Re[2]: Lighter Version
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Paco Cruz wrote: Bruce Sass, Con fecha martes, 17 de junio de 2003, 19:55:03, escribió: BS It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 BS on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few BS seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... BS - Bruce Please, excuse me if this is out of topic, but I am really impressed with the fact that a 486-66MHz is running both KDE 3.1.2 and LyX (I think it is wonderful). How much RAM are you talking about? I am very, very, very interested in loading both linux *and* LyX in low specs machines. 64M, 48M should work (don't expect to run more than an app or two though), 32M would probably be a too little (for KDE; fluxbox, uwm, mwm, etc., would be fine). The problem with a machine this old is that designers may have never considered it would have this much memory. e.g., this one seems to have assumed a 16M max 'cause video is limited to 8-bit color once you get over 16M). I am trying to convert a handful of this kind of PCs (plus P I, II and Celerons) from W98 to Linux, but have not found a viable solution due to lack of RAM (they only have 32 Mb). Try a lightweight wm and some utility apps (like tkdesk). You will likely lose some bell/whistle functionality but gain stability and security. Good luck. - Bruce
Re[2]: Lighter Version
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Paco Cruz wrote: Bruce Sass, Con fecha martes, 17 de junio de 2003, 19:55:03, escribió: BS It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 BS on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few BS seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... BS - Bruce Please, excuse me if this is out of topic, but I am really impressed with the fact that a 486-66MHz is running both KDE 3.1.2 and LyX (I think it is wonderful). How much RAM are you talking about? I am very, very, very interested in loading both linux *and* LyX in low specs machines. 64M, 48M should work (don't expect to run more than an app or two though), 32M would probably be a too little (for KDE; fluxbox, uwm, mwm, etc., would be fine). The problem with a machine this old is that designers may have never considered it would have this much memory. e.g., this one seems to have assumed a 16M max 'cause video is limited to 8-bit color once you get over 16M). I am trying to convert a handful of this kind of PCs (plus P I, II and Celerons) from W98 to Linux, but have not found a viable solution due to lack of RAM (they only have 32 Mb). Try a lightweight wm and some utility apps (like tkdesk). You will likely lose some bell/whistle functionality but gain stability and security. Good luck. - Bruce
Re[2]: Lighter Version
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Paco Cruz wrote: > Bruce Sass, > Con fecha martes, 17 de junio de 2003, 19:55:03, escribió: > > BS> It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 > BS> on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few > BS> seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... > BS> - Bruce > > Please, excuse me if this is out of topic, but I am really impressed > with the fact that a 486-66MHz is running both KDE 3.1.2 and LyX (I > think it is wonderful). > > How much RAM are you talking about? I am very, very, very interested > in loading both linux *and* LyX in low specs machines. 64M, 48M should work (don't expect to run more than an app or two though), 32M would probably be a too little (for KDE; fluxbox, uwm, mwm, etc., would be fine). The problem with a machine this old is that designers may have never considered it would have this much memory. e.g., this one seems to have assumed a 16M max 'cause video is limited to 8-bit color once you get over 16M). > I am trying to convert a handful of this kind of PCs (plus P I, II > and Celerons) from W98 to Linux, but have not found a viable solution > due to lack of RAM (they only have 32 Mb). Try a lightweight wm and some utility apps (like tkdesk). You will likely lose some bell/whistle functionality but gain stability and security. Good luck. - Bruce
Re: Lighter Version
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Preben Randhol wrote: Tuukka Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 16/06/2003 (10:54) : Never use KDE nor Gnome unless you have 64 MB or so memory. No unless you have 128 Mb preferably 256 Mb. At least if you look at the latest versions. It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... ...for writing and simple graphics. LyX's slow point is loading up fonts and formatting the document. - Bruce
Re: Lighter Version
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Preben Randhol wrote: Tuukka Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 16/06/2003 (10:54) : Never use KDE nor Gnome unless you have 64 MB or so memory. No unless you have 128 Mb preferably 256 Mb. At least if you look at the latest versions. It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... ...for writing and simple graphics. LyX's slow point is loading up fonts and formatting the document. - Bruce
Re: Lighter Version
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Preben Randhol wrote: > Tuukka Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 16/06/2003 (10:54) : > > > > Never use KDE nor Gnome unless you have 64 MB or so memory. > > No unless you have 128 Mb preferably 256 Mb. At least if you look at the > latest versions. It is a matter of patience and bells and whistles. I have KDE 3.1.2 on a 486-66MHz, once you get passed the startup times and the few seconds it takes to redraw a screen it is just fine... ...for writing and simple graphics. LyX's slow point is loading up fonts and formatting the document. - Bruce
Re: QT compile problems.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, John Coppens wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:33:30 +
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:09:20PM -0300, John Coppens wrote:
QTDIR is pointing to the 3.0.4 version, which is logical, because its
the latest. But LyX internally has quite a few hardwired links to the
qt2 directories.
There are no hardwired links at all.
Where are the Qt 3.0.4 headers on your system ?
You must make sure that it finds the same library version and headers
version. Check config.log for the qt bits
Both 3.0.4 and 2.3.1 are under /usr/lib.
Why, if no qt isn't hardcoded, is this in configure.ac:
qt)
QT_DO_IT_ALL
FRONTEND=qt2
FRONTEND_GUILIB=qt2/*.lo qt2/ui/*.lo qt2/moc/*.lo qt2/ui/moc/*.lo
FRONTEND_LDFLAGS=\$(QT_LDFLAGS)
FRONTEND_INCLUDES=-I\${srcdir}/qt2 \$(QT_INCLUDES)
FRONTEND_LIBS=\$(QT_LIB)
FRONTEND_INFO=Qt version: ${QT_VERSION}\n
These qt2 bits are references into the LyX source, not your system...
This always gets activated - even if $QTDIR is pointing to 3.0.4, and
if LyX correctly detects this version of Qt? (of course not the .ac,
but the actual configure and makefiles do use these options)
...is the qt frontend even usable with qt3?
- Bruce
Re: QT compile problems.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, John Coppens wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:33:30 +
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:09:20PM -0300, John Coppens wrote:
QTDIR is pointing to the 3.0.4 version, which is logical, because its
the latest. But LyX internally has quite a few hardwired links to the
qt2 directories.
There are no hardwired links at all.
Where are the Qt 3.0.4 headers on your system ?
You must make sure that it finds the same library version and headers
version. Check config.log for the qt bits
Both 3.0.4 and 2.3.1 are under /usr/lib.
Why, if no qt isn't hardcoded, is this in configure.ac:
qt)
QT_DO_IT_ALL
FRONTEND=qt2
FRONTEND_GUILIB=qt2/*.lo qt2/ui/*.lo qt2/moc/*.lo qt2/ui/moc/*.lo
FRONTEND_LDFLAGS=\$(QT_LDFLAGS)
FRONTEND_INCLUDES=-I\${srcdir}/qt2 \$(QT_INCLUDES)
FRONTEND_LIBS=\$(QT_LIB)
FRONTEND_INFO=Qt version: ${QT_VERSION}\n
These qt2 bits are references into the LyX source, not your system...
This always gets activated - even if $QTDIR is pointing to 3.0.4, and
if LyX correctly detects this version of Qt? (of course not the .ac,
but the actual configure and makefiles do use these options)
...is the qt frontend even usable with qt3?
- Bruce
Re: QT compile problems.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, John Coppens wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:33:30 +
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:09:20PM -0300, John Coppens wrote:
> >
> > > QTDIR is pointing to the 3.0.4 version, which is logical, because its
> > > the latest. But LyX internally has quite a few hardwired links to the
> > > qt2 directories.
> >
> > There are no hardwired links at all.
> >
> > Where are the Qt 3.0.4 headers on your system ?
> >
> > You must make sure that it finds the same library version and headers
> > version. Check config.log for the qt bits
> >
>
> Both 3.0.4 and 2.3.1 are under /usr/lib.
> Why, if no qt isn't hardcoded, is this in configure.ac:
>
> qt)
> QT_DO_IT_ALL
> FRONTEND="qt2"
> FRONTEND_GUILIB="qt2/*.lo qt2/ui/*.lo qt2/moc/*.lo qt2/ui/moc/*.lo"
> FRONTEND_LDFLAGS="\$(QT_LDFLAGS)"
> FRONTEND_INCLUDES="-I\${srcdir}/qt2 \$(QT_INCLUDES)"
> FRONTEND_LIBS="\$(QT_LIB)"
> FRONTEND_INFO="Qt version: ${QT_VERSION}\n"
These qt2 bits are references into the LyX source, not your system...
> This always gets activated - even if $QTDIR is pointing to 3.0.4, and
> if LyX correctly detects this version of Qt? (of course not the .ac,
> but the actual configure and makefiles do use these options)
...is the qt frontend even usable with qt3?
- Bruce
Re: Lyx-1.2.1 with SuSE-8.1
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, M. B. Schiekel wrote: Hallo everybody, beg your pardon for 2 beginner questions. Now that I went from my stable SuSE-7.3, Lyx-1.6.1 to SuSE-8.1 I'm encountering many problems - here are 2 Lyx questions. 1. SuSE-8.1 comes with Lyx-1.2.0 - and Lyx installs and runs. Next I installed (rpm --upgrade) from the lyx-server: Lyx-1.2.1-1rh8-xforms089.i386.rpm . ^^^ Then I got the following ' failed dependencies': tetex-xdvi, tetex-latex, perl(Cwd), perl(File::Basename), perl (FileHandle), perl(lib), perl (strict), perl(vars). So what to do? find a lyx-1.2.1 built for suse, the rh8 indicates a RedHat package? build it yourself - Bruce
Re: Lyx-1.2.1 with SuSE-8.1
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, M. B. Schiekel wrote: Hallo everybody, beg your pardon for 2 beginner questions. Now that I went from my stable SuSE-7.3, Lyx-1.6.1 to SuSE-8.1 I'm encountering many problems - here are 2 Lyx questions. 1. SuSE-8.1 comes with Lyx-1.2.0 - and Lyx installs and runs. Next I installed (rpm --upgrade) from the lyx-server: Lyx-1.2.1-1rh8-xforms089.i386.rpm . ^^^ Then I got the following ' failed dependencies': tetex-xdvi, tetex-latex, perl(Cwd), perl(File::Basename), perl (FileHandle), perl(lib), perl (strict), perl(vars). So what to do? find a lyx-1.2.1 built for suse, the rh8 indicates a RedHat package? build it yourself - Bruce
Re: Lyx-1.2.1 with SuSE-8.1
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, M. B. Schiekel wrote: > Hallo everybody, > > beg your pardon for 2 beginner questions. > Now that I went from my stable SuSE-7.3, Lyx-1.6.1 to SuSE-8.1 > I'm encountering many problems - here are 2 Lyx questions. > > 1. SuSE-8.1 comes with Lyx-1.2.0 - and Lyx installs and runs. > Next I installed (rpm --upgrade) from the lyx-server: > Lyx-1.2.1-1rh8-xforms089.i386.rpm . ^^^ > Then I got the following ' failed dependencies': >tetex-xdvi, tetex-latex, >perl(Cwd), perl(File::Basename), perl (FileHandle), >perl(lib), perl (strict), perl(vars). > So what to do? find a lyx-1.2.1 built for suse, the rh8 indicates a RedHat package? build it yourself - Bruce
