Hello All,
anybody had experience with both?
how do they compare?
--
Best regards,
Yuri
All,
Yeah, I tried the Xfree86 4.01 from the "cooker" FTP site and it's
working now. I guess what happened was I downloaded the entire package
from Xfree86.org and it didn't jive with the way Mandrake has their font
server set up. Naturally the RPM version fixed that. Now, if we could
only
If you go with the Custom install, it'll give the choice of installing v.4
(but it doesn't recommend it). It ran okay for me.
hth,
kf
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Jason Munson wrote:
= Hi folks,
=
= I just finished a stock install of 7.1, and taking the option of X
= version 4.0. I've noticed that t
Jason Munson wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I just finished a stock install of 7.1, and taking the option of X
> version 4.0. I've noticed that the X setup program included in DrakConf
> always reverts back to 3.3.6. Any way to prevent this? Next, I installed
> Xfree86 4.01 and now the font server won
Jason Munson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> I just finished a stock install of 7.1, and taking the option of X
> version 4.0. I've noticed that the X setup program included in DrakConf
> always reverts back to 3.3.6. Any way to prevent this? Next, I installed
> Xfree86 4.01 and n
Jason Munson wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I just finished a stock install of 7.1, and taking the option of X
> version 4.0. I've noticed that the X setup program included in DrakConf
> always reverts back to 3.3.6. Any way to prevent this? Next, I installed
> Xfree86 4.01 and now the font server won
Hi folks,
I just finished a stock install of 7.1, and taking the option of X
version 4.0. I've noticed that the X setup program included in DrakConf
always reverts back to 3.3.6. Any way to prevent this? Next, I installed
Xfree86 4.01 and now the font server won't work at all! Has anybody
fig
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Middleditch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] XFree86 4.01
> Civileme wrote:
>
> > As I recall, the release of XFree86 4.0 made it just under th
Civileme wrote:
> As I recall, the release of XFree86 4.0 made it just under the wire for the 7.1 code
> freeze. You will find terms not used in a standard manner here. For example, the
> "beta" of development is just frozen code--nothing new to be added, but it does NOT
> mean that all the in-
At 12:34 -0400 2000/07/11, Sean Middleditch wrote:
>Anton Graham wrote:
>
>> Submitted 10-Jul-00 by Sean Middleditch:
>>
>> > How trustworthy are these RPM's?
> > >
I have been using XF4 rpms from cooker, downloaded at rpmfind.net, and are just
as stable as XF336. XF40 has some little bugs, bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Civileme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] XFree86 4.01
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gil Baron W0MN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
As I recall, the release of XFree86 4.0 made it just under the wire for the 7.1 code
freeze. You will find terms not used in a standard manner here. For example, the
"beta" of development is just frozen code--nothing new to be added, but it does NOT
mean that all the in-house discoverable bugs h
Anton Graham wrote:
> Submitted 10-Jul-00 by Sean Middleditch:
>
> > How trustworthy are these RPM's?
> >
> > For example, the install on MDK 7.1 said the Xfree86 4.0 is was installing was
> > only a 'snapshot release.' The really upsets me if it is, because it sure as
> > hell wasn't advertised
-Original Message-
From: Gil Baron W0MN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, July 09, 2000 11:57 PM
Subject: RE: [expert] XFree86 4.01
>
>> > :~>XFree86 4.01 just came out.
>> > :~>
>> > :~>Ho
-Original Message-
From: Anton Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [expert] XFree86 4.01
>
>Depending on a distro to keep you on the edge and then
complaining
>when they do so see
Submitted 10-Jul-00 by Sean Middleditch:
> How trustworthy are these RPM's?
>
> For example, the install on MDK 7.1 said the Xfree86 4.0 is was installing was
> only a 'snapshot release.' The really upsets me if it is, because it sure as
> hell wasn't advertised as being so... If not, then tha
> > :~>XFree86 4.01 just came out.
> > :~>
> > :~>How long will it take for MDK 7.1 RPMs to be made? I need 'em since
> > :~>XFree86 4 didn't install like I specifically asked it to
> when installing
> > :~>MDK 7.1.
> >
> > Look in cooker, I reckon these RPM-s are already there.
> >
What is CO
Denis Havlik wrote:
> :~>XFree86 4.01 just came out.
> :~>
> :~>How long will it take for MDK 7.1 RPMs to be made? I need 'em since
> :~>XFree86 4 didn't install like I specifically asked it to when installing
> :~>MDK 7.1.
>
> Look in cooker, I reckon these RPM-s are already there.
>
How trust
:~>XFree86 4.01 just came out.
:~>
:~>How long will it take for MDK 7.1 RPMs to be made? I need 'em since
:~>XFree86 4 didn't install like I specifically asked it to when installing
:~>MDK 7.1.
Look in cooker, I reckon these RPM-s are already there.
--
XFree86 4.01 just came out.
How long will it take for MDK 7.1 RPMs to be made? I need 'em since
XFree86 4 didn't install like I specifically asked it to when installing
MDK 7.1.
Sean Middleditch
20 matches
Mail list logo
