-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing that has me puzzled is my business partner's Toshiba
notebook computer, a Satellite Pro 6100. He has Win XP on it, and then
added RH 9 in a dual-boot setup. Under XP, he had installed the Cygwin
environment.
He has a fairly large text file t
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 16:09, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> This has been covered several times on the list:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-list/2003-June/msg02860.html
>
> Basically, your slowdown has been caused by issues related to RedHat's
> adoption of Unicode. The fixes are in the
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Ronald W. Heiby wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The thing that has me puzzled is my business partner's Toshiba
> notebook computer, a Satellite Pro 6100. He has Win XP on it, and then
> added RH 9 in a dual-boot setup. Under XP, he had installed th
> Any ideas on what I can tell him to do to get Linux running almost as
> fast as Win XP? Faster would be even better, of course. :-)
>
> Ron.
>
man hdparm
the most important options are likely to read about are -a, -d, and -u.
cheers,
Sean
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[E
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:01:57AM -0700, Bailo, John wrote:
>
> C'mon? 'Pentium class' as in any Pentium???
I would think so.
I don't really see speed as being a showstopper in this case.
RAM is more important.
Emmanuel
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 02:45:48PM -0400, Javier Gostling wrote:
>
> RHL9 on a P2/300 with 384 MB at home. Running as mail server, desktop,
> multiuser (there is a laptop that runs remote X sessions to the "big"
> machine), web proxy, firewall. Not blazing fast, but it gets the job done.
RHL 7.3
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:15:23PM -0400, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> On 25-Jun-2003/11:49 -0700, "Bailo, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >Any OSS projects to 're-invent' the wheel?
>
> Berlin (renamed to something else?).
It's now Fresco. http://www.fresco.org
HTH. HAND.
Thomas ;-)
--
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 12:18, Javier Gostling wrote:
> Another issue (derived from the dual X sessions above) is scalability.
> How scalable is a compressing protocol? What would be the consequences
> of compressing data streams in a 50 user multiuser application server?
> My instincts tell me it
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 12:00, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> The spare CPU cycles only help if your bus can fill them. That's the
> meaning of the phrase you quote. A 1Ghz processor is no faster and has
> no more CPU cycles to spare than the 500Mhz processor (depending on the
> bus speed - some newer
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:48:44AM -0700, Rick Warner wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 11:40, Javier Gostling wrote:
>
> >
> > It will depend on the specific situation. Compression will do lots of
> > good for bandwidth scarce situations, but on a LAN or standalone system
> > it will just waste CPU
The spare CPU cycles only help if your bus can fill them. That's the
meaning of the phrase you quote. A 1Ghz processor is no faster and has
no more CPU cycles to spare than the 500Mhz processor (depending on the
bus speed - some newer buses go beyond this).
In addition, you mention servers as be
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 11:40, Javier Gostling wrote:
>
> It will depend on the specific situation. Compression will do lots of
> good for bandwidth scarce situations, but on a LAN or standalone system
> it will just waste CPU.
This is so lame. Any PC less than 2-3 years old and not being used
as
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:33:04AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 10:01, Bailo, John wrote:
> > C'mon? 'Pentium class' as in any Pentium???
>
> I run RH8 on a P100 w/64MB as a firewall. Works fine. For a desktop
> that's pushing it a bit ;) I'd say P2/400 minimum. RAM is re
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:27:19PM -0700, Rick Warner wrote:
>
> It is not IPC, which has a specific meaning. It is network
> communication. There is overhead, but it can be optimized. 10 years
> ago there was a battle over which competing compressed stream
> implementation to adopt. In the en
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:39:46AM -0700, Lazor, Ed wrote:
> Nope - no hard drive, just ram and rom. You flash the rom to upgrade the OS.
> Everything runs remotely through Citrix.
Actually, the HD vs. flash is not the issue here. It's the local boot of
WinCE (with associated license) vs. the net
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 00:23, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> I agree with you there Mike, but things are getting better. I have also
> seen friends et al frown upon my linux offerings, but the bottom line is
> that things are getting better, slowly but surely.
>
> I must say that I have more confidence t
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 10:01, Bailo, John wrote:
> C'mon? 'Pentium class' as in any Pentium???
I run RH8 on a P100 w/64MB as a firewall. Works fine. For a desktop
that's pushing it a bit ;) I'd say P2/400 minimum. RAM is really the
key factor.
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corpo
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 09:07, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:45:18AM -0700, Bailo, John wrote:
> >
> > > - If your computer is fast enough to run RHL 9, all is well.
> >
> > And what would such a configuration consist of : honestly, what does it
> > take?
>
> >From Red Hat's
On 25-Jun-2003/11:49 -0700, "Bailo, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Are these commercial xservers i586/linux compatible?
Yes.
>Can I swap them out for say, a md91 distro to get better performance?
I used a commercial X server on RH5 a few years ago and was surprised at
the spped improvement. Y
On 24-Jun-2003/11:18 -0500, "Benjamin J. Weiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What is GMC and how did you disable Nautilus and enable it? I would *love*
>have have a more responsive desktop...
I'm runnning RH72, so the steps you take to do this may vary slightly.
First, open a terminal so you can
C'mon? 'Pentium class' as in any Pentium???
I want real answers...
-Original Message-
From: Emmanuel Seyman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 9:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
On Thu, Jun 26
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 09:45, Bailo, John wrote:
> >
> > I like the suggestion that Peter Peltonen made:
> >
> > - If your computer is fast enough to run RHL 9, all is well.
>
>
> And what would such a configuration consist of : honestly, what does it
> take?
>
> P4 ?
> 2G Ram?
> 80G Disk?
>
>
Nope - no hard drive, just ram and rom. You flash the rom to upgrade the OS.
Everything runs remotely through Citrix.
> -Original Message-
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption
> that all of
> the WinTerminals required a small hard drive containing
> WinCE, w
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:45:18AM -0700, Bailo, John wrote:
>
> > - If your computer is fast enough to run RHL 9, all is well.
>
> And what would such a configuration consist of : honestly, what does it
> take?
>From Red Hat's website:
Red Hat Linux 9 Technical Details
Minimum and Recommende
>
> I like the suggestion that Peter Peltonen made:
>
> - If your computer is fast enough to run RHL 9, all is well.
And what would such a configuration consist of : honestly, what does it
take?
P4 ?
2G Ram?
80G Disk?
KDE is worth it in my opinion.
The fonts are great, the desktop the most
And don't forget to renice -20 your X process, panel, and WM if it's a
desktop-only system.
Jon
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:20:03PM -0400, MWafkowski wrote:
> >
> > My impression so far is that the Linux GUI desktop can be "fixed" by
> > basically opt
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:20:03PM -0400, MWafkowski wrote:
>
> My impression so far is that the Linux GUI desktop can be "fixed" by
> basically optimizing the individual structures, X, fonts, wm, etc. WITHOUT
> starting from scratch (X and associated stuff).
I like the suggestion that Peter Pelt
Cliff Wells wrote:
You really think people who only have *one* mouse button know anything
about X?
ROFLMAO :)
-ste
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:21:42PM +0300, Panos Platon Tsapralis wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 17:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:18:31PM +0300, Panos Platon Tsapralis wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 12:16, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Instead of 50 workstati
]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
> MWafkowski wrote:
> > I'll try to distill my point. At this time there is no full blown GUI
> > (functonality, eye candy, ease of use, etc.) that is not a pig on Linux.
>
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 16:27, Rick Warner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 13:53, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
>
> >
> > Gnome and KDE are NOT X implementations any more than GIMP is an X
> > implementation. Gnome and KDE are X _applications_. X implementations
> > include the server, the font server,
MWafkowski wrote:
I'll try to distill my point. At this time there is no full blown GUI
(functonality, eye candy, ease of use, etc.) that is not a pig on Linux.
http://www.xfce.org/
I'm quite willing to concede that the problem might be KDE or Gnome, but
since they must reside on X it's hard for m
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 16:48, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > OSX *is* essentially FreeBSD. As such, it sure does use X as the
> And being FreeBSD doesn't imply the existence of X.
> Unfortunately, I can't find anything describing what they *do* use
> (aside from Quartz and Aqua, which don't appear to be
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 13:53, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
>
> Gnome and KDE are NOT X implementations any more than GIMP is an X
> implementation. Gnome and KDE are X _applications_. X implementations
> include the server, the font server, and Xlib, and maybe a few other
> things.
Jonathan, we wil
> Again, Gnome and KDE are a collection of X clients and the API for
> creating those clients. Nothing in Gnome or KDE attempt to replace or
> re-invent the X server. And since clients are part and parcel of the X
> system, the problem is in part of certain X implementations specifically
> Gnome
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 19:14, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
> >
> > Despite its name, OSX doesn't use X.
>
> OSX *is* essentially FreeBSD. As such, it sure does use X as the
> windowing system,
And being FreeBSD doesn't imply the existence of X.
If you think otherwise, perhaps
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 11:20, Michael Kalus wrote:
> Excuse me, but by my understanding X itself is not a UI. It is just a Server
> that doesn't really do much but draw a window. If you start X without a
> windowserver it is pretty fast and looks extremely ugly.
X is not just the server. X is a c
> Interesting. I didn't know that. But I guess it makes sense.
I guess one of the things that Apple realized is that with projects like
FINK they actually have access to ton's of applications. The one thing that
prevented most Graphical applications from running was the hassle with
getting X to
> 1) Writing a full scale graphical environment is time
> consuming, difficult, and requires a lot of skill. There are
> not that many around. The Mac interface, Windows, Sun's
> SunView, X and X based derivatives (CDE, Gnome, KDE, etc.).
> Probably a couple of others, certainly the Star int
ocking rick's response, but the 'wheel' seems to be square and made
> of stone.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Why
Original Message-
From: Jonathan Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
In addition, there are alternatives to XFree86. There are commercial X
servers that work v
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:09:31AM -0700, Bailo, John wrote:
> With all the alternatives in Linux, are there alternatives to X itself?
There is one project I know of: "The Berlin Consortium", which apperently
started over and is now called "Fresco". See: http://www.fresco.org/
It is under acti
In addition, there are alternatives to XFree86. There are commercial X
servers that work very well, that have nothing to do with XFree86.
Also, gtk (not GNOME, though) applications can run directly on the
framebuffer, I believe.
Jon
On 25 Jun 2003, Rick Warner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 10
The "X" in OS X is the Roman numeral 10. It has nothing to do with
anything else.
"X' the networking and windowing tool, is available for OS X from Apple
and elsewhere.
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 22:14, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
> >
> > Despite its name, OSX doesn't use X.
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:01:37AM -0400, Michael Kalus wrote:
> Panther will be coming with a built in X window system.
Interesting. I didn't know that. But I guess it makes sense.
Thanks,
-kb
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 10:09, Bailo, John wrote:
> With all the alternatives in Linux, are there alternatives to X itself?
>
> Shouldn't there be more than one graphics servers available to Linux?
None as far as I know. But in thinking about the question I have two
responses.
1) Writing a fu
bject: RE: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 08:01, Michael Kalus wrote:
> > No, OS X does not use X Windows.
>
> Yes and no. Panther will be coming with a built in X window system. And
you
> can already install XFREE86 and it works.
The po
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 08:01, Michael Kalus wrote:
> > No, OS X does not use X Windows.
>
> Yes and no. Panther will be coming with a built in X window system. And you
> can already install XFREE86 and it works.
The point was someone said that a fast interface and X were not at
odd citing the cur
PFMJI
> Yes, OS X (pronounced "OS ten", says Apple) has a BSD kernel
> and a lot of GPLed utilities, but Apple has added much
> proprietary stuff on top of it.
>
> No, OS X does not use X Windows.
Yes and no. Panther will be coming with a built in X window system. And you
can already install X
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:14:21PM -0400, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
> >
> > Despite its name, OSX doesn't use X.
>
> OSX *is* essentially FreeBSD. As such, it sure does use X as the
> windowing system
Yes, OS X (pronounced "OS ten", says Apple) has a BSD kernel and a lot
of
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:18:31PM +0300, Panos Platon Tsapralis wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 12:16, Peter Peltonen wrote:
>
> > Instead of 50 workstations under heavy load have 50 clients getting
> > their X sessions from a server having good hardware and lots of memory.
> > Makes system admini
Wednesday, June 25, 2003, 5:18:31 PM, Panos wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 12:16, Peter Peltonen wrote:
>> Instead of 50 workstations under heavy load have 50 clients getting
>> their X sessions from a server having good hardware and lots of memory.
>> Makes system administration a lot easier too
Wednesday, June 25, 2003, 5:55:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On 25-Jun-2003/13:04 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm still thinking will light WM (such as windowmaker, fvwm or even
>>twm) will help them (arround 200-300 of them are still p233/128MB RAM)
>>*if* they have to run evolution, open
Wednesday, June 25, 2003, 3:18:02 PM, Peter wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 09:04, Beast wrote:
>> > If the masses are happy with MacOS / MS Windows, why should they switch
>> > to Linux?
>>
>> because of license cost?
> I was talking about home users. But:
Well, sorry :-)
> The company must hav
Hello Peter,
Wednesday, June 25, 2003, 1:18:02 AM, you wrote:
PP> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 09:04, Beast wrote:
>> > If the masses are happy with MacOS / MS Windows, why should they switch
>> > to Linux?
>>
>> because of license cost?
PP> I was talking about home users. But:
PP> The company must h
thing, but there were some
useful tips if you backtrack on this thread.
Peace,
Mike Wafkowski
- Original Message -
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 2:04 AM
Subject: Linux (not) ready for desktop? [WAS Re: Why is RH9 sl
graphical performance. It just ain't so now but I also believe it will be.
The server space much much sooner.
Peace,
Mike Wafkowski
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan McDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:23 AM
Sub
Wednesday, June 25, 2003, 2:57:54 AM, Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 22:44, MWafkowski wrote:
>> Until then, for people thinking about switching the "masses" to desktop
>> Linux (which is what my rant/point is about)
> If the masses are happy with MacOS / MS Windows, why should they switch
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 12:38, MWafkowski wrote:
>
> But I've looked pretty stupid in the past when a customer/friend/relative
> was curious about Linux as a desktop OS and I would jump in with great
> fervor extolling the virtues of desktop Linux only to have them say - "This
> is slow as hell; why
Cliff Wells wrote:
Despite its name, OSX doesn't use X.
OSX *is* essentially FreeBSD. As such, it sure does use X as the
windowing system, according to every MAC OSX user I know. I'm quite
aware that the "X" in the OS name doesn't reafer to the windowing system
used, also.
-ste
--
redhat-li
--
From: "Emmanuel Seyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:44:58PM -0400, MWafkowski wrote:
> >
> > I can use them fine...you giv
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 11:13, MWafkowski wrote:
> Is that the one next to my "any" key?
>
> MRW
I reckon it's next to the "Hit this key to make RH run faster" key.
--
Wed Jun 25 11:35:00 EST 2003
11:35:00 up 11:21, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.20, 0.19
--
Is that the one next to my "any" key?
MRW
> ways to see an immediate improvement on RH9.
>
> Also, please locate the [snip] key on your keyboard.
>
> --
> Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
> Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
> (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555
>
>
> --
> redhat-list mailin
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:44:58PM -0400, MWafkowski wrote:
>
> I can use them fine...you give me the resources to get a network full of
> former Windows/Mac users to use them efficiently and I'll eat my words.
Given the fact that they surely weren't using Windows/Mac efficiently
in the first pla
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:38:10PM -0400, MWafkowski wrote:
> I'll try to distill my point. At this time there is no full blown GUI
> (functonality, eye candy, ease of use, etc.) that is not a pig on Linux.
In this form, the argument is wrong. There's Window Maker, which
offers all the functionali
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:05:04PM -0700, Rick Warner wrote:
>
> Yes, X is part of the problem, but that is inherent in the rather aged
> design of X. It is an event driven, *networked*, client-server
> windowing system. MS Win is none of the above. X could be
> streamlined, but then you give
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 10:44, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
> >
> > And I'll say it again, X + another lightweight WM is fast. This alone is proof
> > that X is fine. Because if X also sucks, then you can put anything on it, it
> > will still sucks.
>
> Yes. X is not part
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 09:19, Mike Wafkowski wrote:
> You're kind of missing the point. It seems like most Linux boosters do and I
> believe on purpose so as not to "undermine" Linux. No X no KDE, no Gnome.
>
> If someone wants a full function/look GUI like Win or MAC then telling them
> to use Bl
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 23:52, Apollo (Carmel Entertainment) wrote:
> I am migrating my workstations to RH9 from WindowsME and 98SE.
> So... I intalled RH9.0 and all the workstations are so much slower, all of the
> stuff is so much slower. Workstations are mostly Dells with about 900Mhz or
> higher,
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 03:44, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Yes. X is not particularly slow. It's what Window Manger/Desktop
> Environment that a vendor chooses to layer on top of it, that makes it
> appear slow.
>
> For example, Mac OS X uses X, but the Aqua Window Manger/Desktop
> Environment is
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 00:26, Panos Platon Tsapralis wrote:
> I can't agree more!
>
> KDE & GNOME may look nice to your eyes, but they use a lot of resources
> and they pretty much render any average / mid-sized system useless.
>
> I regularly use a number of heavy & demanding applications (SYBASE
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 22:44, MWafkowski wrote:
> Until then, for people thinking about switching the "masses" to desktop
> Linux (which is what my rant/point is about)
If the masses are happy with MacOS / MS Windows, why should they switch
to Linux?
People who _like_ Linux, use Linux. It is not
o address (what I see) as the major problem of for the wide
adoption of desktop Linux.
Regards,
MRW
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan McDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98
anyone dictated to by some corporate IT
department.
Thems don't add up to large numbers and won't soon.
MRW
- Original Message -
From: "Emmanuel Seyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slo
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 21:38, MWafkowski wrote:
> I'm quite willing to concede that the problem might be KDE or Gnome, but
> since they must reside on X it's hard for me to believe that no one has
> developed a "full blown" GUI for Linux that does not suck (performance
> wise - look and feel is obvi
Yes, X is part of the problem, but that is inherent in the rather aged
design of X. It is an event driven, *networked*, client-server
windowing system. MS Win is none of the above. X could be
streamlined, but then you give up one or more of the orignal design
goals. X is always polling input
eace,
Mike Wafkowski
- Original Message -
From: "Reuben D. Budiardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:19 pm, Mike Wafkowski wro
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:44:04PM -0400, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
[...]
> For example, Mac OS X uses X, but the Aqua Window Manger/Desktop
> Environment is very fast, so the whole thing is fast.
Er... to the best of my knowledge, Mac OS X is *not* using X. Apple
designed their own GUI setup, fro
Reuben D. Budiardja wrote:
And I'll say it again, X + another lightweight WM is fast. This alone is proof
that X is fine. Because if X also sucks, then you can put anything on it, it
will still sucks.
Yes. X is not particularly slow. It's what Window Manger/Desktop
Environment that a vendor choo
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 10:18, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> What is GMC and how did you disable Nautilus and enable it? I would *love*
> have have a more responsive desktop...
>
> Ben
GMC is Gnome Midnight Commander, the original file manager for Gnome.
Nautilus used to be dog slow, but recently a l
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 10:19, Mike Wafkowski wrote:
> You're kind of missing the point. It seems like most Linux boosters do and I
> believe on purpose so as not to "undermine" Linux. No X no KDE, no Gnome.
>
> If someone wants a full function/look GUI like Win or MAC then telling them
> to use Bl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:19:47PM -0400, Mike Wafkowski wrote:
> In short, X and KDE, Gnome, etc. sucks and for Linux to be a great desktop
> OS the entire video/gui layer of Linux will have to be redone from scratch.
>
> Because, as the foundation for a desktop GUI on an individual machine, X
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:19:47PM -0400, Mike Wafkowski wrote:
>
> If someone wants a full function/look GUI like Win or MAC then telling them
> to use Blackbox instead or (your lightweight gui of choice here) is not a
> helpful response to people who complain what a pig Linux running KDE or
> Gn
What is GMC and how did you disable Nautilus and enable it? I would *love*
have have a more responsive desktop...
Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony E. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re:
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:19 pm, Mike Wafkowski wrote:
> You're kind of missing the point. It seems like most Linux boosters do and
> I believe on purpose so as not to "undermine" Linux. No X no KDE, no
> Gnome.
> So I'll rephrase my complaint. X plus (the full blown wm of your choice
> here) su
ECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
> On 20-Jun-2003/03:51 -0400, MWafkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The Reason - X, X and X again.
> >
> >I hate X.
>
> I doubt that X is the problem. It i
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:26, Panos Platon Tsapralis wrote:
> I would like to give BlackBox a try...
>
> Where can I find RH-ready RPMS? Are there any?
Try
http://freshrpms.net/
Regards,
Peter
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/lis
I can't agree more!
KDE & GNOME may look nice to your eyes, but they use a lot of resources
and they pretty much render any average / mid-sized system useless.
I regularly use a number of heavy & demanding applications (SYBASE &
ORACLE databases, VMWARE, etc.) and I recently decided to switch fro
On 20-Jun-2003/08:51 -0700, "Todd A. Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...and GNOME 2 uses Nautilus, which is a real memory pig
>AND a slow-poke to boot. Try a different window manager without a desktop
>environment, and see if that solves the problem for you.
I disabled Nautilus and use GMC i
On 20-Jun-2003/03:51 -0400, MWafkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Reason - X, X and X again.
>
>I hate X.
I doubt that X is the problem. It is more likely that it is the window
manager and/or desktop environment that is slowing things down. You can
demonstrate this to yourself by using lightw
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> wait till enlightenment is at version 3.0. Then this is slow too. :-( (i
> guess)
Then use twm!
>
> cornelius
>
> Didier Casse wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Apollo (Carmel Entertainment) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I am migrating my
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 20:47, Daevid Vincent wrote:
> Of course TWM is going to run faster, but it looks like ass!
>
> You guys are skirting around the problem and trying to cover up the fact
> that KDE/Gnome or any other 'pretty' window manager is going to take
> resources be they memory, cpu, h
hacks for the most part and
reverse engineered. (nVidia actually makes a proprietary Linux driver
however).
http://daevid.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd A. Jacobs
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:52 AM
> To:
Try XFCE, is nice, functional, configurable, and very fast
- Original Message -
From: "Todd A. Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why is RH9 slower than Windows98SE. Any advice?
> On Fri, 20
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Apollo (Carmel Entertainment) wrote:
> So... I intalled RH9.0 and all the workstations are so much slower, all
RH9 is dog-slow out of the box. Most of the blame probably belongs to
KDE/GNOME, though. I dumped them in favor of TWM, and my system now runs
faster than it did run
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:54:59AM +0200, Cornelius Kölbel wrote:
>
> I remember running some time ago running fvwm on my 100MHz 80486, and it
> felf as fast as KDE3.1 on 800MHz Athlon.
I concur.
I installed Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 (a portage of RHL to ppc) on my old Imac
and configured X11. Since
What happen if you get 100 procs running together?
Why did you send this e-mail to this kind of mailing
list?
--- Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Fri,
Jun 20, 2003 at 05:25:05PM +1000, Stephen
> Kuhn wrote:
> >
> > RH is great on servers, but for desktops, well,
> too much work
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:25:05PM +1000, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
>
> RH is great on servers, but for desktops, well, too much work involved
> in tweaking/tuning - and RH8 and RH9 are doggedly slow.
>
> Flame away!
That only depends on who did the installation/configuration.
--
Hal Burgiss
--
Hello,
wait till enlightenment is at version 3.0. Then this is slow too. :-( (i
guess)
cornelius
Didier Casse wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Apollo (Carmel Entertainment) wrote:
I am migrating my workstations to RH9 from WindowsME and 98SE.
So... I intalled RH9.0 and all the workstations are
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Apollo (Carmel Entertainment) wrote:
> I am migrating my workstations to RH9 from WindowsME and 98SE.
> So... I intalled RH9.0 and all the workstations are so much slower, all of the
> stuff is so much slower. Workstations are mostly Dells with about 900Mhz or
> higher, all wi
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
