This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
your computer needed, and omitted those you didn't
If you used our config, and just tweaked where necessary, I'd be very
interested to see comparative
Hello all,
Daniel J Blueman [2009-02-12 0:57 +]:
By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
in overall boot time (from installing bootchart) on my desktop: 41s
down to 33s.
I tried it on my
Martin Pitt [2009-02-12 10:09 +0100]:
Thus the parallelize RA makes things slightly worse to me. I
I forgot, I put my bootcharts at
http://people.ubuntu.com/~pitti/tmp/bootchart-parallel-readahead/
--
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Daniel J Blueman [2009-02-12 0:57 +]:
By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
in overall boot time (from
Olá Scott e a todos.
On Thursday 12 February 2009 00:17:51 Scott James Remnant wrote:
This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
your computer needed, and omitted those you didn't
Hope I dont
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 00:44 -0500, John Moser wrote:
On 2/11/09, Daniel J Blueman daniel.blue...@gmail.com wrote:
By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
in overall boot time (from
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:15 +, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 00:17:51 Scott James Remnant wrote:
This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
your computer
Hi Thomas,
I'm one of those users who would prefer that the C-A-B command be left
as it is, or be modified to allow the ability through some other interface:
such as twice successive.
I have filed several bug reports about issues related to problems with
X,
Hi,
I would post this to a launchpad devel list, but I didn't see one.
I think many people, especially upstream, would be benefited if
Launchpad would provide download links to patches in addition to the
orig tarball, .dsc and .diff. It is much harder digging through those
files
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:49 -0800, Joseph Smidt wrote:
I think many people, especially upstream, would be benefited if
Launchpad would provide download links to patches in addition to the
orig tarball, .dsc and .diff. It is much harder digging through those
files to search for patches then
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Scott James Remnant
sc...@canonical.com wrote:
In the meantime, you can obtain these from:
http://patches.ubuntu.com/
In particular:
http://patches.ubuntu.com/by-release/extracted/ubuntu/
Scott,
Thank you, I know in the meantime people can
From what I understand, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't the only way to kill X.
Alt-Sysrq-k also works, and is still enabled, as it is significantly less
likely to be hit by accident.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about? People who know what they're
doing can still kill X if necessary, and
Evan,
Now, I didn't know that the Alt-Sysrq-k shortcut existed previously. If
the C-A-B shortcut is being disabled because Alt-Sysrq-k does the exact same
thing with simply a different key combination, then I have no objection at
all to disabling C-A-B. Its true that its easy to hit if your
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
quite nicely by Alt-Sysrq-k.
I haven't tried it out yet, but I agree that this new A-S-K
combination would be a good replacement. Now we only need
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:17:30 -0500 Evan eapa...@gmail.com wrote:
From what I understand, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't the only way to kill X.
Alt-Sysrq-k also works, and is still enabled, as it is significantly less
likely to be hit by accident.
... for some definition of works and not on all
This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
*concrete* situations where they need it. I don't doubt that these
issues exist, but my guess is that in most of those cases, C-A-B is the
wrong way to go about
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:16:48PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 06:54 -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:18:09AM +, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Boot-charting jaunty-A3 [1] on my SSD system, we see both the
'hwclockfirst.sh' and 'hwclock.sh'
Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
disabled. Not before.
Every program that makes the system so slow that it becomes unusable
is a
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 22:41 +0100, Remco wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
quite nicely by Alt-Sysrq-k.
I haven't tried it out yet, but I agree that this new A-S-K
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 22:41 +0100, Remco wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
quite nicely by
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:16:48PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 06:54 -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:18:09AM +, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Boot-charting jaunty-A3 [1] on
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
*concrete* situations where they need it. I don't doubt that these
issues exist, but
Remco wrote:
Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
disabled. Not before.
I know that this is possible, but the question is how
This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
*concrete* situations where they need it.
Compiz always crashes on me, and I need CAB to get back to something.
Yes, it is a workaround because of another bug,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is possible, but the question is how common this
situation is.
Apparently it's pretty common, as some people use C-A-B every week. I
don't use it quite that much, but I don't want it to go away. You
don't
snipNo. What surprises me is when people are fine with those bugs
as
long
as there is a quick way to kill the X server that is enabled by default.
/snip
People do file bugs. Perhaps not everyone, and perhaps not every
time.
Well, then it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:16:02 -0500
Mike Jones eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
snipNo. What surprises me is when people are fine with those
bugs
as
long
as there is a quick way to kill the X server that is enabled by
default. /snip
People do file bugs. Perhaps not everyone,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Charlie Kravetz
c...@teamcharliesangels.com wrote:
Okay, I have been reading this thread from the beginning. It seems like
those making the most noise are the same individuals with the knowledge
and ability to easily add the ability to use C-A-B back. Why should
On 13/02/09 10:41, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
Okay, I have been reading this thread from the beginning. It seems like
those making the most noise are the same individuals with the knowledge
and ability to easily add the ability to use C-A-B back. Why should the
thousands who do not need the
And please don't talk about people making noise. That gets us nowhere.
Remco
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Remco remc...@gmail.com wrote:
And please don't talk about people making noise. That gets us nowhere.
Remco
That was not supposed to be the only contents of my mail.
The people who are against the removal of C-A-B or equivalents think
that Ubuntu would be
31 matches
Mail list logo
