Re: [gentoo-user] boot gentoo in 5 seconds?
El lun, 20-04-2009 a las 10:19 -0400, Philip Webb escribió: > 090420 Liviu Andronic wrote: > > I stumbled on several posts [1] [2] concerning start-up speed of Linux. > > Compared with the 5-17 secs posted in the posts, my (slightly old) Gentoo > > needs around two minutes from power button to DE idle. > > It will all depend on your hardware & precise start-up procedure. > > I have a regular desktop box with Asus P5K-VM mobo + Intel Core 2 Duo : > Bios takes 10 s , Linux start-up (Lilo screen to login prompt) 25 s > & after 'startx' KDE 3.5.10 takes 25 s incl 10 apps ; > Fluxbox takes 6 s , but I have to start the apps by hand > (which is very quick if you assign them to Alt-Fn keys). > > Start-up time is not that important for a desktop machine, > which its user typically starts once/day while making coffee etc. > There are a few tweaks one can do to speed up things... I've managed a 26s boot with autologin into my gnome session... You can see it in a bootchart[1], without autologin it could be of ~16s... [1] http://sebasmagri.blinkenshell.org/images/bootchart.png signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage wants KDE4, I don't
El mar, 25-11-2008 a las 16:17 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:18:11PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >>> I decided to give portage 2.1.6_rc1 a try. Now it wants to upgrade my > >>> KDE3 to KDE4. I never unmasked or keyworded any KDE4 stuff. Any options > >>> other than removing portage 2.1.6_rc1 again? > >> On a similar note, what's the justification of having KDE4 in the same > >> tree > >> as KDE3? It's a different package altogether. It would have made more > >> sense to have them in "kde4-base/*" etc. > >> > > Hi! > > > > kde3 and kde4 are slotted, so I don't think it's necessary to have > > just-another-category for kde4... At last, kde4 is kde too... > > in any case kde4 is willing to be installed without removing kde3... > > > > From my point of view it's impossible that portage upgrades kde3 to > > kde4, if you really never unmasked or keyworded any kde stuff > > I didn't unmask nor keyword any *KDE4* stuff. Only KDE3. Previous > portage was happy with that. The new portage is not. I have dozens of > packages in package.keywords that look like this: > > kde-base/kdelibs > > Now portage wants to install the 4.1 versions of all those. The > previous portage did not; I had to tell it to keyword the 4.1 versions > if I wanted that. > > Check the slots you used unmasking kde3 stuff... there is maybe the explanation...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:03 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter > > > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > > > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates > > > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE > > > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of > > > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf > > > are also very useful. > > > > This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at > > work > > for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro > > - > > and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that > > with > > the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if > > not more. > > > > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine > > purely > > to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in > > PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy. > > All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them. > > > > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. > > > > -- > > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > built-from-source firefox. > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > every particolar package. > > Is that statement correct? > > === > TopperH > === I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. It is more about choices... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:31 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote: > [snip] > > > > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > > > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > > > built-from-source firefox. > > > > > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > > > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > > > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > > > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > > > every particolar package. > > > > > > Is that statement correct? > > > > > > === > > > TopperH > > > === > > > > I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but > > if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing > > per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis > > bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can > > research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can > > keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some > > -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. > > > > It is more about choices... > > Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular > cases, but that's not the point. > > A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which > optimizations will tune better their own package. > > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > optimiziations that gentoo allows? > > > === > TopperH > === It does, but I am almost sure that most of the binary distro's package maintainers can't ship a package with hard optimisations because it will possibly work fine on his box but not in the user's box. There is where we heard histories about binary distros users compiling their apps to improve it's performance, possibly breaking their system at the same time. Gentoo maintainers *should* also know better than the users which optimisations can be given to the user for a package to build and work fine... Other case is when it represents a risk of having unstable apps, in that case dropping optimisations is necessary in order to have more stable apps. signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 11:09 +0100, Jesús Guerrero escribió: > > > > El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 0:06, Paul Hartman escribió: > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > > >> Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's describe as a system > >> similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. The main > >> benefit claimed for this approach is that you get better performance > >> because all executables are optimized for exactly the right instruction > >> set. > >> > >> Where did that bit of apocrypha come from, and why is it > >> parroted by so many people? > > > > I've never done any benchmarks on my system of i386 vs core2 or > > anything like that... I think the fact that gentoo allows you to control > > compiler flags which can potentially give you speedups is more of it. But, > > like you, building from source is kind of a side-effect of Gentoo and not > > the reason why. Compiling for the sake of compiling is just a waste of > > time, and that's why a lot of people say "Just use Ubuntu" or whatever. > > Not really. Compiling the things gives you control over what > dependencies will that package have. In a binary distro mplayer > will usually push like 80 or 800 (I never counted them) packages > due to the number of features that it potentially has. > > If you don't install those, then the ldd info of the binary is > broken because it can't find the needed object files outside of > mplayer. > > Compiling the packages allow you to tune CFLAGS, ok. But even if > you think that -most times- this doesn't make a difference, it's > still worth the trouble compiling it, if only for the sake of > mplayer not having to depend on 200MB of additional software for it > to install correctly. > > In gentoo, this is as easy as to set your use flags up, and then > emerge. Easy as hell, and you don't have to go ./configure'ing > with a dozen parameters every single package in your system, > because portage takes cares of that. > > I absolutely don't care much about the CFLAGS stuff, I just set > up my -march and forget about it for years. And I think that > there's a lot of point in using GEntoo, even if you have zero > interest in compiling sofware there're still a lot of reasons > why I would use Gentoo over any other Linux. > > Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the best for you. The huge knowledge base is one of the things that make Gentoo as good as it is, and left the users without excuses when they break the system. With the power of the CPUs growing every day, the -long time compiling- idea is becoming irrelevant, this way, I see more benefits on continue using mi beloved Gentoo and feel users have less excuses to continue using other distros, but, they are free of choosing, I choose Gentoo because Gentoo lets me choose... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 22:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon escribió: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 19:48:27 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to > > > do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is > > > just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough > > > as you said. > > > > It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with > > the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked > > "next" a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e > > system and world and the packages I need. > > You should have been around in the days when stage1 was still supported. > > Now that was fun. For varying definitions of "fun" of course :-) > The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Open Office: PDF import
El mar, 17-02-2009 a las 10:22 +0100, Justin escribió: > Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > On Tue, February 17, 2009 7:26 am, Philip Webb wrote: > >> Has anyone succeeded in importing a PDF to Open Office Impress or Draw ? > >> I've added the add-on from from under /usr/... (as it says), > >> but when I try to 'insert file' using a 1-page PDF , > >> it says 'File could not be opened' (after some CPU activity); > >> OO Writer opens it as 98 pages of garbage. > >> I tried rebooting & re-opening OO, but not change. > >> There's nothing in OO Help re the add-on or importing PDFs. > >> I'm using OO 3.0.1 . > > > > Where did you read about this plug-in? > > I was not aware this was possible, but am interested in how this is > > supposed to work. > > > > -- > > Joost > > > > > It in the post inst message of emerge. It points you to the plugins in > /usr/lib/openoffice/share/extension/install/. > I've been using it for a while without problems. I installed it on my user space using the extension manager... Sometimes it does not open the objects in a correct way, maybe have relation with the version of the pdf. For example, the pdfs generated in m$ project takes very much time to open with high CPU activity, it happens too when I open it on evince so I think it's a problem of m$, as usual... Regards... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] perfect IDE
El mar, 17-02-2009 a las 20:51 -0500, David Relson escribió: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:05:08 + > Andrei Hanganu wrote: > > > helo group, > > > > i've been trying the past 2-3 years to find the most usable and nice > > ide for c/c++ code writing. I've been through vim/vim + plugins/emacs > > + different modes/anjuta/kdevelop/codeblocks/eclipse/netbeans ... > > every single one of them has at least one drawback. > > > > In short words, i am looking for an ide that can do this: > > - syntax highlighting > > - autocomplete (on the fly, not on demand, and maybe smart? - identify > > structures/classes ) > > - concurrent editing of multiple files (splitting) > > - tabs or buffer list > > - file browser > > - project manager > > - symbol list/browser current editing buffer > > - regex search/replace > > - flexible build options that include scons, not just makefile > > - code folding (with detection of blocks) > > - lightweight/ergonomic interface (i dislike space being occupied by > > the bar that displays the line numbers, with a padding of 10px for > > example) > > > > i don't desire gdb or valgrind integration, but would be a + > > > > does anyone know the answer to this ultimate question? I keep > > comparing different editors with the microsoft's visual studio, that > > is not by far as powerful as emacs but it just plain and simple does > > the job. They will reach a milestone when the brackets matching will > > actually work, but despite small inconveniences, i find it to be very > > close to what i am looking for. > > kdevelop also seemed very close to what i wanted, but somehow the > > fonts or the dpi make it very "crowded", i get very little space for > > the code. On the other hand netbeans is a good example of how the > > interface should be arranged, but java driven ide tends to stop being > > able to respond in tolerable time. > > > > i am on the edge of despair, and i am willing to try even a commercial > > solution. > > Anyone had some very positive experience with a specific ide? > > > > thanks, > > Andrei > > I've heard some good things about komodo, though it's not open > source and I've not used it. > > David > There is also Openkomodo, its name says what it is.. :) signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
