On Friday 17 February 2006 11:45, Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >If so, it still stands. This use of 'enabled' to mean 'set' is just
> > plain wrong. Sorry if that offends anyone.
>
> Wrong? Language evolves. It always has, and it always will. In modern
> technical usage, "enable"
Peter Humphrey wrote:
Duncan wrote:
If so, it still stands. This use of 'enabled' to mean 'set' is just plain
wrong. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Wrong? Language evolves. It always has, and it always will. In modern
technical usage, "enable" can mean the same as "activate". Grumbling
w
Duncan wrote:
> You have a point, as the term is used in regular English. However, the
> term has a slightly different twist when used in reference to computers by
> computer literate users.
Stop there. Of course you're not to know this, but I was working on computer
hardware in 1972, and I've b
Duncan wrote:
The history of the term "enable" in computer usage, I believe traces to
its use for computer hardware. Consider the old serial protocols as used
in telephone modems and the like. Being binary logic, each signal line
had two states, 0/off, typically at ground-reference voltage, an
Peter Humphrey posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:01:22 +:
> Duncan wrote:
>> John Myers posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> excerpted below, on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:49:54 -0800:
>>
>>> x86_64 does not require frame pointers for debugging, so
>>> -fomit-frame-poin
On Thursday 02 February 2006 14:05, Duncan wrote:
> OK, it's my first web site, the front page is hand created, and I cheated
> by letting konqueror generate the gallery for me then just modified it,
> for the screenshots page, so go easy on the criticism, but here it is:
>
> http://members.cox.net
On 2/2/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://members.cox.net/pu61ic.1inux.dunc4n/
Nice. Now let us know your CFLAGS, and what toolchain versions you're running :D
Mike
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:15:33AM +0100, Harm Geerts wrote:
>
> And only minutes after this mail I was abusing my system with mplayer and
> some
> transparant xterms and suffered a big lockup. For historic purposes I've
> saved the log and put it online :p
> http://hagar.mine.nu/dump/X.org/Xor
On Friday 03 February 2006 00:07, Harm Geerts wrote:
> Thanks for the tip.
> This solved the glx loading but didn't do much for the performance.
> However, after glancing at the nvidia readme myself I found another option
> that I commented out for some undocumented reason :+
>
> Option "RenderAcce
On Thursday 02 February 2006 05:58, Kyle Liddell wrote:
> You can still use GLX with composite, but there's another option you have
> to specify since it's supposedly broken on some things. (Now, I've never
> had any problems...but the most GL stuff I've done with it are XScreensaver
> and maybe U
jj posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 02 Feb 2006
16:40:42 +0100:
> I am running Xorg7.0 with the latest fluxbox and composite and a
> nvidia-card. Everything works fine, beside the round corners of a window
> doesn't get correctly redrawn after a resize to a smaller window. M
Kyle Liddell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:28:25AM +0100, Harm Geerts wrote:
I have a 6600GT with nvidia's driver, screen updates are similar to
downloading a detailed picture from the internet with a 56k modem :+
I went through my log and found this:
(EE) GLX is not supported
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:28:25AM +0100, Harm Geerts wrote:
> I have a 6600GT with nvidia's driver, screen updates are similar to
> downloading a detailed picture from the internet with a 56k modem :+
> I went through my log and found this:
> (EE) GLX is not supported with the Composite extension
On Thursday 02 February 2006 00:01, Duncan wrote:
> I've seen a bit of what composite could do before, but it was always too
> slow. With kde 3.5.1 (just out and merged today) and xorg 7.0, both
> (along with qt) compiled with gcc 4.1.0-beta200601??, and a decent set of
> CFLAGS, all I can say is
14 matches
Mail list logo
