Darryl Palmer wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Ben Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> In terms of purely of Firefox, and the openoffice.org thing is new (to
>> me)
>> and worrying, how does using this switch affect the situation:
>>
>> --no-xshm Don't use X shared memory extension
>
>
> Th
On 9/20/06, Ben Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
In terms of purely of Firefox, and the
openoffice.org thing is new (to me) and worrying, how does using this switch affect the situation: --no-xshm Don't use X shared memory extension
That would be a very bad idea. Normally X comm
Ben Green wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:24:18 +0100, Todd Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Correcting these issues may not decrease performance, and they could
>> increase performance.
>>
>
> In terms of purely of Firefox, and the openoffice.org thing is new (to me)
> and wo
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:24:18 +0100, Todd Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correcting these issues may not decrease performance, and they could
> increase performance.
In terms of purely of Firefox, and the openoffice.org thing is new (to me) and
worrying, how does using this switch affect
Jim-
Strange, I've never experienced problems with FF, but then I usually end
up closing and re-opening Firefox periodically. I've also never run
into the "hundreds of megs of memory usage" issue that many have
reported, probably as a result of restarting Firefox periodically.
FWIW, my termi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that you should realize that WE DON'T WANT THIS FIXED !!
>
> Why should zillions of users have crappy performance so that LTSP users can
> have small ram?
>
>
Correcting these issues may not decrease performance, and they could
increase performance. Remember
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:17:37AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that you should realize that WE DON'T WANT THIS FIXED !!
Uhh, yes we do: we'd like it fixed properly. If you have a lot of
virtual memory, which is pretty darned easy for any application to
figure out, then you can cach
On Thursday 21 September 2006 03:06,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With linux terminals (like LTSP) the memory used by the X server is
> realy an issue, because it can (and will) crash the terminal. The memory
> on a terminal is usualy low, and swap by network should be avoided to
> prevent network s
Francis,
I agree that the memory issue with the Xserver is a huge pain.
I leave my terminal on all the time. I find that it usually crashes after
about 1 week. Much more quickly, if I've been viewing lots of images with
firefox. I think most people don't see this, because they log out every
da
Francis-
With the OpenOffice transparency phenomenon, that indicates to me that
perhaps they are using X-server pixmaps to do the preparation of the
print job? I wonder happens if you are running the terminal in 8-bit
mode? Does that mean that your prints will be limited to 256 colors or
les
Hi,
With linux terminals (like LTSP) the memory used by the X server is
realy an issue, because it can (and will) crash the terminal. The memory
on a terminal is usualy low, and swap by network should be avoided to
prevent network staturation.
It seems that many application can cause this prob
11 matches
Mail list logo
