the subjects in which you sound a little ...wishful? In this machine of mine, i can load windows 98, and Office will take something like 2 seconds to start. True, most of the libs are already on memory. But then, i can also run Office thru wine on Linux (does Linux preload MS Office in memory?) and it takes about 5 to 10 seconds. (this includes the time needed to launch the wineserver, wine.bin processes, and then MS Office. OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute. Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some things for which Linux is faster, and some things for which Windows is faster. Now, MS Office is a VERY fast set of applications. Even if it's not pre-loaded (wine proves it). And OpenOffice.org is a VERY SLOW set of applications (regarding startup anyway. Normal operation does not differ almost) > I amazed people at a local Computer Renaissance when loading a copy of > Mandrake for a business customer. One of the CDs would not read on the > target machine (media vs drive error on a brand-new drive) so I used a > Mandrake Demonstrator there to burn a copy of the CD which would read. > While burning, I was printing the user manual I had prepared and also > showing someone how to connect to the internet using the machine and > MCC And then I burned a copy of another CD (showing how backing up > could be done). > > The store techs were floored. They had a hyped-up dual P4 running win2K > server and when they were burning they could not do anything else, and they > HAD to reset after burning or the next CD they burned would have only a > directory and no retrievable data. > > Civileme I have tried this also. In this one you are quite right, Linux 0wnz CD-burning and proper multitasking. :o) Damian --- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
> ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot > with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. > it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the > differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to > decide what really is the best optimization for the ram use. AFAIK, this is not entirely correct. I've known people running about 768 (or something like that).. oh, no, wait. It was 1G of RAM. The problem with it is that Win9X cannot use all of it. And also, any more than 512MB will only make the machine slower, as Win9x kernels have a memory managment so crippled that it can choke by maintaining "too many" process tables and memory pages. And no matter how many programs this guy loaded, memory usage was never above ~400 MB, and it would even freeze due to "lack of resources" without going any further. Damian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:37, Greg Meyer wrote: ... > I agree with you wholeheartedly, however the point I was trying to make was > that as we all sit around here and discuss these things, very often we have > that discussion based on what we think a particular term, like beta, rc or > stability mean, without acknowledging the way MandrakeSoft means them. I do > not believe that we should not communicate with the company to try to get > them to change their definition, or modify thier way of thinking. Perhaps > changing the way releases are numbered, so that common perception aligns with > reality is the way to go, but as an alternative to your proposal, instead of > changing the MandrakeSoft release philosophy, change the numbering so there > are no longer any point releases. 10 and 11 vs 9.1 and 9.2. Although this > would align reality more with what peoples understandings of releases are, I > acknowledge that it does not address your criticism about bug fixing. ... I think this is the most reasonable course of action; it assuages symptoms and concerns without imposing more stress on MandrakeSoft. That way, instead of continually re-explaining that Mandrake doesn't follow the convention of bleeding-edge in x.0, increasing stability in x.1,2, Mandrake and its users can simply say "it's a different release strategy." Date-based release name is certainly one good way to imply this philosophy, but it has a few bad marketing implications. Code names are fun, but people will probably gripe. Sticking with the ordinal numbers and losing the decimals is probably the best option. -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:13 pm, flacycads wrote: > If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and > my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux > about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and > compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on > these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the > best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins > and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm > trying to really learn about my Linux systems. > > I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read > everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any > advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can > use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really > helped me tremendously. > > I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience > tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't > use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini > file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. > This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits > to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings > edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying > to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't > seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And > of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/file possiblities. > > My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load > into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, > of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or > windows. > > Robert Crawford > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:11 pm, et wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in > > > > my experience. > > > > > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the > > > > stairs in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes > > > > and running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the > > > > eye-candy, get faster response. > > > > > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that > > > > won't be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the > > > > Win32 GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is > > > > changing with DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which > > > > plagues NT video. Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit > > > > flaky in my experience, which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running > > > > a 3d program is going to produce software rendering, hardware > > > > rendering, static across the top 3rd of my screen, or a video card > > > > lockup (all of these have happened this week with a Voodoo3 and an > > > > i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets the same sort of attention > > > > that Windows drivers get, since driver debugging that goes past the > > > > point of "it works on the primary developer's machine" is not very > > > > fun. > > > > > > > > dos centavos, > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of > > > > > words was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm > > > > > sorry, but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of > > > > > course I do have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and > > > > > tuned to perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can > > > > > tweak my Linux installs a little more than
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
I was not speaking about anyone in particular On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:13 pm, flacycads wrote: > If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and > my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux > about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and > compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on > these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the > best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins > and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm > trying to really learn about my Linux systems. ahh go ahead and overclock and learn linux at the same time,,, nothing like creating extra problems to get extra training on repairing them > I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read > everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any > advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can > use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really > helped me tremendously. > > I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience > tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't > use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini > file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. > This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits > to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings > edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying > to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't > seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And > of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/file possiblities. ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME. it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to decide what really is the best optimization for the ram use. > My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load > into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, > of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or > windows. compare the "second loading" times then, notice how much faster an application loads the second time in Linux, then compare the comparitive app in M$win, or even better, compare loading the app (try Adobe photoshop) in a VMware window the second time, then compare loading it as dual boot. > > > > I bet your network is correctly setup and tweaked, and his /etc/host file > > is empty too Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and compile lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on these machines, and that would help the performance. I also use only the best ram, and have been a serious overclocker at times, and know the ins and outs of that, although at present I'm not overclocking while I'm trying to really learn about my Linux systems. I've made a pretty serious effort to tune my Mandrake install, and read everything I could find on the subject, but of course I'm all ears for any advice anyone wants to offer, and it will certainly be appreciated. I can use all the knowledge I can get, and this great expert list has really helped me tremendously. I came from a Mac/windows background, and have many years experience tweaking them for maximun performance. BTW, someone mentioned windows won't use all the memory. That's not exactly correct- you can edit the System.ini file to force windows to use all available ram before using the swap file. This works really well for those with a lot of ram. You can also make edits to control the loading and unloading of .dlls, among many other settings edits that affect performance. I only mention this because I've been trying to figure out if there are similar modifications in Linux- there doesn't seem to be much written about this- at least I haven't run across much. And of course I still have a lot to learn about the /etc/file possiblities. My main concern is not how fast an OS boots, or how fast applications load into ram, it's how good the response/performance is afterwards. Which is, of course, where lots of ram and a fast cpu works wonders, with Linux or windows. Robert Crawford On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:11 pm, et wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > > > experience. > > > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > > > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > > > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > > > get faster response. > > > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > > > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > > > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > > > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT > > > video. Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my > > > experience, which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program > > > is going to produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static > > > across the top 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these > > > have happened this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that > > > XFree86 gets the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since > > > driver debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > > > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > > > > > dos centavos, > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of > > > > words was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm > > > > sorry, but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of > > > > course I do have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and > > > > tuned to perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak > > > > my Linux installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:34 pm, Todd Lyons wrote: > > Yes, in the US, RedHat is the brand that's known and that's what we're > trying to address. > > Blue skies... Todd Ok, let us know what we can do to help. ET Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:57:09 -0500 flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miark, According to Distrowatch, 9.0 uses glibc 2.2.5, and 9.1rc1 uses glibc > 2.3.1. Is that incorrect? They also report gcc is upgraded to 3.2.2. I dunno. This is what Civileme told me. Civileme?! Miark > Robert C. > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 06:28 pm, Miark wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:04:51 -0500 > > > > So this is a major release, but it's numbered 9.1 because: > > > > * 9.1 uses the same glibc as 9.0. > > * The 9.1 binaries will be compatible with 9.0 systems, and > > * It still uses kernel 2.4.x > > > > Hope that helps. It made a big difference to me. > > > > Miark > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > > experience. > > > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > > get faster response. > > > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT video. > > Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my experience, > > which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program is going to > > produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static across the top > > 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these have happened > > this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets > > the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since driver > > debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > > > dos centavos, > > Jack > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words > > > was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, > > > but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do > > > have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to > > > perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux > > > installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > > > > windows > > > > > > ... > > And don't forget the obvious > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL > of OpenOffice. > > So if you are comparing Windows performance in this area, try opening > OpenOffice on Desktop 2 and just ticking it on the taskbar, > > Same for Konqueror/Mozilla/Phoenix/Opera vs MSIE > > That is not to say there are not slower areas in linux. Video drivers are > a problem (strange, Windows doesn't write video drivers), and of course the > overhead in maintaining decent security is there by design in linux. > > My own results, on my own equipment, do not support your results, but then > I have machines with a LOT of memory which linux uses and Windows does not. > > Civileme I bet your network is correctly setup and tweaked, and his /etc/host file is empty too Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 11:06 am, Tibbetts, Ric wrote: > Perhaps, like so many others you missed the intent of the statements to > start with. > The problem is, Mandrake is losing out on the desktop, and server wars > for a reason. The problem of every release is a .0 release, keeps the OS > unstable, and shied away from because of it. > > The suggestions of changing the model were offered in an aire of trying > to help. Not just a RANT. > I did understand your point, I was not really resonding to you specifically, but to you generally. Although I get your point, I disagree with it somewhat because one of the reasons I use Mandrake is because it is always full of the most current releases of stuff. I don't want 9.1 to have KDE 3.0.5a because it is stable. If I wanted that kind of stability I would use Debian. Of course the other advantages to Mandrake, ease of install and adminstration certainly rank as well. > >>It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this > >>context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the > >>bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only > >>want, but need. > > > > Perhaps those users should use Debian than. > > Yup, that will really help Mandrakesoft out, now won't it? > C'mon. > I was being somewhat sarcastic here, but none the less, distros have different features for a reason. Debian prides itself on stability, and if somebody needs that, they should be using a distro that is known for stability. I for one would be very disappointed if Mandrake chose to put KDE3.0.5a or Mozilla 1.0.xinto 9.1 for stability reasons. > >>I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of > >>Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never > >>simple, but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those > >>outside the company. > > > > I know many say perception is reality, but some must correct thier > > perceptions with reality. > > And sometimes, people outside the company with experience in these > matters can actually offer suggestions that just could help a company > that is faltering. > I agree with you wholeheartedly, however the point I was trying to make was that as we all sit around here and discuss these things, very often we have that discussion based on what we think a particular term, like beta, rc or stability mean, without acknowledging the way MandrakeSoft means them. I do not believe that we should not communicate with the company to try to get them to change their definition, or modify thier way of thinking. Perhaps changing the way releases are numbered, so that common perception aligns with reality is the way to go, but as an alternative to your proposal, instead of changing the MandrakeSoft release philosophy, change the numbering so there are no longer any point releases. 10 and 11 vs 9.1 and 9.2. Although this would align reality more with what peoples understandings of releases are, I acknowledge that it does not address your criticism about bug fixing. Personally, if we're going to go the Club route, I'd rather see an annual release with updates to the latest release available for new packages that come out throughout the year. Put one team on maintaining the current stable and another on developing the next annual release. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XQmJGu5uuMFlL5MRAgdbAJwKMWPAUugtd2H4Q0KNdeyOwrykOQCfXj3S IUa1EcQsXrjdIzLQUhVjBWA= =HFOQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:37, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 4:40 pm, civileme wrote: > > > If you want stable as in server use there > > is Corporate Server, and MNF. > > Fair comment. > > In the meantime, there is the problem of getting the exposure in the press > that others get. Over and over I see in Linux Format that Mandrake is > brilliant for desktop use, but when they want to explain something they use > Suse. Why? > > More to the point, what can *we* the users do to help the situation? > > Anne I suppose purchase and use Corporate Server. I use Mandrake on my own servers, but that's okay because they generally double as desktops :-) The extra horsepower that others use for eye-candy, I use for nearly 1300 emails and 600 dynamically generated pageviews a day. However, I have to agree that the regular Mandrake product is not a suitable server for corporate environments, as most admins don't know how to use its tools (especially msec) and those tools will bite badly. I'm highly embarassed by the fact that I built a MDK9.0 Nagios box as a backup to a RH 7.3 Nagios box, and the MDK one has been disk wiped and replaced with RH. Why? Because two weeks after I left msec saw fit to disable all logins because of password aging, and in trying to fix this from the console the admin either uncovered or introduced a PAM problem that caused the passwd program to segfault. I had documented and backed up the Nagios work, so it was only two hours work to replace Mandrake with RH, but the lasting impression at that company is that Mandrake is a cute desktop which is unfit for server work. msec had been set to level 4 during install, then reset to level 3 because level 4 is too restrictive to allow Nagios to work (the nagios user process is prevented from looking in /proc). The reset wasn't complete, so the level 4 password aging policy was still in effect. -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 4:40 pm, civileme wrote: > If you want stable as in server use there > is Corporate Server, and MNF. Fair comment. In the meantime, there is the problem of getting the exposure in the press that others get. Over and over I see in Linux Format that Mandrake is brilliant for desktop use, but when they want to explain something they use Suse. Why? More to the point, what can *we* the users do to help the situation? Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:02 am, Vahur Lokk wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote: > > And don't forget the obvious > > > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading > > ALL of OpenOffice. > > Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play. Old > Pentium running Win9x and MSO is absolutely viable office conf running well > and fast. And such boxes are very much in use around here. > > Now try running Linux with OpenOffice on such a box. There is absolutely no > way to achieve comparable perfomance, whatever distro, kernel, window > manager you run. > > In fact, comparing GUI loading times does not matter for me - its usually > once-a-day event. But if loading times of OOo and MSO differ in minutes not > seconds it is a showstopper. And no good explanation helps. Also > suggestions to use something else instead of OOo monster are completely > useless. > > Wahur As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest achievable equivalent. And if you want performance on a Pentium of that vintage, try running Mandrake 7.1 and having StarOffice 5.1 loaded on desktop 2 (Use the Autostart folder to put it there). Then you will have comparable performance except you can be doing more tasks on Mandrake. I amazed people at a local Computer Renaissance when loading a copy of Mandrake for a business customer. One of the CDs would not read on the target machine (media vs drive error on a brand-new drive) so I used a Mandrake Demonstrator there to burn a copy of the CD which would read. While burning, I was printing the user manual I had prepared and also showing someone how to connect to the internet using the machine and MCC And then I burned a copy of another CD (showing how backing up could be done). The store techs were floored. They had a hyped-up dual P4 running win2K server and when they were burning they could not do anything else, and they HAD to reset after burning or the next CD they burned would have only a directory and no retrievable data. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:53 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 12:53 am, Ric Tibbetts wrote: > > > Mandrake releases X.0, X.1, X.2. Then it jumps to Y.0, Y.1, Y.2. It > > > has nothing to do with "point" releases or "version" releases. > > > Technically, they are ALL "version" releases. > > > > Which was exactly my point. > > Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic we > (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs to be > considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point releases to > be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. > > It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this > context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the > bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, > but need. > > I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of > Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, > but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the > company. > > Anne Well, version 5 to 6 changed the kernel version, 6 to 7 changed the installer to a GUI, and backported things from the 2.3 kernel like UDMA, 7 to 8 changed the compiler, the glibc and the kernel, and 8 to 9 changed binary compatibility of rpms, the bare essentials of GTK+ to GTK2, and KDE to version 3. 9.0 and 9.1 rpms can work together, but the compiler is finally a departure from 2.96 which has been the workhorse since 8.0 (none of the gcc3.xy releases tested as reliably til now). Every release has new features. If you want stable as in server use there is Corporate Server, and MNF. If you want stable (mostly bug-free) desktop, there is Debian(and if Mandrake did as suggested, withholding new features til a major number change, it would be as out of date as Debian and in an entirely different market, well maybe not quite---it is easier to build rpms than dpkgs--the price for smooth updates is VERY high). The point is that you CANNOT have a lot of new features only on the break of the major number and remain competitive. The release every six months is only one product, which most seem to use for everything and _expect_ to be everything. And some of the reasoning I have seen employed in this thread is, "stick with the big ones, they'll be around, even if they don't have all the bells and whistles, and they have Certification programs, too" I seem to have heard that described before on some website... http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html Yes, there it is... Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:36 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 10:50 pm, civileme wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, > > > > then you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting > > > > a boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. > > > > This should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of > > > > the company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other > > > > employee's paychecks and the quality of life of their families are > > > > all at stake. In other words a little compassion and a magazine > > > > subscription will go a long way, not just for you truly but also for > > > > the future of everybody else involved. > > > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. > > > Am I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I > > > use downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a > > > boxed set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an > > > upgraded club membership. > > > > > > Anne > > > > If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the > > proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, > > they see about $4 for out of the price. > > > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds > > after covering costs. > > Civileme - interested from a business pov - 'covering costs' of the club? > I imagine most of that is labour costs? Presumably there are optimum > numbers of club members for those costs? If we get more members, would the > 'share' received increase? > > Anne Of course. It is a far superior purchase for both sides unless someone really needs support, in which case a packaged product or one of the products sold wiht extensive support (like MNF) is the customer's choice. But for many users, Mandrake Club is the win/win situation. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Greg Meyer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:53 am, Anne Wilson wrote: Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic we (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs to be considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point releases to be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. The only logic that counts is the logic they use. Same goes for definition of beta and rc. Some people want it to be different than the Mandrake definition, but it is the Mandrake definition that counts. Of course, once you understand what that is, it is easier to *take*. Perhaps, like so many others you missed the intent of the statements to start with. The problem is, Mandrake is losing out on the desktop, and server wars for a reason. The problem of every release is a .0 release, keeps the OS unstable, and shied away from because of it. The suggestions of changing the model were offered in an aire of trying to help. Not just a RANT. It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, but need. Perhaps those users should use Debian than. Yup, that will really help Mandrakesoft out, now won't it? C'mon. I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the company. I know many say perception is reality, but some must correct thier perceptions with reality. And sometimes, people outside the company with experience in these matters can actually offer suggestions that just could help a company that is faltering. Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Anne Wilson wrote: On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 12:53 am, Ric Tibbetts wrote: Mandrake releases X.0, X.1, X.2. Then it jumps to Y.0, Y.1, Y.2. It has nothing to do with "point" releases or "version" releases. Technically, they are ALL "version" releases. Which was exactly my point. Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic we (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs to be considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point releases to be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, but need. I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the company. Anne Thank you Anne! Thank you! That was my point exactly! Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
Vahur Lokk wrote: On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote: And don't forget the obvious Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL of OpenOffice. Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play. Old Pentium running Win9x and MSO is absolutely viable office conf running well and fast. And such boxes are very much in use around here. Now try running Linux with OpenOffice on such a box. There is absolutely no way to achieve comparable perfomance, whatever distro, kernel, window manager you run. In fact, comparing GUI loading times does not matter for me - its usually once-a-day event. But if loading times of OOo and MSO differ in minutes not seconds it is a showstopper. And no good explanation helps. Also suggestions to use something else instead of OOo monster are completely useless. And let's not loose track of the fact that speed isn't everything! How about stability, and reliabiltiy. How about security, and ease of maintenance. Yup, a race car is faster than the family mini-van. But I wouldn't drive the family to church in one. Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
flacycads wrote: Yeah- I basically just use kde, and I know it takes a lot of resources. I figure with an Athlon 1700+ XP T-bred B on an Abit KX7-333 DDR mobo, I can afford a little kde eye-candy- and I like all the nice features. Never have been a Gnome fan. It's not that I'm that unhappy with linux performance, but on the rare ocassion I do boot into windows XP Pro, I do notice a real difference in computer response, then I start thinking there must be something I can do about it. This is one of the biggest mis-interpetations about M$ (mis)Operating Systems. What "looks" to be running faster is just a false impression. M$ pre-loads many of the libs, and the core of some programs at boot/login time. So when you double click on IE (for example), yes, it hits the screen much faster than Mozilla on Linux. But it's already half loaded. This is at the expense of the ram needed to run applications. But then M$ works under the philosophy that Ram & disks are cheap. Just add more. Linux works under a very different paradigm. Sadly though, I have to totally agree with the lack of decent support for video cards. But lets face it. Linux doesn't have the wall full of games available at the local CompUSA. So there's nothing to force the developers to push on it. Until that happens, it's only going to get worse. There's just no "commercial" push behind it. Without that, developers will develop what they want to. Nothing more. Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Which goes right back to my original statement (that no one wants to understand): Mandrake needs to control the amount of change in the point releases. I've said it as many ways as I can. Ric flacycads wrote: Miark, According to Distrowatch, 9.0 uses glibc 2.2.5, and 9.1rc1 uses glibc 2.3.1. Is that incorrect? They also report gcc is upgraded to 3.2.2. Robert C. On Tuesday 25 February 2003 06:28 pm, Miark wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:04:51 -0500 So this is a major release, but it's numbered 9.1 because: * 9.1 uses the same glibc as 9.0. * The 9.1 binaries will be compatible with 9.0 systems, and * It still uses kernel 2.4.x Hope that helps. It made a big difference to me. Miark Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 05:10 pm, flacycads wrote: > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to > optimize Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. > However, I'll keep an open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly > not an expert. > > Robert Crawford OK, I'll give up on Texstar results, and the Mdk-Gentoo comparisons. As I said I've only read about those. In my experience tho, with my 1.4 Tbird (always oc'd to 1.5), compiling for athlon, even the kernel, is just somethin to do when I'm bored. I've never seen any measurable performance increase, or 'lookn feel' improvement. I'm always usin the most recent gcc, since I'm always runnin cooker. Optimizing with 'hdparm -t' to get 47mb/sec from my drives, running the ram at aggressive timings (cas2, 4 bank-interleaving), and using slighty over spec voltages for Vcore (cpu) and I/O (ram), does show measurable preformance increases in the range of 5 to 10%. Y'allsMMV -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 12:27 pm, Greg Meyer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:53 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic > > we (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs > > to be considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point > > releases to be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. > > The only logic that counts is the logic they use. Same goes for definition > of beta and rc. Some people want it to be different than the Mandrake > definition, but it is the Mandrake definition that counts. Of course, once > you understand what that is, it is easier to *take*. I have no problem with it, myself, but from a marketing point of view it could be a problem. > > > It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this > > context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the > > bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, > > but need. > > Perhaps those users should use Debian than. That may well be so. For the 'absolute stability' need (I'm thinking of business-critical situations) I suspect Mandrake is only viable if they have a really clued-up administrator. I'm just thinking aloud, really, about the issues of introducing linux into small businesses, where there may not be any such clued-up person on staff, and no funds to hire one. > > > I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of > > Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, > > but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the > > company. > > I know many say perception is reality, but some must correct thier > perceptions with reality. As I said, I am thinking from the small business pov, which is where my experience is. A possible adopter would not know that Mandrake define things differently from the 'norm' (ok - don't take me up on 'norm' - you know what I mean). I'm not trying to make destructive comment - far from it. If we could get round issues like this and get efficient affordable third-party support for them, small business would benefit greatly from the increased stability linux gives. This is a fact - I spent a good part of my working week sorting out problems on our windows machines. The cost to the company, then, was not negligible. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:53 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic we > (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs to be > considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point releases to > be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. > The only logic that counts is the logic they use. Same goes for definition of beta and rc. Some people want it to be different than the Mandrake definition, but it is the Mandrake definition that counts. Of course, once you understand what that is, it is easier to *take*. > It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this > context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the > bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, > but need. > Perhaps those users should use Debian than. > I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of > Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, > but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the > company. > I know many say perception is reality, but some must correct thier perceptions with reality. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XLKWGu5uuMFlL5MRAmOyAKCBIw2t2WlbqE+buabvnjQE/oNH6gCfSYae YPHQ6SOeB80ntVar9ioi37A= =IPm5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 10:34 am, James Sparenberg wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 01:36, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 10:50 pm, civileme wrote: > > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds > > > after covering costs. > > > > Civileme - interested from a business pov - 'covering costs' of the club? > > I imagine most of that is labour costs? Presumably there are optimum > > numbers of club members for those costs? If we get more members, would > > the 'share' received increase? > > > > Anne > > Sorry for butting in.. but a question + thought here. Wouldn't some of > the costs increase with membership? Bandwidth, for one, as many hosting > services do charge by the gigabyte. Could well be. And presumably there is an optimum number of members per administrator. More members than that and you are virtually starting again on the cost side. I said it was complicated Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 01:36, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 10:50 pm, civileme wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then > > > > you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a > > > > boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This > > > > should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of the > > > > company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's > > > > paychecks and the quality of life of their families are all at stake. > > > > In other words a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go > > > > a long way, not just for you truly but also for the future of everybody > > > > else involved. > > > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am > > > I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > > > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed > > > set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded > > > club membership. > > > > > > Anne > > > > If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the > > proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, > > they see about $4 for out of the price. > > > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds after > > covering costs. > > > Civileme - interested from a business pov - 'covering costs' of the club? I > imagine most of that is labour costs? Presumably there are optimum numbers > of club members for those costs? If we get more members, would the 'share' > received increase? > > Anne Sorry for butting in.. but a question + thought here. Wouldn't some of the costs increase with membership? Bandwidth, for one, as many hosting services do charge by the gigabyte. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote: > And don't forget the obvious > > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL > of OpenOffice. Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play. Old Pentium running Win9x and MSO is absolutely viable office conf running well and fast. And such boxes are very much in use around here. Now try running Linux with OpenOffice on such a box. There is absolutely no way to achieve comparable perfomance, whatever distro, kernel, window manager you run. In fact, comparing GUI loading times does not matter for me - its usually once-a-day event. But if loading times of OOo and MSO differ in minutes not seconds it is a showstopper. And no good explanation helps. Also suggestions to use something else instead of OOo monster are completely useless. Wahur Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Wednesday 26 Feb 2003 12:53 am, Ric Tibbetts wrote: > > Mandrake releases X.0, X.1, X.2. Then it jumps to Y.0, Y.1, Y.2. It > > has nothing to do with "point" releases or "version" releases. > > Technically, they are ALL "version" releases. > > Which was exactly my point. Seems to me there is logic in the MandrakeSoft model, but not the logic we (and other users) expect. This is, in fact, a big problem that needs to be considered. Whether Mdksft like it or not, people expect point releases to be 'fixes' and version releases to be major. It used to be said 'Never buy any software in a .0 release', but in this context all Mandrake releases are .0 releases. This keeps it at the bleeding edge, but never quite as 'finished' as some users not only want, but need. I don't have any answers. Maybe being 'bleeding edge' is the USP of Mandrake. I only know that business decisions like this are never simple, but it is essential to keep in mind the perceptions of those outside the company. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 10:50 pm, civileme wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then > > > you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a > > > boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This > > > should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of the > > > company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's > > > paychecks and the quality of life of their families are all at stake. > > > In other words a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go > > > a long way, not just for you truly but also for the future of everybody > > > else involved. > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am > > I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed > > set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded > > club membership. > > > > Anne > > If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the > proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, > they see about $4 for out of the price. > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds after > covering costs. > Civileme - interested from a business pov - 'covering costs' of the club? I imagine most of that is labour costs? Presumably there are optimum numbers of club members for those costs? If we get more members, would the 'share' received increase? Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?/Is Windows faster on same machine?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > experience. > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > get faster response. > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT video. > Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my experience, > which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program is going to > produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static across the top > 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these have happened > this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets > the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since driver > debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > dos centavos, > Jack > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words > > was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, > > but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do > > have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to > > perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux > > installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > > > windows > > > > ... And don't forget the obvious Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL of OpenOffice. So if you are comparing Windows performance in this area, try opening OpenOffice on Desktop 2 and just ticking it on the taskbar, Same for Konqueror/Mozilla/Phoenix/Opera vs MSIE That is not to say there are not slower areas in linux. Video drivers are a problem (strange, Windows doesn't write video drivers), and of course the overhead in maintaining decent security is there by design in linux. My own results, on my own equipment, do not support your results, but then I have machines with a LOT of memory which linux uses and Windows does not. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Yeah- I basically just use kde, and I know it takes a lot of resources. I figure with an Athlon 1700+ XP T-bred B on an Abit KX7-333 DDR mobo, I can afford a little kde eye-candy- and I like all the nice features. Never have been a Gnome fan. It's not that I'm that unhappy with linux performance, but on the rare ocassion I do boot into windows XP Pro, I do notice a real difference in computer response, then I start thinking there must be something I can do about it. I guess I'm just one of those perfectionist types that like to get every ounce of performance out of a system I can, down to the last nth %, even if it's hard to tell the difference. But I guess the bottom line is, I hardly ever use windows these days, so that speaks for itself. I'm sold on Linux, and I like playing around with all the different aspects of it. It's like I've become a 60 year old kid in a giant toy store. Besides, it's good mental exercise trying to keep up with all the new stuff coming out. I agree that the video drivers need some serious attention- I've still never been able to get the Nvidia or ATI drivers, either rpm, or source, to install correctly. Maybe next time I'll figure it out. My last attempt at the ATI linux drivers apparently completely removed XFree86, and I never figured out why. Robert Crawford On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:17 am, Jack Coates wrote: > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my > experience. > > It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs > in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and > running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, > get faster response. > > Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't > be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 > GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with > DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT video. > Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my experience, > which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program is going to > produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static across the top > 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these have happened > this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets > the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since driver > debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary > developer's machine" is not very fun. > > dos centavos, > Jack > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words > > was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different > > versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer > > performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, > > but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do > > have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to > > perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux > > installs a little more than I presently have. > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > > > windows > > > > ... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME? Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my experience. It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs in ways that Windows simply won't do, such as pixmapped themes and running graphic programs in the root-window. Go easy on the eye-candy, get faster response. Last but not least, there are definitely issues with XFree86 that won't be going away. For one thing, X is a user space program and the Win32 GDI is kernel space, ring 0, ever since NT 4.0. This is changing with DRI, but at the same cost of decreased stability which plagues NT video. Also, X's video card support tends to be a bit flaky in my experience, which is to say it's a crap-shoot if running a 3d program is going to produce software rendering, hardware rendering, static across the top 3rd of my screen, or a video card lockup (all of these have happened this week with a Voodoo3 and an i815). I don't think that XFree86 gets the same sort of attention that Windows drivers get, since driver debugging that goes past the point of "it works on the primary developer's machine" is not very fun. dos centavos, Jack On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 21:36, flacycads wrote: > OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words was > unfortunate. Please accept my apology. > > However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different versions of > windows and Linux has always been that overall computer performance is > significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, but that's what > happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do have any windows > installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to perfection( as good as is > possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux installs a little more than I > presently have. > > Robert Crawford > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > > ---Original Message------- > > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > > windows > ... -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 12:25, Jack Coates wrote: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 12:12, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the extra > > > jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then you > > > should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a boxed set > > > from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This should be > > > punctuated with the realization that the survival of the company, the > > > paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's paychecks and > > > the quality of life of their families are all at stake. In other words > > > a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go a long way, not > > > just for you truly but also for the future of everybody else involved. > > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am I > > right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed set, > > but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded club > > membership. > > > > More cash goes to Mandrake more quickly if you buy the membership. Box > sets are eaten into by the distributor, shipping company, production > company... The flipside is of course that un-purchased box sets are a > tremendous waste of everyone's resources. Personally I use downloads and > buy a club membership, hoping that MandrakeSoft can accurately gauge > demand for box sets. I have to do that route. Even though I live in one of the more populated area's of the US. MDK 9.0 didn't make it onto the shelves here until January.(Late) Actually I did order a CD set (not boxed just CD's don't need another book.) But you get my point I hope. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 15:03, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:52, Tom Brinkman wrote: > > > The source rpms are available for everything and you can always > > build 'em yourself. OTOH, how could a distro like Mandrake possibly > > compile for each and every cpu and motherboard chipset combination? > > Specially since some of the most recent cpu's, grossly overstate > > their capabilities, and chipsets vary widely in their design and > > performance. Examples, the recent fad of Via C(yrix) 3 processors > > that report to be i686, but are really not even fully compliant i586 > > cpu's, retaining many i486 characteristics and limitations. There's > > also the P4's with their poor FPU capability, and that still don't > > have decent motherboard chipsets to run on. > > > > If ya just gotta squeeze out a little more zip ... overclock ;) > > Hear, hear!! > > LX Cheaper still add more RAM. But dang no matter how I compile it I can't read all this e-mail any faster James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Miark, According to Distrowatch, 9.0 uses glibc 2.2.5, and 9.1rc1 uses glibc 2.3.1. Is that incorrect? They also report gcc is upgraded to 3.2.2. Robert C. On Tuesday 25 February 2003 06:28 pm, Miark wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:04:51 -0500 > > So this is a major release, but it's numbered 9.1 because: > > * 9.1 uses the same glibc as 9.0. > * The 9.1 binaries will be compatible with 9.0 systems, and > * It still uses kernel 2.4.x > > Hope that helps. It made a big difference to me. > > Miark Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
OK- you're correct- I don't speak for everyone, and my choice of words was unfortunate. Please accept my apology. However, my experience on several dual boot boxes with different versions of windows and Linux has always been that overall computer performance is significantly better when booted to windows. I'm sorry, but that's what happens- there's no question about it. Of course I do have any windows installation I run highly tweaked and tuned to perfection( as good as is possible), and perhaps I can tweak my Linux installs a little more than I presently have. Robert Crawford On Tuesday 25 February 2003 07:26 pm, et wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > ---Original Message--- > > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that > > windows > > > > performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > > due > > to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. > > Please... this just is not a fact. this is basicly WRONG in my personal > experiance. M$ just plain sucks compared to Mandrake-Linux on at least _MY_ > hardware, I don't claim to speak for "anyone who dual boots windows, and as > long as I am included in your statement, neither do you. > > > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize > > Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep > > an > > open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. > > > > Robert Crawford > > > > > > Robert, > > > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore > > optimized than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is > > not do to optimization. > > not true, you need much more starting with win ME > > > If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your > > system, recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and > > after). Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling > > it should give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that > > on my systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used > > in the kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the > > CPU (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but > > the chip optimization seemed to have little impact). > > > > Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
>From what I've read on the subject, the bottom line is that the Intel compiler produces code highly optimized for primarily for pentium cpus, and secondarily for AMD, while gcc does not do as refined a job. In other words, the Intel compiler used for windows OS and Programs is more specialized and mature for these cpus than gcc, thus the better overall performance. At least this seems to be what a lot of experts are saying. Intel has released a compiler for Linux, but I know of no results being publicized, as yet. I totally agree on keeping the kernel lean as possible, and reducing unneeded services at boot up as a primary way to increase performance. My philosopy is why not do everything you can. Robert Crawford On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > ---Original Message--- > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows > > performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > due > to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. > > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize > Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep > an > open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. > > Robert Crawford > > > Robert, > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized > than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to > optimization. > > If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your system, > recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and after). > Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling it should > give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that on my > systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used in the > kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the CPU > (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but the chip > optimization seemed to have little impact). > > Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
> >When was the last time you heard about a LMCE project? Seems that having >an RHCE certification is valuable. But there is no corresponding LMCE. > There is a group called the Linux Professional Institute (http://www.lpi.org) that offers distribution-neutral exams. So, your statement is misleading. It may not be a "LMCE" type exam, but it's more for measuring the types of task a user (or admin) might be required to do, then to measure their compentency on a single distro. After all, just because you are an RHCE, does not automatically mean that you'd know how to add software to a slackware install. (Of course, I could be biased, since I'm still on all the lpi discussion lists.) -- Michael Viron Core Systems Group Simple End User Linux Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:50 pm, civileme wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then > > > you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a > > > boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This > > > should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of the > > > company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's > > > paychecks and the quality of life of their families are all at stake. > > > In other words a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go > > > a long way, not just for you truly but also for the future of everybody > > > else involved. > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am > > I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed > > set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded > > club membership. > > > > Anne > > If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the > proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, > they see about $4 for out of the price. > > If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds after > covering costs. > > Civileme Civileme: Your point about Mandrake making more money from direct sales than through stores is a good one. And, not only does Mandrake see more money, but they see it quicker and that is very important given the current cash crunch. This is not to discount the effect of in-store sales. While in-store may not have much influence on the bottom line, it is an excellent way of attracting new users (that's how I got here), and it gets the Mandrake brand name in the public's eye. Of course, it is perfectly legal to buy the sets (through the Store, of course) AND join the Club. I realize that not everyone is in a position to do it, and that there are others who have other reasons for not doing so. That's OK with me (IOW, no flames, please), but it is one way of helping to insure that Mandrake is able to survive^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthrive. -- cmg Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 19:26, et wrote: > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows > > performance is noticeably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > > due to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. > Please... this just is not a fact. this is basically WRONG in my personal > experience. M$ just plain sucks compared to Mandrake-Linux on at least _MY_ > hardware, I don't claim to speak for "anyone who dual boots windows, and as > long as I am included in your statement, neither do you. You are not the only one debunking the bunk here, ed; I've got a dual boot system and the performance of 98 has NEVER been better than LM82. In fact, I'll relate to you a little story that you may find interesting. I loaded LM82 on a bud's machine, about the same time that we loaded 98 on his machine with all the latest wiz bang VIA mobo drivers and 98 patches; other than that it was a vanilla install. It was a dual boot on the same HD, an IBM Deskstar. To go a step further, we were using 98Lite, so when I got through, Internet Exploder was taken out. This speeded up 98 even more. A few weeks later he started telling me that 98 was loading faster than LM82. "Is that so?" I said. He assured me that it was indeed the case. I asked him how he came by his conclusion. "It just looks faster," he proclaimed. "OK," I said, nonplussed. I went back to what I was doing. The next day he showed up again, and bragged once again that LM82 load time was considerably more than 98. "OK," I said. This time I was pissed. I went out to the shop. "Where are you going?" he asked. "To get my stopwatch." So we went back to his machine (which I had constructed, btw), and we timed the boot time on the stopwatch. LM82 was a full 25 seconds faster loading at boot than 98 was, starting from power on to GUI load. And after that bench, I discovered that I had left named, iplog, and a few other services running that he didn't need. So I did away with those in chkconfig and widened the lead even further. The moral? Never ever believe the user's perceptions of speed unless they have been quantified with benchmarks. Same goes for your own perceptions of speed. > > > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized > > than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to > > optimization. > not true, you need much more starting with win ME Ah, 98 as well. LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.21pre4-6mdk Mandrake 9.1 RC1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdkEvolution 1.2.2-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
---Original Message--- From: Ric Tibbetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 02/25/03 06:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > >Actually, I have XP running at home on a PII-333 >My kids use it as their game machine. >But my oldest is only 7. Their demands are low. :) >Ric > Well, that's fitting, since XP is a toy-like OS! :) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Joe Braddock wrote: I didn't make the claim that Windows had better performance than Mandrake, I was responding to that claim. Actually, Windows 95 does perform quicker than Mandrake 9.0, but that's not a fair comparison (it also out performs Windows NT/2000/XP). A fair Windows vs Mandrake comparison would use Windows 2000 or XP and I don't believe either of those will out perform Mandrake on the same box. As for Windows requiring more than a pentium class machine, Microsoft says the minimum hardware for XP is a pentium (or K6 and some others) running at 300mhz. Now, does anyone really expect to run XP on that platform? No but that fact that it can run on that platform means it can't be optimized for the later Intel and AMD chips. Actually, I have XP running at home on a PII-333 My kids use it as their game machine. But my oldest is only 7. Their demands are low. :) Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Todd; Thank you for the objective reply. I realize I've been on a tangent today. And it's mostly caused by outside influences. However, since the conversation is open: ;) Todd Lyons wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tibbetts, Ric wrote on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:15:56PM -0500 : Mandrake on the other hand, insists on trying to match Redhats release schedule, but they're including major content changes in a point release, and they're beating themselves up trying to keep up. Mandrake releases X.0, X.1, X.2. Then it jumps to Y.0, Y.1, Y.2. It has nothing to do with "point" releases or "version" releases. Technically, they are ALL "version" releases. Which was exactly my point. The version point releases need to be just that. Point releases. Bug fixes, and security rapairs, etc. Not content changes. Leave the content changes to the major revision rolls. So, you are only dealing with a finite set of problems at a time. Then, you can dedicate a 6 month block of time to getting the bugs out of 9.0, to release 9.1, which is exactly that. A point release of 9.0. Once 9.x series is stable, THEN start developing the 10.x series. Put the new content in there. And spend the next couple of point releases bug fixing, and such to that. Yes, SOME content can be slipped in to a point release. But the core needs to remain fixed, so you can get it stable. Otherwise you're working around the clock, trying to track a zillion bugs, and interdependancy problems, as you keep changing the tires on the buggy while you're driving it. Again, that's just my humble opinion. But I've worked around enough development projects to know the drill. But I still see them making the same mistakes. Rushed releases, with too much content change to be controlable in such short cycles. They're Back around the time of 6.x, there was one CD for Main and one CD for Contrib. Now all of Main won't fit on three CD's, and Contrib is about the same. Which is again, exactly why you can't try to change ALL of it, EVERY release. IMHO, if there has been any one failure of Mandrake, it's been the inability to say "No, we won't put that in Main." The attempt to be everything to everybody requires more manpower than we have, resulting in everybody pulling 60-80 hour weeks trying to get things to a cohesive point. See my point above. That could be remedied. Mandrake needs to address their project management, configuration management, and version control. You can do as much with far less effort with good management practices. Yup, I understand that they're trying to meet with a competitive market, and meet customer demands. But... The customer is ALWAYS going to want the latest & greatest software, whether it's stable or not. And THEY WANT IT STABLE. Well, it can't always be done. Mandrake needs to learn when to say no. You're approaching it from a slightly different angle, but you arrive at nearly the same conclusion. The general feel about Mandrake around the people, and companies I work around is not good. If a Linux box is built, it's Redhat. Why? Stable releases, Stable company. Yes, in the US, RedHat is the brand that's known and that's what we're trying to address. And believe me Todd. I'm actually not just trying to attack. I was actually intending to offer suggestions that just might help. I've been running Mandrake for a couple of years now. And in all honesty, I will probably continue to do so. Ric Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
I didn't make the claim that Windows had better performance than Mandrake, I was responding to that claim. Actually, Windows 95 does perform quicker than Mandrake 9.0, but that's not a fair comparison (it also out performs Windows NT/2000/XP). A fair Windows vs Mandrake comparison would use Windows 2000 or XP and I don't believe either of those will out perform Mandrake on the same box. As for Windows requiring more than a pentium class machine, Microsoft says the minimum hardware for XP is a pentium (or K6 and some others) running at 300mhz. Now, does anyone really expect to run XP on that platform? No but that fact that it can run on that platform means it can't be optimized for the later Intel and AMD chips. Anyway, my original point was that there are simple optimizations that will give an immediate boost to performance while there are others, that have a marginal return. On my hardware, removing unused modules from the kernel has improved performance dramatically. Optimizing it for the AMD chips, though, does not, by itself seem to make a major difference. As a matter of fact, one of my biggest performance improvement doesn't even involve the kernel. It's simply running hdparm to improve the hard drive performance. Joeb ---Original Message--- From: et <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 02/25/03 06:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > ---Original Message--- > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows > > performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > due > to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. Please... this just is not a fact. this is basicly WRONG in my personal experiance. M$ just plain sucks compared to Mandrake-Linux on at least _MY_ hardware, I don't claim to speak for "anyone who dual boots windows, and as long as I am included in your statement, neither do you. > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize > Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep > an > open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. > > Robert Crawford > > > Robert, > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized > than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to > optimization. not true, you need much more starting with win ME > > If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your system, > recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and after). > Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling it should > give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that on my > systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used in the > kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the CPU > (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but the chip > optimization seemed to have little impact). > > Joeb > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tibbetts, Ric wrote on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:15:56PM -0500 : > > Mandrake on the other hand, insists on trying to match Redhats release > schedule, but they're including major content changes in a point > release, and they're beating themselves up trying to keep up. Mandrake releases X.0, X.1, X.2. Then it jumps to Y.0, Y.1, Y.2. It has nothing to do with "point" releases or "version" releases. Technically, they are ALL "version" releases. > But I still see them making the same mistakes. Rushed releases, with too > much content change to be controlable in such short cycles. They're Back around the time of 6.x, there was one CD for Main and one CD for Contrib. Now all of Main won't fit on three CD's, and Contrib is about the same. IMHO, if there has been any one failure of Mandrake, it's been the inability to say "No, we won't put that in Main." The attempt to be everything to everybody requires more manpower than we have, resulting in everybody pulling 60-80 hour weeks trying to get things to a cohesive point. > Yup, I understand that they're trying to meet with a competitive market, > and meet customer demands. But... The customer is ALWAYS going to want > the latest & greatest software, whether it's stable or not. And THEY > WANT IT STABLE. Well, it can't always be done. Mandrake needs to learn > when to say no. You're approaching it from a slightly different angle, but you arrive at nearly the same conclusion. > The general feel about Mandrake around the people, and companies I work > around is not good. If a Linux box is built, it's Redhat. Why? Stable > releases, Stable company. Yes, in the US, RedHat is the brand that's known and that's what we're trying to address. Blue skies... Todd - -- MandrakeSoft USA http://www.mandrakesoft.com Mandrake: An amalgam of good ideas from RedHat, Debian, and MandrakeSoft. All in all, IMHO, an unbeatable combination. --Levi Ramsey on Cooker ML Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XAuMlp7v05cW2woRAmTyAKC2QqilWqmtK2Etcm6iyMYdxyR0EwCdFtO0 UAi3PwiIs9VHdUjKGfpV9mk= =I9JJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:01 pm, Joe Braddock wrote: > ---Original Message--- > From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? > > > Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows > > performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely > due > to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. Please... this just is not a fact. this is basicly WRONG in my personal experiance. M$ just plain sucks compared to Mandrake-Linux on at least _MY_ hardware, I don't claim to speak for "anyone who dual boots windows, and as long as I am included in your statement, neither do you. > Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize > Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep > an > open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. > > Robert Crawford > > > Robert, > > I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and > above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized > than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to > optimization. not true, you need much more starting with win ME > > If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your system, > recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and after). > Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling it should > give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that on my > systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used in the > kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the CPU > (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but the chip > optimization seemed to have little impact). > > Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tibbetts, Ric wrote on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:32:09PM -0500 : > > How about some community support? > How about forming a community project to recompile the distro with > Athlon XP, and Athlon MP optimizations? Probably mostly because it won't run any faster. There are people who have already done this and were disappointed with the results. Blue skies... Todd - -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ Hey, I'm perfectly reasonable once you realize I'm right. -- John Buttery on Mutt Users ML Mandrake Cooker Devel Version, Kernel 2.4.21pre4-10mdk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XAlClp7v05cW2woRAidJAKCMHt5z8YNe0a7c4e/EbZZSvULEZACgtQhy chlTRFTC+P3nG4EW66fN5ys= =BxNg -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
---Original Message--- From: flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 02/25/03 05:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control? Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely due to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep an open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. Robert Crawford Robert, I thought anything after Windows NT runs on Pentium and above (or K6 and above if you use AMD). If that's the case, then it's not anymore optimized than Mandrake, so any increased performance on a Windows box is not do to optimization. If you truly want to see what effect optimization may have for your system, recompile the kernel and run some benchmarks (actually before and after). Since everything else runs on top of the kernel, it recompiling it should give the most bang for your buck. I can tell you, though, that on my systems (K6-450 and Duron 1.3ghz), removing stuff that's not used in the kernel has a bigger impact on performance than optimizing for the CPU (maybe it has something to do with AMD vs Intel, I don't know, but the chip optimization seemed to have little impact). Joeb Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:25 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 12:12, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the > > > extra jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then > > > you should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a > > > boxed set from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This > > > should be punctuated with the realization that the survival of the > > > company, the paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's > > > paychecks and the quality of life of their families are all at stake. > > > In other words a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go > > > a long way, not just for you truly but also for the future of everybody > > > else involved. > > > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am > > I right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed > > set, but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded > > club membership. > > More cash goes to Mandrake more quickly if you buy the membership. Box > sets are eaten into by the distributor, shipping company, production > company... The flipside is of course that un-purchased box sets are a > tremendous waste of everyone's resources. Personally I use downloads and > buy a club membership, hoping that MandrakeSoft can accurately gauge > demand for box sets. I noticed my local (Charlotte NC) CompUSA is still stocking Mandrake 8.2 powerpacks. I always download (via modem, takes weeks, but thank you, d4x) the "final" version, and I pre-order from the Mandrake Store a box set too, since all the "joys and toys" of the boxed set are not included in the download. I also have a silver membership, and if i compare what I get with that, to the purchase of 1 legal copy of M$ anything win9x or better, and the purchase of a legal copy of the current M$ office suite, I am still ahead by 50%. and who in their right mind would want to buy anything M$ these days? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:04:51 -0500 "Tibbetts, Ric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Limit point releases to just minor revisions, and bug fixes. The content > should be set at the Major level. And yes, we could argue all day about > just what constitutes Major content, vs minor content, and that level of > detail is really beyond the poing I was making. Ric, I had a misconception about this last week until Civileme set me straight. Perhaps you have the same thinking I did, namely that I couldn't figure out why this was called 9.1 instead of 10 with all the new stuff in it. I thought that being a 9.1 release, it should include (more or less) only bugfixes and regular updates, such as KDE 3.0.5 rather than 3.1. But as it turns out, the phrases "point release" and "major release" have nothing to do with features. _Every_ MDK release aims at including every new gadget possible. The numbering system, instead, indicates the glibc under which it was compiled and the kernel series. So this is a major release, but it's numbered 9.1 because: * 9.1 uses the same glibc as 9.0. * The 9.1 binaries will be compatible with 9.0 systems, and * It still uses kernel 2.4.x Hope that helps. It made a big difference to me. Miark Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:52, Tom Brinkman wrote: > The source rpms are available for everything and you can always > build 'em yourself. OTOH, how could a distro like Mandrake possibly > compile for each and every cpu and motherboard chipset combination? > Specially since some of the most recent cpu's, grossly overstate > their capabilities, and chipsets vary widely in their design and > performance. Examples, the recent fad of Via C(yrix) 3 processors > that report to be i686, but are really not even fully compliant i586 > cpu's, retaining many i486 characteristics and limitations. There's > also the P4's with their poor FPU capability, and that still don't > have decent motherboard chipsets to run on. > > If ya just gotta squeeze out a little more zip ... overclock ;) Hear, hear!! LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.21pre4-6mdk Mandrake 9.1 RC1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdkEvolution 1.2.2-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Tom, I might be wrong, but as I understand it, that "recent" Mandrake release you're referring to was done before the new gcc came out with the better athlon specific optimizing flags. The most recent athlon rpms indeed perform better than the i586 versions on athlon hardware. As for the Gentoo/Mandrake i586 comparison, there was a long discussion on the Gentoo forum about this, and I believe it was specifically about kde performance. The consensus seemed to be that Mandrake is prelinking kde, and at that time, Gentoo didn't offer that, thus Gentoo seemed no faster running kde. At least that was the theory. In any case, IMHO since these new cpus have significanly different and enhanced architecture, and certainly much better performance, it makes sense that optimizing specifically for them would enhance overall performance. Anyone who dual boots with windows on the same hardware knows that windows performance is noticably better than Linux, and that this is most likely due to the highly x86 optimized Intel compiler. Given that, it's going to be hard to convince me that trying to optimize Linux and gcc for newer cpus is not worth the trouble. However, I'll keep an open mind on the subject, and I'm certainly not an expert. Robert Crawford On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:16 pm, Greg Meyer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 04:52 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: > >Yes, the popular perception is that i686 has got to be better than > > i586, and compiled for athlon must be even better no? Real > > world is that neither i686 or athlon compiling provides anything but > > somethin to do if you're bored. Could even reduce performance. At > > least that's been my experience for some years now (Tbird/VIA > > kt133a). Many others have reported the same. Texstar and a few > > others compiled almost 95% of a recent Mandrake release for athlon, > > and gave up cause it was no better, introduced more problems. Gentoo > > has actually been shown to be no faster tested against i586 Mandrake. > > Often slower, from what I've read of others experience. > > I would agree on optimizations up to athlon-xp. Since GCC3.2 came out, I > have optimized XFree86 and KDE for athlon-xp and there is a noticeable > improvement in the responsiveness of the gui. Other big packages like > OpenOffice.org and GNOME would benefit too I am sure. For most other > stuff, you're right, even athlon-xp makes no noticeable difference and > could introduce instabilities. For anything optimized below athlon-XP, I > have not noticed any difference - -- > Greg > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+W+tXGu5uuMFlL5MRAt8vAJ0dk26sMndr4XXsAHlvgpuNwJbFIwCeKtRs > abx0qtjCvsrMTlboyotArwg= > =rzuP > -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
Tibbetts, Ric wrote: Redhat is still i386 based. But then redhat provides kernels optimized for various processors (i586, i686, athlon). I gather this looking at an ftp repository, I don't use redhat myself. Bye -- Luca Olivetti Note.- This message reached you today, it may not tomorrow if you are using MAPS or other RBL. They arbitrarily IP addresses not related in any way to spam, disrupting Internet connectivity. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/21/1944247 and http://theory.whirlycott.com/~phil/antispam/rbl-bad/rbl-bad.html pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:29 am, flacycads wrote: > I would agree, for a lot of smaller apps or utilities rebuilding would be > meaningless. But for XFree86, and major packages like kde, gnome, mozilla, > open office, gimp, etc., it does make a significant difference. I've > replaced i586 with athlon-xp optimized packages to run on my XP system, and > I can testify that performance is noticably improved. > > Robert Crawford > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:53 pm, Steffen Barszus wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 20:42, Tibbetts, Ric wrote: > > > Greg Meyer wrote: > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 February 2003 01:27 pm, flacycads wrote: > > > >>really, how hard can it be to recompile the entire distro for > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > >>architectures like Gentoo does, and post the iso's with an > > > > > > > > "unsupported" > > > > > > > >>disclaimer, if need be? IMO, they will loose a lot of users if they > > > > > > > > don't. > > > > > > > > Only Gentoo doesn't do it. You compile Gentoo yourself on your own > > > > box. > > > > > > All the distros release the source code. > > > I still think a show of community support could take that, and compile > > > processor specific versions... ;) > > > > And I think that this would be nonsense. Maybe the kernel and Multimedia > > apps should be recompiled but thats it. How important is a athlon-xp > > optimized 'ls' ? What is so athlon-xp specific beside the special > > instruction sets ? Which app makes really use of it ? For ix86-64 it is > > totally understandable, but athlon-xp ? Matter Of fact, your comparison with Texstar's optimized KDE is unfair. There is more done to that KDE than simply recompiling it for Athlon or 686. Several diagnostic features are turned off or left out. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 14:58, Jack Coates wrote: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 11:53, Steffen Barszus wrote: > ... > > > > > > > All the distros release the source code. > > > I still think a show of community support could take that, and compile > > > processor specific versions... ;) > > > > And I think that this would be nonsense. Maybe the kernel and Multimedia apps > > should be recompiled but thats it. How important is a athlon-xp optimized > > 'ls' ? What is so athlon-xp specific beside the special instruction sets ? > > Which app makes really use of it ? For ix86-64 it is totally understandable, > > but athlon-xp ? > > naw d00d, it'd be so l33t!!! My ls can run .233344 nano-seconds > faster than yours on alternate Tuesdays Lol. :)) > > Of course, I don't want to actually have to recompile myself, it'd be > easier if someone else did it for me. After all, other people have so > much more time and equipment than me. No joke. :) LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.21pre4-6mdk Mandrake 9.1 RC1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdkEvolution 1.2.2-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 11:12 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:43 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > The bottom line is that if you use the LM distros and you have the extra > > jack, which amounts to the cost of a magazine subscription, then you > > should be sending that money to the Mandrake club or getting a boxed set > > from Mandrakesoft. That's only the right thing to do. This should be > > punctuated with the realization that the survival of the company, the > > paychecks of the development teams, the other employee's paychecks and > > the quality of life of their families are all at stake. In other words > > a little compassion and a magazine subscription will go a long way, not > > just for you truly but also for the future of everybody else involved. > > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am I > right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed set, > but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded club > membership. > > Anne If you buy a boxed set from mandrakestore, they see about half the proceeds. If you buy a boxed set from a computer store or office supply, they see about $4 for out of the price. If you buy a club membership, they see more than half of the proceeds after covering costs. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 04:52 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: >Yes, the popular perception is that i686 has got to be better than > i586, and compiled for athlon must be even better no? Real > world is that neither i686 or athlon compiling provides anything but > somethin to do if you're bored. Could even reduce performance. At > least that's been my experience for some years now (Tbird/VIA > kt133a). Many others have reported the same. Texstar and a few > others compiled almost 95% of a recent Mandrake release for athlon, > and gave up cause it was no better, introduced more problems. Gentoo > has actually been shown to be no faster tested against i586 Mandrake. > Often slower, from what I've read of others experience. I would agree on optimizations up to athlon-xp. Since GCC3.2 came out, I have optimized XFree86 and KDE for athlon-xp and there is a noticeable improvement in the responsiveness of the gui. Other big packages like OpenOffice.org and GNOME would benefit too I am sure. For most other stuff, you're right, even athlon-xp makes no noticeable difference and could introduce instabilities. For anything optimized below athlon-XP, I have not noticed any difference - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W+tXGu5uuMFlL5MRAt8vAJ0dk26sMndr4XXsAHlvgpuNwJbFIwCeKtRs abx0qtjCvsrMTlboyotArwg= =rzuP -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:14, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 8:51 pm, Tibbetts, Ric wrote: > > > Anne... Club subscriptions are 100% revenue. Boxed sets aren't due to > > > the > > > printing, boxes, media, etc. The subscription, bringing in the higher > > > revenue, is much more helpful. Boxed sets are great for those who need > > > manuals or don't have the bandwidth to download, but for all others I'd > > > suggest Club (if their interest is more in providing more money to > > > MandrakeSoft rather than the vanity of having a ML box!) > > > > Ok, I'm in a mood today: > > I'm sorry people, but if I need to worry about such trivialities as > > this, then I really have to question whether I want to do business with > > a company on such a razors edge. > > > There is nothing trivial about making the best use of one's money. Or, I might add, nothing trivial about doing the right thing with a 60 buck subscription. :) > > I don't know of any other viable business that tries to survive on such > > a business model, as getting "sympathy dollars". > > Do you call it sympathy dollars when you ask for payment for your services? > Get real, man. > > Anne Sometimes even a dictonary doesn't help. LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.21pre4-6mdk Mandrake 9.1 RC1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdkEvolution 1.2.2-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 12:27 pm, flacycads wrote: > My main complaint (really about the only one) about Mandrake is > that they apparently refuse to issue an Athlon-XP optimized version > for retail sales, or download. However, at least you can rebuild > the srpms yourself. But really, how hard can it be to recompile the > entire distro for different architectures like Gentoo does, and > post the iso's with an "unsupported" disclaimer, if need be? IMO, > they will loose a lot of users if they don't. Otherwise, Mandrake > is a great distro, but the bottom line is a lot of users won't even > consider distros that only put out i586 optimized versions (or > less) anymore. After all, fewer and fewer users are even running > i586 hardware these days. Mandrake needs to get with the times. Yes, the popular perception is that i686 has got to be better than i586, and compiled for athlon must be even better no? Real world is that neither i686 or athlon compiling provides anything but somethin to do if you're bored. Could even reduce performance. At least that's been my experience for some years now (Tbird/VIA kt133a). Many others have reported the same. Texstar and a few others compiled almost 95% of a recent Mandrake release for athlon, and gave up cause it was no better, introduced more problems. Gentoo has actually been shown to be no faster tested against i586 Mandrake. Often slower, from what I've read of others experience. The source rpms are available for everything and you can always build 'em yourself. OTOH, how could a distro like Mandrake possibly compile for each and every cpu and motherboard chipset combination? Specially since some of the most recent cpu's, grossly overstate their capabilities, and chipsets vary widely in their design and performance. Examples, the recent fad of Via C(yrix) 3 processors that report to be i686, but are really not even fully compliant i586 cpu's, retaining many i486 characteristics and limitations. There's also the P4's with their poor FPU capability, and that still don't have decent motherboard chipsets to run on. If ya just gotta squeeze out a little more zip ... overclock ;) -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Mandrake Out of Control?
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 15:12, Anne Wilson wrote: > LX - I have read your views on this before, and I do agree with them. Am I > right in thinking, though, that it benefits MandrakeSoft more if I use > downloads and use the savings on the club? Last time I bought a boxed set, > but if this is so I will use the downloads and go for an upgraded club > membership. > > Anne Anne -- what he said! ;) > Anne... Club subscriptions are 100% revenue. Boxed sets aren't due to > the printing, boxes, media, etc. The subscription, bringing in the > higher revenue, is much more helpful. Boxed sets are great for those > who need manuals or don't have the bandwidth to download, but for all > others I'd suggest Club (if their interest is more in providing more > money to MandrakeSoft rather than the vanity of having a ML box!) > I figured somebody would get it before I got back to the system. ;) LX -- °°° Kernel 2.4.21pre4-6mdk Mandrake 9.1 RC1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdkEvolution 1.2.2-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ °°° Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
