On 16/10/2011 22:33, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2011 04:05:52 am Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
>> On 26/09/2011 17:34, Anssi Hannula wrote:
>>> On 26.09.2011 15:47, nicolas vigier wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
>>>>>
On 26/09/2011 17:34, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> On 26.09.2011 15:47, nicolas vigier wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
>>> But are you sure about texlive providing it?
>> I don't know. It looks like it's not in the texlive package.
> My impression (from a few years back I think) is th
Michael scherer wrote:
why this kind of "competition"?
It is up to you to explain why you see competition when i just
state that we have obviously a different set of ressources.
Let's say the first feeling I had in reading... ;-)
[...]
We should summarize what there is from what th
Michael Scherer wrote:
Well, from a physical point of view, everything is limited, so saying
"limited ressources" didn't indeed told much.
I think that the ressources at Mandriva could be summarized as "around 1
to 3 full time people ( maybe more, maybe less, and likely not full time
on the s
R James wrote:
[...]
I did make a few post-installation tweaks:
1. Remove msec.
2. Disable PulseAudio.
3. Delete /etc/X11/xinit.d/70net_applet
(net_applet is a pig and not needed for static wired connection)
Google Chromium is finally a browser that can handle gmail on
low-resource systems.
2010/9/27 Thierry Vignaud
> On 27 September 2010 20:36, R James wrote:
> > Even the original Mandrake of 1998 was compiled for i586 (Pentium
> > Classic or newer)
>
> Wrong!
> Original mandriva was compiled i386. It was when we "merged" with
>
the original mandrake has even the same binary pac
2010/9/27 Michael Scherer
> Le lundi 27 septembre 2010 à 03:19 +0200, vfmBOFH a écrit :
> > What about virtualization?
> >
> > Maybe we could set-up some kind of cluster of remote and dedicated
> > vm's as a
> > unique build system. Could be a good workaround over security and
> > integrity issue
2010/9/27 herman
> On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:32 -0700, Frank Griffin wrote:
> > Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
> > > IMHO one of the building problems was not massive automatic rebuilding
> > > but avoid bottenlecks to the users when building goes wrong.
> > I really
2010/9/26 nicolas vigier
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, joris dedieu wrote:
>
> > 2010/9/26 Olivier Blin :
> > >
> > > Because there are some authentication and integrity issues which are
> not
> > > simple to solve: we have to be sure that the binary packages really
> come
> > > from the unmodified SRPM
2010/9/26 andré
> Thomas Backlund a écrit :
>
>
>> Giuseppe Ghibò skrev 26.9.2010 14:59:
>>
>>> 2010/9/26 Thomas Backlund mailto:t...@iki.fi>>
>>>
>>>Giuseppe Ghibò skrev 26.9.2010 02:09:
>>> >
>>>
>>>
2010/9/26 Thomas Backlund
Giuseppe Ghibò skrev 26.9.2010 02:09:
>
>
> Not exactly. I'm not talking in just using -march= but in
>> also pushing -mfpmath=sse -msse (and maybe -msse2) , which should be
>> much more than JUST 1-2% (1-2% is usually the benchmark
>>
2010/9/26 Thomas Backlund
Giuseppe Ghibò skrev 26.9.2010 02:09:
> >
>
>> I don't want to deprive the fun of building a router or a firewall from
>>
>> an old P133/64 with two ethernet cards, or some mediabox, but often you
>> can't (and sometimes you p
2010/9/26 Tux99
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
>
> > Centos4 IS NOT a modern distro. It is a LTS started in 2005 and so it
> > maintains 2005's original skeleton of kernel, gcc, glibc and X. That's
> FIVE
> > years old.
>
> I'm quite sur
2010/9/26 André Machado
> > Common where? There are schools and universities are dismitting hardware
>
> > like with P4/2.4Ghz and 512MB RAM for whatever use (either server or
> > desktop). And even older hardware no-ROHS, which should be dismantled
> > carefully.
>
> You are seeing everything fr
2010/9/26 Tux99
> memory only (use 1GB swap?)? Were you able to install the 2010.1?
>
> Centos 4 installs and runs perfectly fine on a Pentium II 350Mhz with
> 128MB RAM, I know it because I installed such a box for a friend as home
> server running 24/7 (with DNS server, apache and some other st
2010/9/25 Tux99
Again, you are missing the point, these machines are not desktop PCs
> running a GUI, any modern Linux distro still runs perfectly fine with
> 64-128MB and 10-15 year old cpus when used for many headless purposes.
>
For instance? Apart DSL which distro can you start the installer
2010/9/25 R James
>
> I *definitely* do not want to see dropping support for everything that
> doesn't do SSE2 (which was discussed in the Fedora thread you linked).
>
I read the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support. IMHO
optimizing for some ATOM specific CPU get 1% improvement,
>
> Since the vast majority of new processors are 64-bit capable, I see no
> point in *only* supporting the newest of the old CPUs. All the 32-bit
> stuff will eventually die on its own anyways.
>
> I *definitely* do not want to see dropping support for everything that
> doesn't do SSE2 (which was
2010/9/25 Tux99
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
>
> > IMHO the problem is not finding an architecture to fit the i586 or i686
> rpm
> > flags, rather to find the minimum CPU and memory requirement worthwhile
> for
> > a decent usage. With KDE if we loo
2010/9/25 Filipe Rosset
> On 09/25/2010 09:16 AM, R James wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Patrice BRUNELLE
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le vendredi 24 septembre 2010 à 15:51 -0500, R James a écrit :
>>>
Technically, the i686 started with the Pentium Pro. (Remember that?
:o)
>>
20 matches
Mail list logo
