On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 13:47, J�r�me Warnier wrote: > Le jeu 21/08/2003 � 15:07, James Strandboge a �crit : > > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 15:03, Michael Bennett Cohn wrote: > > > With more help from friends at #debian, I actually managed to get rid of > > > the offending XFree86 files. I then finished the backport install > > > according to James' instructions. > > > > > > In general, it seems to be working. But I have a few concerns: > > > > > > 1) I think that James and whoever is promoting his backport should have > > > the explanation > > > > > and instructions he gave me earlier in this thread clearly displayed on > > > the relevant web pages. > > > > > The average woody user does not subscribe to this list. > > > > > The main way I advertised the backport was through this list and > > debianplanet.org. Both of those have these instructions. As for > > others, I would like them to have proper instructions, but there isn't > > much I can do. > > That leads us to what I told you, that we should "open the debate". > I'm sorry, I didn't have the time yet to create you an account and to > introduce you to the way it works. > Be patient, please. > > [...]
ok. But what are we doing here? This seems pretty open. > > > > 3) Gnome2.2 runs much slower than the old Gnome, on the same box. I'm > > > hoping that this > > > > > ponderousness is a feature of Gnome itself and not related to the > > > backport. > > > > > This is true in general for gnome2.2, especially with the RENDER > > extension turned on (anti-aliased text). > I do not agree. All the GNOME 2.2 installations I have seen so far are > really faster and more responsive than their previous GNOME 1.x version > on the same hardware. > I've been told, however, that RedHat's version was really lightning > fast. How could this be? > How could you deactivate the RENDER extension? Is it possible at all? > Turn off anti-aliased fonts. It all depends on the hardware-- I have some where gnome2.2 is faster and some not. Maybe redhat has the preemptible and low latency patches in their kernel? > > I backported sawfish-- it works fine with gnome2.2. As for gnome1.4 > > packages, they should be fine since the libraries they depend on can be > > installed in parallel. In practice, two rather large gnome1.4 apps-- > > gnucash 1.8 and evolution 1.2 worked fine under the backport. > And Galeon still does. > No plans to backport it also "officially"? > I still have the problem with Acrobat Reader and Flash Player as plugins, > though. > I backported myself Mozilla 1.4 and Galeon 1.3.7 (still the same > problems). I won't backport "officially" if people have problems. I don't see the problems with acrobat and flash though with epiphany 0.8.2 and galeon 1.3.7.20030803. I may upload them (and mozilla-1.4) soon to my "unofficial" mozilla-1.3 directory (even though they were compiled with mozilla-1.4). Jamie -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP ID: 26384A3A Fingerprint: D9FF DF4A 2D46 A353 A289 E8F5 AA75 DCBE 2638 4A3A
