Re: [ubuntu-uk] Running apps at startup.
> I would like my Yakuake to run at startup when > using Gnome. I know it does it under KDE (I think > it uses ~/.kde/Autostart to do it) but with > Gnome you have to manually run it. > > I remember when I used Mandriva you were able to > get apps to 'autorun' by adding the run command to > a file which was something along the lines of: > > /etc/initrd/rc0 Sorry for late reply, May be, these articles will help you to solve your problem The theory: http://taufanlubis.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/runlevels-in-ubuntu/ The implementation: http://taufanlubis.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/setup-firewall-with-iptables-in-ubuntu-part-4/ Cheers, Taufan Lubis Registered Ubuntu User #16660 The more you give to others, the more respect you get in return. My Articles@ www.taufanlubis.wordpress.com -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
Chris Rowson wrote: >> Chris, >> >> >> Chris Rowson wrote: I go for AMDs because they're a lot cheaper. >>> I roll my own *joke* >>> >>> http://www.homebrewcpu.com/ >> Assuming it's genuine, that's a fantastic effort on the part of the guy >> who did it. >> >> Regards, >> Tony. >> -- > > I think it was genuine Tony, > > I seem to remember it getting slashdotted a little while back, and > there are links on the site to interviews and other info on his work. > It's pretty cool really, there seems to be a whole subculture evolving > around this. I wish I had the time and knowledge to give something > like that a go (although I reckon my missus would string me up). > > Chris > I've read somewhere that it was at a Classic Computing/Gaming expo and visitors could actually see it running and until recently it was attached to the internet (IIRC by serial link) and served up web pages in HTML. Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
> Chris, > > > Chris Rowson wrote: > >> I go for AMDs because they're a lot cheaper. > > > > I roll my own *joke* > > > > http://www.homebrewcpu.com/ > > Assuming it's genuine, that's a fantastic effort on the part of the guy > who did it. > > Regards, > Tony. > -- I think it was genuine Tony, I seem to remember it getting slashdotted a little while back, and there are links on the site to interviews and other info on his work. It's pretty cool really, there seems to be a whole subculture evolving around this. I wish I had the time and knowledge to give something like that a go (although I reckon my missus would string me up). Chris -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
Philip Newborough wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007 9:27 AM, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +, Kirrus wrote: >>> The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors >> are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of >> cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use >> just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere). >> >> Not just intensive tasks, anything where you are doing multiple things at >> the same time, which can happen with something as simple as viewing a java >> applet in a web browser. >> >>> >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which >>> >would save you some money. >>> >>> Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel >> is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics >> chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for >> linux drivers. :( >> >> Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better (with >> respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other vendors such >> as NVidia and ATI. >> >> Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have Intel GPUs. >> None have ATI. >> >> Cheers, >> Al. > > > I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always try > to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have a > couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc, > and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux > up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the > best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too > shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box. > > Peace, > > Philip > Thanks folks. I've traditionally been a fan of AMD although at the moment with the higher performance of the Core processors I've been interested in going for an Intel chip. After speaking to my other half (okay, begging) we (she) has decided that I'm going to go for a dual core CPU and the money saved can go on an upgrade for her PC. So I think I'll be going for the 2.66GHz Core2Duo with 4MB cache and get her an Athlon X2 4000+ (which means I'll still be supporting AMD :-) From what I was reading up on the motherboard I was looking at, it will take a quad core chip so if my needs alter in the next 12 months or so I could possibly upgrade to a quad core chip. Although saying that, I'd probably replace the motherboard too and put my old PC into a MythTV box :-) Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
Chris, Chris Rowson wrote: >> I go for AMDs because they're a lot cheaper. > > I roll my own *joke* > > http://www.homebrewcpu.com/ Assuming it's genuine, that's a fantastic effort on the part of the guy who did it. Regards, Tony. -- Tony Arnold, IT Security Coordinator, University of Manchester, IT Services Division, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL. T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED], H: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
Part of this mail is from Philip, which he sent directly to me instead of via the list. - "Philip Newborough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I take it you've not heard of the term `wintel` then? > > > > Intel is a massive company, which had a monopoly the same sort of > size of Microsoft's desktop share. AMD came in, and started forcing > Intel to shake things up, but till AMD came along, Intel were more > bothered with the size of their profits than innovation and their > customers. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel > > > > In this monopoly battle, AMD is still very much the underdog to > intel's behemoth. Does any of this sound familiar? :) > > > > In terms of battle, I think AMD are more like Firefox & IE than > Windows & Linux, but still you get the idea. > > > > Intel might be trying now to get into the graphics scene, and making > sure that their drivers are open, but AMD has historically been kinder > to the Open Source community, as shown by them buying and then > starting to open ATI. > > > > For some stats and more detailed information: > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/102607-arguments-intel-amd.html?nwwpkg=50arguments > (no second page, whatever it says...) > > > > Someone far more important than me once said, "One man's terrorist is > another man's freedom fighter." Personally I don't buy into all the > New World Order/Evil Monopoly theories and tend to use whatever works > best for me. Unfortunately, society doesn't work like that always. Intel was not exactly being brilliant at trying to best the new competitor AMD. Remember PIII? I frequently found the PII 450MHz CPU *faster* than PIII 700 MHz chips, in pure usefulness (not speed). PIII was just a marketing "lets win the MHz war with AMD" exercise, and didn't really advance the usefulness of CPUs. Personally, I look at the world, and I see quite a lot of greed for money, and quite a lot of lust for power hanging around. > > I find the whole Wintel/Windoze/M$ mindset to be somewhat destructive > and derogatory. Just my opinion. Besides, I'd hardly call AMD an > underdog, after all they do describes themselves as, "Advanced Micro > Devices, Inc. (AMD) is a global semiconductor company with facilities > worldwide." Intels current share price: $25.74 AMD's current share price: $8.1675 As of Q2 this year, AMD was in the red, incurring a loss (buying ATI [$130m chargers], various stock fun). At the moment, Intels profits are ~£1bn. Intel are currently paying 12.75 cents per share per year in dividends. AMD are not, as they don't have the cash. Each CPU chip factory is *INCREDIBLY* expensive to make. Any big competitor to Intel have to be a global semiconductor company, or be extremely specialised. (ARM mobile CPUs) AMD, as of Q3 this year, have 13.9% of the CPU market share. Intel have 78.7%. Saying that, the reason I'm using Ubuntu, is because I find it easier than Windows. I don't really care about binary drivers, and truly-freely-free systems. I want a computer that works. If I can have that whilst supporting the little guy, I will, but I won't stop using something just because it happens to be evil :) Regards, Kirrus (p.s. I quite like Gmail. I prefer Zimbra tho :)) -- Blog: http://www.kirrus.co.uk UK Plone Hosting: http://plone-hosting.co.uk RPGs: Captain Senaris Vlenn, CO, USS Sarek Lt Aieron Peters, XO DS5 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
> I go for AMDs because they're a lot cheaper. I roll my own *joke* http://www.homebrewcpu.com/ Chris -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
I go for AMDs because they're a lot cheaper. On Dec 17, 2007 3:05 PM, Kirrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better > > (with > > > respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other > > vendors such > > > as NVidia and ATI. > > > > > > Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have > > Intel GPUs. > > > None have ATI. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Al. > > > > > > I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always > > try > > to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have > > a > > couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc, > > and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux > > up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the > > best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too > > shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box. > > > > I take it you've not heard of the term `wintel` then? > > Intel is a massive company, which had a monopoly the same sort of size of > Microsoft's desktop share. AMD came in, and started forcing Intel to shake > things up, but till AMD came along, Intel were more bothered with the size > of their profits than innovation and their customers. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel > > In this monopoly battle, AMD is still very much the underdog to intel's > behemoth. Does any of this sound familiar? :) > > In terms of battle, I think AMD are more like Firefox & IE than Windows & > Linux, but still you get the idea. > > Intel might be trying now to get into the graphics scene, and making sure > that their drivers are open, but AMD has historically been kinder to the > Open Source community, as shown by them buying and then starting to open > ATI. > > For some stats and more detailed information: > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/102607-arguments-intel-amd.html?nwwpkg=50arguments(no > second page, whatever it says...) > > Kind Regards, > > Kirrus > > > -- > Blog: http://www.kirrus.co.uk > UK Plone Hosting: http://www.plone-hosting.co.uk > > RPGs: > Captain Senaris Vlenn, CO, USS Sarek > Lt Aieron Peters, XO DS5 > > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Intel evil or not? WAS: Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
> > Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better > (with > > respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other > vendors such > > as NVidia and ATI. > > > > Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have > Intel GPUs. > > None have ATI. > > > > Cheers, > > Al. > > > I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always > try > to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have > a > couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc, > and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux > up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the > best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too > shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box. > I take it you've not heard of the term `wintel` then? Intel is a massive company, which had a monopoly the same sort of size of Microsoft's desktop share. AMD came in, and started forcing Intel to shake things up, but till AMD came along, Intel were more bothered with the size of their profits than innovation and their customers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel In this monopoly battle, AMD is still very much the underdog to intel's behemoth. Does any of this sound familiar? :) In terms of battle, I think AMD are more like Firefox & IE than Windows & Linux, but still you get the idea. Intel might be trying now to get into the graphics scene, and making sure that their drivers are open, but AMD has historically been kinder to the Open Source community, as shown by them buying and then starting to open ATI. For some stats and more detailed information: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/102607-arguments-intel-amd.html?nwwpkg=50arguments (no second page, whatever it says...) Kind Regards, Kirrus -- Blog: http://www.kirrus.co.uk UK Plone Hosting: http://www.plone-hosting.co.uk RPGs: Captain Senaris Vlenn, CO, USS Sarek Lt Aieron Peters, XO DS5 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
On Dec 17, 2007 9:27 AM, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +, Kirrus wrote: > > The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors > are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of > cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use > just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere). > > Not just intensive tasks, anything where you are doing multiple things at > the same time, which can happen with something as simple as viewing a java > applet in a web browser. > > > > > >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which > > >would save you some money. > > > > Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel > is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics > chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for > linux drivers. :( > > Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better (with > respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other vendors such > as NVidia and ATI. > > Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have Intel GPUs. > None have ATI. > > Cheers, > Al. I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always try to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have a couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc, and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box. Peace, Philip -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +, Kirrus wrote: > The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere). Not just intensive tasks, anything where you are doing multiple things at the same time, which can happen with something as simple as viewing a java applet in a web browser. > > >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which > >would save you some money. > > Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for linux drivers. :( Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better (with respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other vendors such as NVidia and ATI. Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have Intel GPUs. None have ATI. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it?
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm looking to upgrade my PC to something a tad quicker. Now I'm > > interested in going to a Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU (2.4GHz quad core). > > Thing is, I'm not sure if I would really make use of a quad core > CPU > > (not to mention my other half wants a PC upgrade too and my budget > won't > > stretch to a quad core CPU and an upgrade for her PC too). > > > > I don't really play games (although I do use the occasional > emulator), > > but I do want to start doing things like video encoding (I have a > pile > > of DV tapes to convert to DVD) on top of my usual tasks > (downloading > > stuff, running the occasional virtual machine, playing music, > browsing > > the web). Hi Rob, The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere). >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which would >save you some money. Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for linux drivers. :( Kind regards, Kirrus -- Blog: http://www.kirrus.co.uk Work: http://www.encryptec.net RPGs: Captain Senaris Vlenn, CO, USS Sarek Lt Aieron Peters, XO DS5 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
