Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Vivek]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:

> Speaking of XF86 4.2, I would really like to be running it for the
> driver support for my card. So I was thinking of making a .deb from the
> source, just to prevent dependency problems. Obviously this .deb
> wouldn't follow any of the Debian conventions. Any ideas on this?

Packaging X is more grief than you want. I used to hybridise Debian Xfree86
4.1 with some stuff from Xfree86 cvs to produce a package for may laptop
for a while (until the patches I needed got merged in) and it was...
a little involved. You're better off waiting for the experimental packages
to turn up on Branden's site - check out the X Strike Force page at

   http://people.debian.org/~branden/

for updates.

[ also, it takes about 3 billion years to compile, so if you've made a
  mistake, you're in for another soul-destroying debug cycle...]

-- 
Everyone would _like_ a first. By the time you get to the third year,
you become more fatalistic, until you get to the point when a kippered
herring with a Warwick crest on it would be as welcome as a degree.
- Stephen Williams


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 09:30:10AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Chris Howells wrote:
> > On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> >> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> >> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing
> >> client applications one at a time and seeing if any release the
> >> resources.
> > 
> > I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he
> > said that he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed 4.2.
> 

Chris, thanks for looking into it. 

> Well, it's either a bug in the 4.1 series that is triggered by something
> KDE related, or it's been patched in Debian unstable already. I run 4.1
> and don't see the problem, for what it's worth, but don't use KDE (or
> GNOME).
> 
> Daniel

I use unstable, so its not been patched. But it seems reasonable that such a 
bug could be triggered only with KDE.

Speaking of XF86 4.2, I would really like to be running it for the driver 
support for my card. So I was thinking of making a .deb from the source, just 
to prevent dependency problems. Obviously this .deb wouldn't follow any of the 
Debian conventions. Any ideas on this?

James



pgpcbzcI2VUa2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Vivek]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:

> Speaking of XF86 4.2, I would really like to be running it for the
> driver support for my card. So I was thinking of making a .deb from the
> source, just to prevent dependency problems. Obviously this .deb
> wouldn't follow any of the Debian conventions. Any ideas on this?

Packaging X is more grief than you want. I used to hybridise Debian Xfree86
4.1 with some stuff from Xfree86 cvs to produce a package for may laptop
for a while (until the patches I needed got merged in) and it was...
a little involved. You're better off waiting for the experimental packages
to turn up on Branden's site - check out the X Strike Force page at

   http://people.debian.org/~branden/

for updates.

[ also, it takes about 3 billion years to compile, so if you've made a
  mistake, you're in for another soul-destroying debug cycle...]

-- 
Everyone would _like_ a first. By the time you get to the third year,
you become more fatalistic, until you get to the point when a kippered
herring with a Warwick crest on it would be as welcome as a degree.
- Stephen Williams


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 09:30:10AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Chris Howells wrote:
> > On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> >> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> >> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing
> >> client applications one at a time and seeing if any release the
> >> resources.
> > 
> > I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he
> > said that he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed 4.2.
> 

Chris, thanks for looking into it. 

> Well, it's either a bug in the 4.1 series that is triggered by something
> KDE related, or it's been patched in Debian unstable already. I run 4.1
> and don't see the problem, for what it's worth, but don't use KDE (or
> GNOME).
> 
> Daniel

I use unstable, so its not been patched. But it seems reasonable that such a 
bug could be triggered only with KDE.

Speaking of XF86 4.2, I would really like to be running it for the driver 
support for my card. So I was thinking of making a .deb from the source, just 
to prevent dependency problems. Obviously this .deb wouldn't follow any of the 
Debian conventions. Any ideas on this?

James




msg07581/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Chris Howells wrote:
> On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
>> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
>> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing
>> client applications one at a time and seeing if any release the
>> resources.
> 
> I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he
> said that he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed 4.2.

Well, it's either a bug in the 4.1 series that is triggered by something
KDE related, or it's been patched in Debian unstable already. I run 4.1
and don't see the problem, for what it's worth, but don't use KDE (or
GNOME).

Daniel

-- 
In the present-day reconstruction of physics, fragments of the Newtonian
concepts are stubbornly retained. The result is to reduce modern physics to a
sort of mystic chant over an unintelligible universe.
-- Alfred North Whitehead, _Modes of Thought_


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:40, Heather Stern wrote:
> > I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which
> > forces me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on
> > logout which solves the problems.
> >
> > I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program
> > enough to make it worth mentioning.
> >
> > Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.
>
> Oh, but does reopening them  cost more memory, or hardly any, and if hardly
> any, does it give that tiny amount back when done?

Hardly any.  It's a memory leak that occurs slowly when I'm not watching it.

> In other words I'm trying to tell if it's really a "leak" or merely setting
> memory up for its continued abuse, assuming roughly that it will be
> reopened later and then it can be more efficient.

It's a leak.  There's no cause for the X server to use 300M of memory.

> Also check ps wax and see if kioslave or other "K under the hood" parts are
> loaded.  If you use K apps from fvwm those can be safely clobbered.  If you
> use the panel thingy, then the panel thingy is also going to use the core
> libraries, which are much of the "weight" of a K application... and if it's
> the libraries themselves getting bloaty, then yes, you'll have to bail X
> and come back in to see that clean up.  But you should not need to reboot.

I just use KDE, and at the time everything was closed with no spare IO 
slaves.

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Heather Stern]

> I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which forces 
> me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on logout which 
> solves the problems.
> 
> I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program enough 
> to make it worth mentioning.
> 
> Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.

Oh, but does reopening them  cost more memory, or hardly any, and if hardly
any, does it give that tiny amount back when done?

In other words I'm trying to tell if it's really a "leak" or merely setting
memory up for its continued abuse, assuming roughly that it will be reopened
later and then it can be more efficient.

If that latter the bug report has to be filed much differently, e.g.  "Where
do I tell it to not waste more than N MB of memory being 'helpful' to its
future selves?  Can I request that be made easy to get to?"

Also check ps wax and see if kioslave or other "K under the hood" parts are
loaded.  If you use K apps from fvwm those can be safely clobbered.  If you
use the panel thingy, then the panel thingy is also going to use the core
libraries, which are much of the "weight" of a K application... and if it's
the libraries themselves getting bloaty, then yes, you'll have to bail X and
come back in to see that clean up.  But you should not need to reboot.


* Heather Stern * star@ many places...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Chris Howells wrote:
> On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
>> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
>> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing
>> client applications one at a time and seeing if any release the
>> resources.
> 
> I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he
> said that he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed 4.2.

Well, it's either a bug in the 4.1 series that is triggered by something
KDE related, or it's been patched in Debian unstable already. I run 4.1
and don't see the problem, for what it's worth, but don't use KDE (or
GNOME).

Daniel

-- 
In the present-day reconstruction of physics, fragments of the Newtonian
concepts are stubbornly retained. The result is to reduce modern physics to a
sort of mystic chant over an unintelligible universe.
-- Alfred North Whitehead, _Modes of Thought_


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:40, Heather Stern wrote:
> > I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which
> > forces me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on
> > logout which solves the problems.
> >
> > I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program
> > enough to make it worth mentioning.
> >
> > Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.
>
> Oh, but does reopening them  cost more memory, or hardly any, and if hardly
> any, does it give that tiny amount back when done?

Hardly any.  It's a memory leak that occurs slowly when I'm not watching it.

> In other words I'm trying to tell if it's really a "leak" or merely setting
> memory up for its continued abuse, assuming roughly that it will be
> reopened later and then it can be more efficient.

It's a leak.  There's no cause for the X server to use 300M of memory.

> Also check ps wax and see if kioslave or other "K under the hood" parts are
> loaded.  If you use K apps from fvwm those can be safely clobbered.  If you
> use the panel thingy, then the panel thingy is also going to use the core
> libraries, which are much of the "weight" of a K application... and if it's
> the libraries themselves getting bloaty, then yes, you'll have to bail X
> and come back in to see that clean up.  But you should not need to reboot.

I just use KDE, and at the time everything was closed with no spare IO 
slaves.

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Heather Stern]

> I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which forces 
> me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on logout which 
> solves the problems.
> 
> I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program enough 
> to make it worth mentioning.
> 
> Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.

Oh, but does reopening them  cost more memory, or hardly any, and if hardly
any, does it give that tiny amount back when done?

In other words I'm trying to tell if it's really a "leak" or merely setting
memory up for its continued abuse, assuming roughly that it will be reopened
later and then it can be more efficient.

If that latter the bug report has to be filed much differently, e.g.  "Where
do I tell it to not waste more than N MB of memory being 'helpful' to its
future selves?  Can I request that be made easy to get to?"

Also check ps wax and see if kioslave or other "K under the hood" parts are
loaded.  If you use K apps from fvwm those can be safely clobbered.  If you
use the panel thingy, then the panel thingy is also going to use the core
libraries, which are much of the "weight" of a K application... and if it's
the libraries themselves getting bloaty, then yes, you'll have to bail X and
come back in to see that clean up.  But you should not need to reboot.


* Heather Stern * star@ many places...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
> applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he said that 
he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed  4.2.

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8twmbF8Iu1zN5WiwRApPYAJ0VIGvHJL3kSM4epcXng2xK+TL/fgCfZBYj
kXyWDuGlkJFPIGd0pM74ESY=
=2/zW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
> applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

Yes, I had similair problems a while ago. It just seemed to fix itself. Since 
I run the CVS HEAD (and updater quit regularly) version of KDE it's a bit 
difficult to know what was broken/fixed ;)

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8twTDF8Iu1zN5WiwRAiyIAJ46eKDYAsRXEdVyBwwv/rDZMllyIgCgijVC
fl6l9sb5s5JBGrPfsglz7x0=
=Oct+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
> applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

I've just asked David Faure about it (maintainer of kdesktop) and he said that 
he thought it was a bug in XF86 4.1, fixed  4.2.

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8twmbF8Iu1zN5WiwRApPYAJ0VIGvHJL3kSM4epcXng2xK+TL/fgCfZBYj
kXyWDuGlkJFPIGd0pM74ESY=
=2/zW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 12 April 2002 4:53 am, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
> applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

Yes, I had similair problems a while ago. It just seemed to fix itself. Since 
I run the CVS HEAD (and updater quit regularly) version of KDE it's a bit 
difficult to know what was broken/fixed ;)

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8twTDF8Iu1zN5WiwRAiyIAJ46eKDYAsRXEdVyBwwv/rDZMllyIgCgijVC
fl6l9sb5s5JBGrPfsglz7x0=
=Oct+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:29, James Hirschorn wrote:
> > > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
> > >
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/140111
> >
> > I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've
> > had KDE up for an hour and top shows:
> >
> > 254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86
> >
> > Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.
>
> Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not
> running Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than 20
> apps, top shows:
>
>  1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86
>
> with 1652132K used for swap.

I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which forces 
me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on logout which 
solves the problems.

I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program enough 
to make it worth mentioning.

Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:29, James Hirschorn wrote:
> > > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
> > >
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/140111
> >
> > I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've
> > had KDE up for an hour and top shows:
> >
> > 254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86
> >
> > Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.
>
> Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not
> running Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than 20
> apps, top shows:
>
>  1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86
>
> with 1652132K used for swap.

I am seeing similar problems but it takes 4 days to get to 300M which forces 
me to logout.  I have configured kdm to restart the X server on logout which 
solves the problems.

I run Kmail, Konqueror, and Konsole, I don't run any other X program enough 
to make it worth mentioning.

Closing all the programs does nothing for X memory use.

-- 
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Hubert Chan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> "Daniel" == Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Daniel> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
Daniel> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest
Daniel> closing client applications one at a time and seeing if any
Daniel> release the resources.

Sometimes even killing an doesn't release all the memory that it's
supposed to.  :-(  AbiWord is one such app, I found -- even after it's
closed, the X server still uses more memory than it's supposed to.
(XFree86 4.1 from Woody).

You may also want to keep some system resource monitor open, and watch
the swap space to see if the memory use jumps up when you start up some
app.  I have gkrellm running all the time, but even a plain old top
might do the trick.  (Although on a laptop, screen real estate may be a
problem with top.)

- -- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.geocities.com/hubertchan/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/71FDA37F
Fingerprint: 6CC5 822D 2E55 494C 81DD  6F2C 6518 54DF 71FD A37F
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tnE/ZRhU33H9o38RArmcAJ49JclCXcI+rEwE+wj1tNCp4lY31wCdEzxm
D01yLS1lNuDiHloUAbUh2Oc=
=xR6P
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Chris Howells wrote:
>> On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/140111

[...]

> Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not
> running Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than
> 20 apps, top shows:
> 
>  1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86
> 
> with 1652132K used for swap.

That's *very* wrong. Really. :)

Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

If not, try eliminating likely or unlikely candidates. Something must be
doing it. Background changes, Xplanet, animated demos and other
highly graphical clients are the most likely suspects.

Daniel

-- 
Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.
-- Bill Seitz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:04:15AM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> James Hirschorn wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> >>Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> >>how they DO :-) )
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a 
> >KDE session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 
> >2GB swap easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session 
> >most of the swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?
> 
> LOL.  I knew somebody would be able to contradict me.  The guy I share 
> an office with would probably manage to do the same.  8 desktops?  I 
> only configure two, and practically never use the second.  I just don't 
> keep apps open.  Too much experience with Windows where that would be an 
> open invitation to serious failure, I guess.  But I also dislike the 
> clutter of having all those apps open.  How do you ever figure out what 
> you've got open?

Its not very hard: one desktop for e-mail, one for web browsers, one for 
Konqueror file browser, one for IDE (Kdevelop), etc ... (I always use the same 
desktop number for a given task.)

Cheers,
James




pgp9FG0cGBGNj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Chris Howells wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/140111
> 
> I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've had 
> KDE up for an hour and top shows:
> 
> 254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86
> 
> Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.
> 

Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not running 
Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than 20 apps, top 
shows:

 1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86

with 1652132K used for swap. 

If someone else (using KDE) is seeing this kind of swap usage please let me 
know.

Thanks,
James


pgpUuSwCRScER.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Hubert Chan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> "Daniel" == Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Daniel> Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
Daniel> probably an image or something like that. I would suggest
Daniel> closing client applications one at a time and seeing if any
Daniel> release the resources.

Sometimes even killing an doesn't release all the memory that it's
supposed to.  :-(  AbiWord is one such app, I found -- even after it's
closed, the X server still uses more memory than it's supposed to.
(XFree86 4.1 from Woody).

You may also want to keep some system resource monitor open, and watch
the swap space to see if the memory use jumps up when you start up some
app.  I have gkrellm running all the time, but even a plain old top
might do the trick.  (Although on a laptop, screen real estate may be a
problem with top.)

- -- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.geocities.com/hubertchan/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/71FDA37F
Fingerprint: 6CC5 822D 2E55 494C 81DD  6F2C 6518 54DF 71FD A37F
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tnE/ZRhU33H9o38RArmcAJ49JclCXcI+rEwE+wj1tNCp4lY31wCdEzxm
D01yLS1lNuDiHloUAbUh2Oc=
=xR6P
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Chris Howells wrote:
>> On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/140111

[...]

> Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not
> running Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than
> 20 apps, top shows:
> 
>  1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86
> 
> with 1652132K used for swap.

That's *very* wrong. Really. :)

Something is leaking some sort of resource in the X server; it's
probably an image or something like that. I would suggest closing client
applications one at a time and seeing if any release the resources.

If not, try eliminating likely or unlikely candidates. Something must be
doing it. Background changes, Xplanet, animated demos and other
highly graphical clients are the most likely suspects.

Daniel

-- 
Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.
-- Bill Seitz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Andrew McMillan]

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 09:41, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Mark Barnes wrote:
> > I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
> > used. 
> 
> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> how they DO :-) )

OK, sure... :-)

In early 2.4 kernels the swap was used more like Windows does, so you
needed more swap than for 2.2, or more recent 2.4 kernels.

Aside from that, it is now reasonable to mount /tmp as a tmpfs:

tmpfs   /tmp tmpfs   size=1G,nr_inodes=1k,mode=1777  0   1

which will use virtual memory for your temp filesystem as well as for
normal use, so you can get much greater use of virtual memory without
having swap storms.

I have nearly 1G swap on my laptop (512M RAM) and frequently find I am
using quite significant amounts of swap in just normal use - here are
the current figures after a few days of activity (144 processes
currently running:

MemTotal:   513412 kB
MemFree:  4448 kB
MemShared:   0 kB
Buffers: 17644 kB
Cached: 291300 kB
SwapCached:  71512 kB
Active: 276448 kB
Inactive:   196992 kB
HighTotal:   0 kB
HighFree:0 kB
LowTotal:   513412 kB
LowFree:  4448 kB
SwapTotal:  975200 kB
SwapFree:   694744 kB

I have this much swap because that was the size of the partition I had
available for it, but I don't think I would want to shrink it much now.
The memory use of XFree86, Evolution, Mozilla, wine, vmware, win4lin,
Gnome, KDE, PostgreSQL and others can be pretty brutal at times.

As you say, throwing an Oracle install into that mix can blow things
apart.

Cheers,
Andrew.
-- 

Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201MOB: +64(21)635-694OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267
   Are you enrolled at http://schoolreunions.co.nz/ yet?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:04:15AM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> James Hirschorn wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> >>Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> >>how they DO :-) )
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a 
> >KDE session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 
> >2GB swap easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session 
> >most of the swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?
> 
> LOL.  I knew somebody would be able to contradict me.  The guy I share 
> an office with would probably manage to do the same.  8 desktops?  I 
> only configure two, and practically never use the second.  I just don't 
> keep apps open.  Too much experience with Windows where that would be an 
> open invitation to serious failure, I guess.  But I also dislike the 
> clutter of having all those apps open.  How do you ever figure out what 
> you've got open?

Its not very hard: one desktop for e-mail, one for web browsers, one for 
Konqueror file browser, one for IDE (Kdevelop), etc ... (I always use the same 
desktop number for a given task.)

Cheers,
James





msg07558/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Chris Howells wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/140111
> 
> I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've had 
> KDE up for an hour and top shows:
> 
> 254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86
> 
> Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.
> 

Now I'm a bit concerned that something's wrong with my system. I'm not running 
Xplanet for one thing. And after 2 days up time with less than 20 apps, top 
shows:

 1099 root   5 -10 1724M  72M 14668 S <   0.2 28.9  10:00 XFree86

with 1652132K used for swap. 

If someone else (using KDE) is seeing this kind of swap usage please let me 
know.

Thanks,
James



msg07557/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Andrew McMillan]

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 09:41, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Mark Barnes wrote:
> > I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
> > used. 
> 
> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> how they DO :-) )

OK, sure... :-)

In early 2.4 kernels the swap was used more like Windows does, so you
needed more swap than for 2.2, or more recent 2.4 kernels.

Aside from that, it is now reasonable to mount /tmp as a tmpfs:

tmpfs   /tmp tmpfs   size=1G,nr_inodes=1k,mode=1777  0   1

which will use virtual memory for your temp filesystem as well as for
normal use, so you can get much greater use of virtual memory without
having swap storms.

I have nearly 1G swap on my laptop (512M RAM) and frequently find I am
using quite significant amounts of swap in just normal use - here are
the current figures after a few days of activity (144 processes
currently running:

MemTotal:   513412 kB
MemFree:  4448 kB
MemShared:   0 kB
Buffers: 17644 kB
Cached: 291300 kB
SwapCached:  71512 kB
Active: 276448 kB
Inactive:   196992 kB
HighTotal:   0 kB
HighFree:0 kB
LowTotal:   513412 kB
LowFree:  4448 kB
SwapTotal:  975200 kB
SwapFree:   694744 kB

I have this much swap because that was the size of the partition I had
available for it, but I don't think I would want to shrink it much now.
The memory use of XFree86, Evolution, Mozilla, wine, vmware, win4lin,
Gnome, KDE, PostgreSQL and others can be pretty brutal at times.

As you say, throwing an Oracle install into that mix can blow things
apart.

Cheers,
Andrew.
-- 

Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201MOB: +64(21)635-694OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267
   Are you enrolled at http://schoolreunions.co.nz/ yet?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Chris Howells wrote:


On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:06 am, Hubert Chan wrote:



Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that


I find this slighly unklikely due to the fact that Wine can load Word 97 in a 
few seconds (ignoring all the grief that fonts cause to Wine in the current 
version).


As unlikely as it may seem, it's true.  The program is osa.exe, and an 
Office install puts it into your "Startup" folder, so the preload occurs 
at user login unless you remove it.

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Chris Howells wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:06 am, Hubert Chan wrote:
> 
> 
>>Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that
> 
> I find this slighly unklikely due to the fact that Wine can load Word 97 in a 
> few seconds (ignoring all the grief that fonts cause to Wine in the current 
> version).

As unlikely as it may seem, it's true.  The program is osa.exe, and an 
Office install puts it into your "Startup" folder, so the preload occurs 
at user login unless you remove it.
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:06 am, Hubert Chan wrote:

> Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that

I find this slighly unklikely due to the fact that Wine can load Word 97 in a 
few seconds (ignoring all the grief that fonts cause to Wine in the current 
version).

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tV45F8Iu1zN5WiwRAp8kAJ9Yucwhx0qxSIj725Bg8F212k4MKgCfUvIj
Okt+e11jZUd0Rj9HWtKnY9I=
=pLX8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
> You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/140111

I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've had 
KDE up for an hour and top shows:

254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86

Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tV3lF8Iu1zN5WiwRAsMpAKCQuR0OMQrRxRvz4uObDy3mRTIpvQCgjv0J
kefbsPLB38wOnkNYEBvYWjU=
=kq8h
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:06 am, Hubert Chan wrote:

> Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that

I find this slighly unklikely due to the fact that Wine can load Word 97 in a 
few seconds (ignoring all the grief that fonts cause to Wine in the current 
version).

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tV45F8Iu1zN5WiwRAp8kAJ9Yucwhx0qxSIj725Bg8F212k4MKgCfUvIj
Okt+e11jZUd0Rj9HWtKnY9I=
=pLX8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 11 April 2002 7:42 am, Brian Nelson wrote:
> You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/140111

I run Xplanet and don't think I can reproduce that bug on KDE 3.0. I've had 
KDE up for an hour and top shows:

254 root  10 -10 53996  20M  1876 S <   1.6 10.8   6:40 XFree86

Which isn't really excessive. Xplanet is set to update every 5 minutes.

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tV3lF8Iu1zN5WiwRAsMpAKCQuR0OMQrRxRvz4uObDy3mRTIpvQCgjv0J
kefbsPLB38wOnkNYEBvYWjU=
=kq8h
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Torbjorn Pettersson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the picture 
> you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924 - which I 
> think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" part is zero - 
> why's that? Can I do something to make linux use it? Computer is freshly 
> restarted, so may be it is only that there is nothing yet in memory to dump 
> it to swap? 
> 
>  Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1
> 
> Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is
> not really slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it
> looks like when fully booted, it uses less memory than windows
> 2000... However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started,
> then it just turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow
> two-three times slower than MSWord starts in
> Windows... Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds... may be
> it is because those desktop environments and programs are slow
> themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian.. I
> am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall
> performance when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows and
> my subjective perception was that Linux is appreciably
> slower...  

 Start some kind of performance meassuring tool in a separate
window before starting your applications. Easiest would be to
use top. Then when you start your word processor check what
changes with the machine. If the word processor sucks 100% of
the cpu then there are probably nothing you can do about it, but
if your cpu is idle but for running top, and you have a high
value of iowait instead there might be something wrong. Hard to
say what without investigating further, but it might just be
that you have a very slow harddrive, or you might have
misconfigured something with a) the filesystem(not very likely)
or b) the network setup (more likely).


//Tobbe
-- 
##
Torbjörn Pettersson   #  Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vattugatan 5  #  Web www.strul.nu/~tobbe
S-111 52  Stockholm, Sweden   #
##


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Pappu wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:20:49 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
> > would  manage to  eat 2GB  of space,  even if  they  leaked awfully
>
> This need not be the case. Linux kernel uses all free memory for
> caching. 

[...]

*nod* That's true, and as you correctly point out, this isn't a problem.

However, Linux will not swap cached data, read-only program text or
file-backed data that is up to date. So, for the OP to fill his 2GB
partition he needs to have hit 2GB of allocated anonymous memory.

Now, /that/ I find troubling. It's hard to find an application that can
manage a working set of anonymous data greater than 100MB; even the
bloated Mozilla can't manage that regularly, nor Emacs even under heavy
use.

So, even if the OP uses a kernel with the swap pre-allocation in action
and has swap pages written and held for running applications,
discounting unswappable pages, that's a *hell* of a lot of data.

*That* is abnormal. Having 2GB of *RAM* filled, that's normal. 2GB of
swap -- that's a sign that something is seriously odd on your machine.

Daniel

-- 
Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are
unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.
-- Horace Mann


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Brian Nelson]

James Hirschorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> > how they DO :-) )
> > 
> 
> What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a KDE 
> session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 2GB swap 
> easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session most of the 
> swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?

You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?

http://bugs.debian.org/140111

-- 
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Pappu]

On Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:20:49 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
 > I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
 > would  manage to  eat 2GB  of space,  even if  they  leaked awfully
This  need not  be the  case. Linux  kernel uses  all free  memory for
caching. Now if  all ram is filled up and more  memory is required, it
is better to keep the cache intact and move some applications that are
not being used for a long time  in to the cache, rather than flush the
cache and use  that ram for the  new apps. So The swap  usage in linux
can  increase, especially  if most  of your  apps are  sleeping. This
won't  slow down the  system much.  There will  be a  noticeable delay,
accompanied by swap activity, when you  go back to an app that you was
started, but not being used for a long time. 

bye,
pappu. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Torbjorn Pettersson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the picture you 
>mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924 - which I think is close 
>to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do 
>something to make linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only 
>that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap? 
> 
>  Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1
> 
> Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is
> not really slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it
> looks like when fully booted, it uses less memory than windows
> 2000... However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started,
> then it just turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow
> two-three times slower than MSWord starts in
> Windows... Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds... may be
> it is because those desktop environments and programs are slow
> themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian.. I
> am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall
> performance when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows and
> my subjective perception was that Linux is appreciably
> slower...  

 Start some kind of performance meassuring tool in a separate
window before starting your applications. Easiest would be to
use top. Then when you start your word processor check what
changes with the machine. If the word processor sucks 100% of
the cpu then there are probably nothing you can do about it, but
if your cpu is idle but for running top, and you have a high
value of iowait instead there might be something wrong. Hard to
say what without investigating further, but it might just be
that you have a very slow harddrive, or you might have
misconfigured something with a) the filesystem(not very likely)
or b) the network setup (more likely).


//Tobbe
-- 
##
Torbjörn Pettersson   #  Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vattugatan 5  #  Web www.strul.nu/~tobbe
S-111 52  Stockholm, Sweden   #
##


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Pappu wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:20:49 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
> > would  manage to  eat 2GB  of space,  even if  they  leaked awfully
>
> This need not be the case. Linux kernel uses all free memory for
> caching. 

[...]

*nod* That's true, and as you correctly point out, this isn't a problem.

However, Linux will not swap cached data, read-only program text or
file-backed data that is up to date. So, for the OP to fill his 2GB
partition he needs to have hit 2GB of allocated anonymous memory.

Now, /that/ I find troubling. It's hard to find an application that can
manage a working set of anonymous data greater than 100MB; even the
bloated Mozilla can't manage that regularly, nor Emacs even under heavy
use.

So, even if the OP uses a kernel with the swap pre-allocation in action
and has swap pages written and held for running applications,
discounting unswappable pages, that's a *hell* of a lot of data.

*That* is abnormal. Having 2GB of *RAM* filled, that's normal. 2GB of
swap -- that's a sign that something is seriously odd on your machine.

Daniel

-- 
Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are
unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.
-- Horace Mann


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Brian Nelson]

James Hirschorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> > how they DO :-) )
> > 
> 
> What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a KDE 
> session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 2GB swap 
> easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session most of the 
> swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?

You aren't running xplanet or something similar, are you?

http://bugs.debian.org/140111

-- 
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Pappu]

On Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:20:49 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
 > I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
 > would  manage to  eat 2GB  of space,  even if  they  leaked awfully
This  need not  be the  case. Linux  kernel uses  all free  memory for
caching. Now if  all ram is filled up and more  memory is required, it
is better to keep the cache intact and move some applications that are
not being used for a long time  in to the cache, rather than flush the
cache and use  that ram for the  new apps. So The swap  usage in linux
can  increase, especially  if most  of your  apps are  sleeping. This
won't  slow down the  system much.  There will  be a  noticeable delay,
accompanied by swap activity, when you  go back to an app that you was
started, but not being used for a long time. 

bye,
pappu. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-) (somebody will now tell
>> me how they DO :-) )
>> 
> 
> What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After
> letting a KDE session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and
> numerous apps, 2GB swap easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log
> out of the session most of the swap memory is freed. Is this not
> normal behaviour?

No, it's not. :)

I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
would manage to eat 2GB of space, even if they leaked awfully fast.

Seriously, though, there is something pathological in that set of
applications.

At least, unless you mention now that a couple of those applications are
non-linear video editing tools with large videos. ;)

Daniel

-- 
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the
long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.
-- A.W. Grisold


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> how they DO :-) )
> 

What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a KDE 
session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 2GB swap 
easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session most of the 
swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?

Cheers,
James



pgpr6bEZgO6X8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Hubert Chan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> "seitvel" == seitvel  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

seitvel> even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord
seitvel> starts in Windows...

Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that
Office apps start up faster.  It just shifts some of the startup time
from the application startup to the system startup.  I don't think that
there is much effort in the Linux world to do this, although it is
definitely possible.

- -- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.geocities.com/hubertchan/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/71FDA37F
Fingerprint: 6CC5 822D 2E55 494C 81DD  6F2C 6518 54DF 71FD A37F
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tMWDZRhU33H9o38RAit5AJ4zOothGsYUPn54hAzUmo8NjTl/8QCgsMPB
wxScLGCd2aXToXJK+VUlOmM=
=pUAS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Daniel Pittman]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, James Hirschorn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-) (somebody will now tell
>> me how they DO :-) )
>> 
> 
> What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After
> letting a KDE session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and
> numerous apps, 2GB swap easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log
> out of the session most of the swap memory is freed. Is this not
> normal behaviour?

No, it's not. :)

I have trouble, in fact, imagining the set of desktop programs that
would manage to eat 2GB of space, even if they leaked awfully fast.

Seriously, though, there is something pathological in that set of
applications.

At least, unless you mention now that a couple of those applications are
non-linear video editing tools with large videos. ;)

Daniel

-- 
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the
long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.
-- A.W. Grisold


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[James Hirschorn]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:41:10PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
> how they DO :-) )
> 

What? I found that one 2GB swap partition was not enough. After letting a KDE 
session run for a couple of days, with 8 desktops and numerous apps, 2GB swap 
easily gets used up. However, as soon as I log out of the session most of the 
swap memory is freed. Is this not normal behaviour?

Cheers,
James




msg07506/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Mark Barnes wrote:

I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
used. 


Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
how they DO :-) )



As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to

> create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
> performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
> partition can be used.

That is true only of 'old-style' swap spaces. From man mkswap: "an old 
style swap area can describe at most 8*(S-10)-1 pages used for swapping. 
With S=4096 (as on i386), the useful area is at most 133890048 bytes 
(almost 128 MiB), and the rest is wasted".  Note that even then, that 
only applies to systems with a 4K page size.  I have a 126MB and a 300MB 
partition, then I use swapd to create 64MB swap files as needed, and 
when doing Oracle installs I have fully used both of the partitions plus 
3 or 4 swapd files.


Since the Oracle install fails completely silently if it runs out of 
memory, I've needed to keep a close eye on the swap use.

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Jason Chambers]

Mark Barnes wrote:

I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
used.  As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to
create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
partition can be used.


In older kernels on i386 boxes at most 128MB could be used.  A swap 
partition larger than that was just wasting space.


More recent kernels (>=2.1.117) however allow upto 2GB per partition on 
i386.


'man mkswap' for the reasons why...

--

Jason Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Leicester, England




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Heather Stern]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:06:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the 
> picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924
> - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" 
> part is zero - why's that?

Compare to a "top" listing, where possibly you are not running things heavily
enough to be beating on swap yet.

Thus out of this particular swap partition, none of it's used yet.

> Can I do something to make linux use it?

You'd rather not force it to.  swap from disk is about 10 times slower (or
worse) than real RAM.  It can be used to aid context switches, but there's
a word for livign in swapspace - "thrashing" - because the disk makes such
busy noises.

Please be assured that since it has a priority number at all (moving from
-1 as the first, toward minus infinity) that it *will* use it when it needs
the swap space.

If you are the sort who is convinced that your computer isn't working because
it isn't making crunchy noises, take some memory back out of your machine, and
accept the speed hit.

> Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only that there is nothing 
> yet in memory to dump it to swap? 
> 
>  Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1
 
Yes.

> Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is not really 
> slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it looks like when fully
> booted, it uses less memory than windows 2000... However, once Gnome or
> particularly KDE is started, then it just turns into hell -

I have provided a SHORT FORM and a LONG FORM answer.  I think it is important
for you to read the long form answer, it may explain some things... so I put
the short form at the bottom.

The important distinction is between Gnome libraries (under the hood of any
single gnome based app) and "the Gnome desktop"  (oh, about 8 to 15 small
apps trying to start at once, whilst being all singing, all dancing, and
painting up a backdrop for you).   Likewise any given K/Qt app, and "the K
Desktop".

> even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord starts in 
> Windows...

Abiword is not trying to compete on speed, that I ever heard.  It's trying
to re-implement and surpass the feature sets of about a half dozen word
processors, MS-Word merely being one of them.  And there are some who will
take many sacrifices like speed for the free-as-in-modifiable code.

Comparing tangelos and oranges.

> Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds...

I don't use evolution because I think it has more moving parts under the 
hood than my car.  See the short form below for what I do use.

> may be it is because those desktop environments and programs are slow
> themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian..

Initial load speed, and speed while in use are two different things.  The
whole point of both "desktop environments" is that because all the under
the hood libraries are shared,  after the initial heavy weight on your
shoulders even very powerful apps add little to the total memory cost.

Contrast every notable app on the planet loading "DLLs" that nobody else
has heard about, and don't share, not least because the proprietary corps
refuse to license them to each other.

> I am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall performance
> when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows

Okay.  I have decided to compare Car versus Motorcycle. (no slight to vehicle
fans, I feel that these each have advantages and disads, thus makes an ok 
analogy).  I am wondering why Motorcycle looks sexier but is not as fast as
Car but Motorcycle seems more efficient.  

Vehicular fans of Motorcycle start asking what brand you are using, offering
engine tuneup questions/advice, and wonder if you bought a racing bike or a
motocross-country dirt bike.  

Vehicular fans of Car note that pulling 120 on the open highway isn't the same
as gas mileage, how did you want to define "efficient".  As for sexy, plenty
of sexy cars around, but what do *you* mean by it?

> and my subjective perception was that Linux is appreciably slower... 

"Linux" as in the default kit given you by what?

In normal Debian, there pretty much is no "default kit" - you can pick tasks,
somewhat, but there are a limited number of them and we don't presume to know
what you want to do with your life.

In Libranet the "default kit" - about 5 or 6 hundred megs of bits that just 
copy themselves across before the initial reboot, and certainly enough to
"hit the internet" with - which I mention 'cuz it's a commercial Debian based
distro and works with laptops - does not contain either Gnome or K as desktops.
It offers them as kits, as well as apache and a few other things as kits, 
during your first boot up, but you don't need them.  You can add the libs 
later, but more likely when you pick an app that you *want* ... let's say 
"kf

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Hubert Chan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> "seitvel" == seitvel  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

seitvel> even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord
seitvel> starts in Windows...

Windows preloads part of Office into memory when it boots up, so that
Office apps start up faster.  It just shifts some of the startup time
from the application startup to the system startup.  I don't think that
there is much effort in the Linux world to do this, although it is
definitely possible.

- -- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.geocities.com/hubertchan/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/71FDA37F
Fingerprint: 6CC5 822D 2E55 494C 81DD  6F2C 6518 54DF 71FD A37F
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8tMWDZRhU33H9o38RAit5AJ4zOothGsYUPn54hAzUmo8NjTl/8QCgsMPB
wxScLGCd2aXToXJK+VUlOmM=
=pUAS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Mark Barnes]

I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
used.  As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to
create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
partition can be used.


On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:56:02PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  > Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the
>  > picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is
>  > 979924 - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is
>  > that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do something to make
>  > linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only
>  > that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap?
>  >
>  > Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  > /dev/hda6partition   9799240-1
> 
> I'd have to say that's the case.  You've got tons of swap space, and 
> it's turned on, so my guess is obviously wrong :-)
> 
>  > However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started, then it just
>  > turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow two-three times
>  > slower than MSWord starts in Windows... Evolution starts in
>  > probably 10 seconds... may be it is because those desktop
>  > environments and programs are slow themselves and it does not have
>  > to do anything with Debian.. I am a user primarily, so I noticed
> 
> I wouldn't know, since I use neither of them, but I have noted Linux 
> word-processing programs tend to be annoyingly slow to start. KWord 
> sucks too :-(  But otherwise, I have always found performance to be 
> improved over any of the Windows variants.
> --
> derek
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Mark Barnes wrote:
> I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
> used. 

Nobody, but nobody, needs 1GB for a swap :-)  (somebody will now tell me 
how they DO :-) )

> As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
> per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to
 > create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
 > performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
 > partition can be used.

That is true only of 'old-style' swap spaces. From man mkswap: "an old 
style swap area can describe at most 8*(S-10)-1 pages used for swapping. 
With S=4096 (as on i386), the useful area is at most 133890048 bytes 
(almost 128 MiB), and the rest is wasted".  Note that even then, that 
only applies to systems with a 4K page size.  I have a 126MB and a 300MB 
partition, then I use swapd to create 64MB swap files as needed, and 
when doing Oracle installs I have fully used both of the partitions plus 
3 or 4 swapd files.

Since the Oracle install fails completely silently if it runs out of 
memory, I've needed to keep a close eye on the swap use.
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Jason Chambers]

Mark Barnes wrote:
> I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
> used.  As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
> per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to
> create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
> performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
> partition can be used.

In older kernels on i386 boxes at most 128MB could be used.  A swap 
partition larger than that was just wasting space.

More recent kernels (>=2.1.117) however allow upto 2GB per partition on 
i386.

'man mkswap' for the reasons why...

-- 

Jason Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Leicester, England




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Heather Stern]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:06:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the 
> picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924
> - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" 
> part is zero - why's that?

Compare to a "top" listing, where possibly you are not running things heavily
enough to be beating on swap yet.

Thus out of this particular swap partition, none of it's used yet.

> Can I do something to make linux use it?

You'd rather not force it to.  swap from disk is about 10 times slower (or
worse) than real RAM.  It can be used to aid context switches, but there's
a word for livign in swapspace - "thrashing" - because the disk makes such
busy noises.

Please be assured that since it has a priority number at all (moving from
-1 as the first, toward minus infinity) that it *will* use it when it needs
the swap space.

If you are the sort who is convinced that your computer isn't working because
it isn't making crunchy noises, take some memory back out of your machine, and
accept the speed hit.

> Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only that there is nothing 
> yet in memory to dump it to swap? 
> 
>  Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1
 
Yes.

> Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is not really 
> slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it looks like when fully
> booted, it uses less memory than windows 2000... However, once Gnome or
> particularly KDE is started, then it just turns into hell -

I have provided a SHORT FORM and a LONG FORM answer.  I think it is important
for you to read the long form answer, it may explain some things... so I put
the short form at the bottom.

The important distinction is between Gnome libraries (under the hood of any
single gnome based app) and "the Gnome desktop"  (oh, about 8 to 15 small
apps trying to start at once, whilst being all singing, all dancing, and
painting up a backdrop for you).   Likewise any given K/Qt app, and "the K
Desktop".

> even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord starts in 
> Windows...

Abiword is not trying to compete on speed, that I ever heard.  It's trying
to re-implement and surpass the feature sets of about a half dozen word
processors, MS-Word merely being one of them.  And there are some who will
take many sacrifices like speed for the free-as-in-modifiable code.

Comparing tangelos and oranges.

> Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds...

I don't use evolution because I think it has more moving parts under the 
hood than my car.  See the short form below for what I do use.

> may be it is because those desktop environments and programs are slow
> themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian..

Initial load speed, and speed while in use are two different things.  The
whole point of both "desktop environments" is that because all the under
the hood libraries are shared,  after the initial heavy weight on your
shoulders even very powerful apps add little to the total memory cost.

Contrast every notable app on the planet loading "DLLs" that nobody else
has heard about, and don't share, not least because the proprietary corps
refuse to license them to each other.

> I am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall performance
> when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows

Okay.  I have decided to compare Car versus Motorcycle. (no slight to vehicle
fans, I feel that these each have advantages and disads, thus makes an ok 
analogy).  I am wondering why Motorcycle looks sexier but is not as fast as
Car but Motorcycle seems more efficient.  

Vehicular fans of Motorcycle start asking what brand you are using, offering
engine tuneup questions/advice, and wonder if you bought a racing bike or a
motocross-country dirt bike.  

Vehicular fans of Car note that pulling 120 on the open highway isn't the same
as gas mileage, how did you want to define "efficient".  As for sexy, plenty
of sexy cars around, but what do *you* mean by it?

> and my subjective perception was that Linux is appreciably slower... 

"Linux" as in the default kit given you by what?

In normal Debian, there pretty much is no "default kit" - you can pick tasks,
somewhat, but there are a limited number of them and we don't presume to know
what you want to do with your life.

In Libranet the "default kit" - about 5 or 6 hundred megs of bits that just 
copy themselves across before the initial reboot, and certainly enough to
"hit the internet" with - which I mention 'cuz it's a commercial Debian based
distro and works with laptops - does not contain either Gnome or K as desktops.
It offers them as kits, as well as apache and a few other things as kits, 
during your first boot up, but you don't need them.  You can add the libs 
later, but more likely when you pick an app that you *want* ... let's say 
"k

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the
> picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is
> 979924 - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is
> that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do something to make
> linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only
> that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap?
>
> Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
> /dev/hda6partition   9799240-1

I'd have to say that's the case.  You've got tons of swap space, and 
it's turned on, so my guess is obviously wrong :-)


> However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started, then it just
> turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow two-three times
> slower than MSWord starts in Windows... Evolution starts in
> probably 10 seconds... may be it is because those desktop
> environments and programs are slow themselves and it does not have
> to do anything with Debian.. I am a user primarily, so I noticed

I wouldn't know, since I use neither of them, but I have noted Linux 
word-processing programs tend to be annoyingly slow to start. KWord 
sucks too :-(  But otherwise, I have always found performance to be 
improved over any of the Windows variants.

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Mark Barnes]

I don't think that much swap in a single partition is being fully
used.  As I understand it, linux can use a maximum of (I think) 128 mb
per swap partition.  If you want more than 128 mb swap, you'll need to
create additional swap partitions.  This doesn't really get at your
performance problems, but no more than 128 mb out of that huge swap
partition can be used.


On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:56:02PM -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  > Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the
>  > picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is
>  > 979924 - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is
>  > that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do something to make
>  > linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only
>  > that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap?
>  >
>  > Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>  > /dev/hda6partition   9799240-1
> 
> I'd have to say that's the case.  You've got tons of swap space, and 
> it's turned on, so my guess is obviously wrong :-)
> 
>  > However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started, then it just
>  > turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow two-three times
>  > slower than MSWord starts in Windows... Evolution starts in
>  > probably 10 seconds... may be it is because those desktop
>  > environments and programs are slow themselves and it does not have
>  > to do anything with Debian.. I am a user primarily, so I noticed
> 
> I wouldn't know, since I use neither of them, but I have noted Linux 
> word-processing programs tend to be annoyingly slow to start. KWord 
> sucks too :-(  But otherwise, I have always found performance to be 
> improved over any of the Windows variants.
> --
> derek
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Emanuele Aina]

Chris Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dichiarò:


It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
(Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
Intel.



For the sake of completeness, I will point out that this in incorrect.

http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/


The name ELKS stands for "Embeddable Linux Kernel Subset". So, as
claimed on the elks site, elks is NOT a port of the linux kernel, and
debian has never been ported to this kernel.

To run, the linux kernel need at least 2 Mb of ram. But this is for the
kernel *alone*. For some simple and particular apps (not graphic) 4 mb
are enough. To have something graphic you need *at least* 8 Mb of ram, 
and a distribuition specifically designed for your needs (try mulinux or

similar). In this case you can also use an old version of debian (maybe
the release 2.0). For the new (still to come) Woody release (3.0) and to 
use the graphical interface (xfree) you nedd 16 Mb. Maybe it is a little

bit slow... ;-)

Fortunately debian comes with a lot of packages, designed to satisfy
different needs: if you haven't a lot of ram and cpu power, you can try
xfce or windowmaker and leave gnome and kde to better powered machine.

(And remember that not using a graphic ineterface at all saves an *huge*
amount of memory: the shell prompt is so beautiful :)

--
Au revoir.
Lele...



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[seitvel]

Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the picture 
you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924 - which I think 
is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" part is zero - why's 
that? Can I do something to make linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, 
so may be it is only that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap? 

 Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
 /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1

Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is not really 
slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it looks like when fully booted, it 
uses less memory than windows 2000... However, once Gnome or particularly KDE 
is started, then it just turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow 
two-three times slower than MSWord starts in Windows... Evolution starts in 
probably 10 seconds... may be it is because those desktop environments and 
programs are slow themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian.. 
I am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall performance 
when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows and my subjective perception was 
that Linux is appreciably slower... 

Best regards, please advise me on SWAP.. thanks

Kemal

"Derek Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:
> > Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
> > at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
> > slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have
> 
> That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
> -s" should show something like:
> 
> Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
> /dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1
> 
> If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
> need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
> believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
> with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.
> 
> > a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
> > I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's
> 
> No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
> lines like:
> deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
> 
> basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have 
> woody.
> --
> derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 > Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the
 > picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is
 > 979924 - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is
 > that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do something to make
 > linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only
 > that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap?
 >
 > Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
 > /dev/hda6partition   9799240-1

I'd have to say that's the case.  You've got tons of swap space, and 
it's turned on, so my guess is obviously wrong :-)

 > However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started, then it just
 > turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow two-three times
 > slower than MSWord starts in Windows... Evolution starts in
 > probably 10 seconds... may be it is because those desktop
 > environments and programs are slow themselves and it does not have
 > to do anything with Debian.. I am a user primarily, so I noticed

I wouldn't know, since I use neither of them, but I have noted Linux 
word-processing programs tend to be annoyingly slow to start. KWord 
sucks too :-(  But otherwise, I have always found performance to be 
improved over any of the Windows variants.
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Emanuele Aina]

Chris Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dichiarò:

>>It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
>>(Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
>>Intel.
> 
> 
> For the sake of completeness, I will point out that this in incorrect.
> 
> http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

The name ELKS stands for "Embeddable Linux Kernel Subset". So, as
claimed on the elks site, elks is NOT a port of the linux kernel, and
debian has never been ported to this kernel.

To run, the linux kernel need at least 2 Mb of ram. But this is for the
kernel *alone*. For some simple and particular apps (not graphic) 4 mb
are enough. To have something graphic you need *at least* 8 Mb of ram, 
and a distribuition specifically designed for your needs (try mulinux or
similar). In this case you can also use an old version of debian (maybe
the release 2.0). For the new (still to come) Woody release (3.0) and to 
use the graphical interface (xfree) you nedd 16 Mb. Maybe it is a little
bit slow... ;-)

Fortunately debian comes with a lot of packages, designed to satisfy
different needs: if you haven't a lot of ram and cpu power, you can try
xfce or windowmaker and leave gnome and kde to better powered machine.

(And remember that not using a graphic ineterface at all saves an *huge*
amount of memory: the shell prompt is so beautiful :)

-- 
Au revoir.
Lele...



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[seitvel]

Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the picture you 
mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924 - which I think is close 
to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" part is zero - why's that? Can I do 
something to make linux use it? Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only 
that there is nothing yet in memory to dump it to swap? 

 Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
 /dev/hda6   partition   9799240-1

Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is not really slower than 
win2k - it boots up faster, and it looks like when fully booted, it uses less memory 
than windows 2000... However, once Gnome or particularly KDE is started, then it just 
turns into hell - even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord 
starts in Windows... Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds... may be it is because 
those desktop environments and programs are slow themselves and it does not have to do 
anything with Debian.. I am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall 
performance when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows and my subjective perception 
was that Linux is appreciably slower... 

Best regards, please advise me on SWAP.. thanks

Kemal

"Derek Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:
> > Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
> > at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
> > slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have
> 
> That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
> -s" should show something like:
> 
> Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
> /dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1
> 
> If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
> need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
> believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
> with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.
> 
> > a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
> > I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's
> 
> No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
> lines like:
> deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
> 
> basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have 
> woody.
> --
> derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:27 AM 4/10/02, Derek Broughton wrote:

Nick wrote:

Hi Derek
I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.


Debian isn't a successor to Corel.  Corel, like a number of other 
distributions was a commercial distribution built on top of Debian (slink 
- the predecessor to potato).  So it was a slink base with a 
Corel-modified KDE desktop and some dicey hardware detection.  Corel's 
Linux has finally been taken over by Xandros which is planning to continue 
in much the same vein.  But these commercial distros have never had much 
success because once you get the newbie using it, he quickly discovers how 
easy it is to progress to full Debian, with all the advantages and none of 
the cost :-)  Corel's selling feature was telephone support - except 
nobody ever managed to get any support!


I think that the biggest thing that first Corel and then Progeny showed
the Debian community, is the need for a good easy installer.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:33 AM 4/10/02, Derek Broughton wrote:

Nick wrote:

Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but


While we're straying rather far from laptop issues, I thought I'd mention 
that Linux Magazine (UK - not the thinner American magazine of the same 
name) last year rated various distros head-to-head and complained that 
Debian was both very difficult to install AND obsolete.  Never mind that 
they could have just as easily tested Woody as Potato.  But they tested 
Mandrake 8.2 before it was out of beta.  It's tough to make much headway 
against that sort of FUD.


When people hear the word Testing, they think it's pre-beta. When they hear
beta, they feel like they are part of something. They just like saying that
they've been using it since the beta version. Stable may be obsolete
but at least there is no worry about any problems with it at all. Testing has a
strong chance of breaking things because of that, alot of people don't want to
touch it.

I remember a bench mark that was done in Linux Journal within the last
year. Debian potato IIRC was ranked lowest. Just more FUD.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:

Hi Derek
I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.


Debian isn't a successor to Corel.  Corel, like a number of other 
distributions was a commercial distribution built on top of Debian 
(slink - the predecessor to potato).  So it was a slink base with a 
Corel-modified KDE desktop and some dicey hardware detection.  Corel's 
Linux has finally been taken over by Xandros which is planning to 
continue in much the same vein.  But these commercial distros have never 
had much success because once you get the newbie using it, he quickly 
discovers how easy it is to progress to full Debian, with all the 
advantages and none of the cost :-)  Corel's selling feature was 
telephone support - except nobody ever managed to get any support!

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:

Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but


While we're straying rather far from laptop issues, I thought I'd 
mention that Linux Magazine (UK - not the thinner American magazine of 
the same name) last year rated various distros head-to-head and 
complained that Debian was both very difficult to install AND obsolete. 
 Never mind that they could have just as easily tested Woody as Potato. 
 But they tested Mandrake 8.2 before it was out of beta.  It's tough to 
make much headway against that sort of FUD.

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:30 PM 4/9/02, Nick wrote:

Hi Derek
I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.


Debian predates the Corel Distro by years. Corel thought that they would make
the Debian install process easier for the user, and based their distro on 
Debian,

like Mandrake based their's on Redhat. Corel packaged their's with KDE and
Word Perfect. It was an ok version of Debian, but I moved back to Slink fairly
quickly (Slink 2 versions of Debian ago).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 05:40 PM 4/9/02, Derek Broughton wrote:

Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:

Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have


That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
-s" should show something like:


Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
/dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1

If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.



a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's


No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
lines like:

deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib

basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have woody.


cat /etc/debian_version tells you what version your running as well.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:27 AM 4/10/02, Derek Broughton wrote:
>Nick wrote:
>>Hi Derek
>>I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
>>almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.
>
>Debian isn't a successor to Corel.  Corel, like a number of other 
>distributions was a commercial distribution built on top of Debian (slink 
>- the predecessor to potato).  So it was a slink base with a 
>Corel-modified KDE desktop and some dicey hardware detection.  Corel's 
>Linux has finally been taken over by Xandros which is planning to continue 
>in much the same vein.  But these commercial distros have never had much 
>success because once you get the newbie using it, he quickly discovers how 
>easy it is to progress to full Debian, with all the advantages and none of 
>the cost :-)  Corel's selling feature was telephone support - except 
>nobody ever managed to get any support!

I think that the biggest thing that first Corel and then Progeny showed
the Debian community, is the need for a good easy installer.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:33 AM 4/10/02, Derek Broughton wrote:
>Nick wrote:
>>Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
>>see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
>>something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
>>at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
>>about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but
>
>While we're straying rather far from laptop issues, I thought I'd mention 
>that Linux Magazine (UK - not the thinner American magazine of the same 
>name) last year rated various distros head-to-head and complained that 
>Debian was both very difficult to install AND obsolete.  Never mind that 
>they could have just as easily tested Woody as Potato.  But they tested 
>Mandrake 8.2 before it was out of beta.  It's tough to make much headway 
>against that sort of FUD.

When people hear the word Testing, they think it's pre-beta. When they hear
beta, they feel like they are part of something. They just like saying that
they've been using it since the beta version. Stable may be obsolete
but at least there is no worry about any problems with it at all. Testing has a
strong chance of breaking things because of that, alot of people don't want to
touch it.

I remember a bench mark that was done in Linux Journal within the last
year. Debian potato IIRC was ranked lowest. Just more FUD.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:
> Hi Derek
> I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
> almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.

Debian isn't a successor to Corel.  Corel, like a number of other 
distributions was a commercial distribution built on top of Debian 
(slink - the predecessor to potato).  So it was a slink base with a 
Corel-modified KDE desktop and some dicey hardware detection.  Corel's 
Linux has finally been taken over by Xandros which is planning to 
continue in much the same vein.  But these commercial distros have never 
had much success because once you get the newbie using it, he quickly 
discovers how easy it is to progress to full Debian, with all the 
advantages and none of the cost :-)  Corel's selling feature was 
telephone support - except nobody ever managed to get any support!
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:
> Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
> see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
> something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
> at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
> about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but

While we're straying rather far from laptop issues, I thought I'd 
mention that Linux Magazine (UK - not the thinner American magazine of 
the same name) last year rated various distros head-to-head and 
complained that Debian was both very difficult to install AND obsolete. 
  Never mind that they could have just as easily tested Woody as Potato. 
  But they tested Mandrake 8.2 before it was out of beta.  It's tough to 
make much headway against that sort of FUD.
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nick]

Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but
there is always the mailing list to fall back on if the documentation still
doesn't help us so really Debian is the ultimate Linux package because
guidance is always at hand. I am trying to stick with the reading because I
like discovering solutions myself, I seem to have a knack for it but when I
need help I will ask one of the friendly folk from the mailing list.

Nick


***
Laptop Specifications : Toshiba Libretto 70CT
Pentium 120MMX cpu, 32mb ram, 1mb Chips 65550 graphics chip, Yamaha OPL3-sax
sound, 6gb hard disk. 640x480 res. lcd display.
Dual boot : Windows95/Debian Woody.

***

- Original Message -
From: "Nate Bargmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: Debian PC Requirements


> * Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002 Apr 09 21:18 -0500]:
>
> 
>
> Wow, Nick.
>
> What a testimonial!
>
> Normally the knock on Debian is that "it's too difficult for newbies to
> install" and "is a distribution only experts could love." If I didn't
> know better I'd say you're on a quest to counter every bit of FUD I've
> heard on Debian the past three years.
>
> As for Debian being the successor to Corel.  Corel's distribution was
> originally based on Debain, remained so, and now that Corel has passed
> on, Debian is the natural upgrade path.
>
> BTW, there is a Debian-ham list you might want to check out (quite low
> traffic) and the linux-hams list at vger.kernel.org
>
> 73, de Nate >>
>
> --
>  Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  | "We have awakened a
>  Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | sleeping giant and
>  Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov   | have instilled in him
>   Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
>  http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   | - Admiral Yamomoto
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 09:30 PM 4/9/02, Nick wrote:
>Hi Derek
>I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
>almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.

Debian predates the Corel Distro by years. Corel thought that they would make
the Debian install process easier for the user, and based their distro on 
Debian,
like Mandrake based their's on Redhat. Corel packaged their's with KDE and
Word Perfect. It was an ok version of Debian, but I moved back to Slink fairly
quickly (Slink 2 versions of Debian ago).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 05:40 PM 4/9/02, Derek Broughton wrote:
>Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:
>>Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
>>at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
>>slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have
>
>That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
>-s" should show something like:
>
>Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
>/dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1
>
>If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
>need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
>believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
>with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.
>
>>a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
>>I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's
>
>No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
>lines like:
>deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
>
>basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have woody.

cat /etc/debian_version tells you what version your running as well.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nick]

Thanks Nate I will do just that. As for my testimonial I only say it how I
see it. I feel confident in using Debian and where I don't understand
something there is an copious amount of documentation which is easy to find
at www.debian.org and aslong as it is read which I think those who moan
about Debian probably do not then there shouldn't be too many problems but
there is always the mailing list to fall back on if the documentation still
doesn't help us so really Debian is the ultimate Linux package because
guidance is always at hand. I am trying to stick with the reading because I
like discovering solutions myself, I seem to have a knack for it but when I
need help I will ask one of the friendly folk from the mailing list.

Nick


***
Laptop Specifications : Toshiba Libretto 70CT
Pentium 120MMX cpu, 32mb ram, 1mb Chips 65550 graphics chip, Yamaha OPL3-sax
sound, 6gb hard disk. 640x480 res. lcd display.
Dual boot : Windows95/Debian Woody.

***

- Original Message -
From: "Nate Bargmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: Debian PC Requirements


> * Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002 Apr 09 21:18 -0500]:
>
> 
>
> Wow, Nick.
>
> What a testimonial!
>
> Normally the knock on Debian is that "it's too difficult for newbies to
> install" and "is a distribution only experts could love." If I didn't
> know better I'd say you're on a quest to counter every bit of FUD I've
> heard on Debian the past three years.
>
> As for Debian being the successor to Corel.  Corel's distribution was
> originally based on Debain, remained so, and now that Corel has passed
> on, Debian is the natural upgrade path.
>
> BTW, there is a Debian-ham list you might want to check out (quite low
> traffic) and the linux-hams list at vger.kernel.org
>
> 73, de Nate >>
>
> --
>  Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  | "We have awakened a
>  Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | sleeping giant and
>  Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov   | have instilled in him
>   Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
>  http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   | - Admiral Yamomoto
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nate Bargmann]

* Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002 Apr 09 21:18 -0500]:



Wow, Nick.

What a testimonial!

Normally the knock on Debian is that "it's too difficult for newbies to
install" and "is a distribution only experts could love." If I didn't
know better I'd say you're on a quest to counter every bit of FUD I've
heard on Debian the past three years.

As for Debian being the successor to Corel.  Corel's distribution was
originally based on Debain, remained so, and now that Corel has passed
on, Debian is the natural upgrade path.

BTW, there is a Debian-ham list you might want to check out (quite low
traffic) and the linux-hams list at vger.kernel.org

73, de Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  | "We have awakened a
 Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | sleeping giant and
 Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov   | have instilled in him
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   | - Admiral Yamomoto


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Dave Thayer]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:32:47PM -0400, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 18:23, Ron Reinhart wrote:
> >  >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> > > (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> > > Intel.
> > 
> > I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where 
> > running
> > Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I 
> > was
> > running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
> > Regards,
> > Ron
> 
> Linux, no.  Minix, maybe.  However, the Intel 80386 had been available
> for a couple of years already by 1990, and Linux was started as an
> experiment to use the "advanced features" of the 386, and so was 32 bit
> right from the start.
> 

And just to come full-circle, there is now a port of linux to the 8086
called ELKS. See it at . I have half a
mind to try it out on an old PC I have here.

dt

-- 
Dave Thayer   | If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about
Denver, Colorado USA  | cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | the time, for no good reason. - Jack Handey


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nick]

Hi Derek
I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.
I have had some success with a few distros for example Redhat, Mandrake,
Slackware, Fat Linux and now Debian but I have to say Debian is the easiest
to setup with very little help which was not the case with the other distros
I mentioned above. Second to Debian I would choose Redhat but unfortunately
the support was not there where as with Debian I have had support from day
one and if reading the documentation from the Debian web site wasn't enough
the mailing list provided me with all the support I could ask for.
Personally I don't think Debian should be frowned upon as just an
introductory package to Linux, it is a very powerful Linux distribution with
over three thousand packages to choose from, we are spoilt for choice. I
intend to try the Ham radio software in the near future and I have already
been using a Debian package called GSchem for drawing up schematics. My next
trick will be to findout if my modem is compatible.

Nick


- Original Message -
From: "Derek Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Debian PC Requirements


> Nick wrote:
>
>
> > I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
> > Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages
make
> > it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have
to
> > ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows
cd's
>
> Hey, Nick, you're our kind of guy!  Many people complain that Debian
> isn't a good intro system for Linux.  It's too hard to get it working
> (so they say).  I started with a Debian system (Corel Linux) and while
> the Corel part was junked fairly quickly, I've never been sorry I chose
> Debian.
>
> So, as people have told you, any currently (or even not so current)
> available processor should be usable.  The tricky bits are the video and
> modems.  You seem to have the video worked out, but modems...  So many
> are Winmodems that it becomes important to check for compatibility first.
> >>
> >>My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
> >>be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you
> >>slight
> >>head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
> >>too).
> --
> derek
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nate Bargmann]

* Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002 Apr 09 21:18 -0500]:



Wow, Nick.

What a testimonial!

Normally the knock on Debian is that "it's too difficult for newbies to
install" and "is a distribution only experts could love." If I didn't
know better I'd say you're on a quest to counter every bit of FUD I've
heard on Debian the past three years.

As for Debian being the successor to Corel.  Corel's distribution was
originally based on Debain, remained so, and now that Corel has passed
on, Debian is the natural upgrade path.

BTW, there is a Debian-ham list you might want to check out (quite low
traffic) and the linux-hams list at vger.kernel.org

73, de Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  | "We have awakened a
 Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | sleeping giant and
 Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov   | have instilled in him
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   | - Admiral Yamomoto


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Dave Thayer]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:32:47PM -0400, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 18:23, Ron Reinhart wrote:
> >  >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> > > (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> > > Intel.
> > 
> > I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where running
> > Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was
> > running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
> > Regards,
> > Ron
> 
> Linux, no.  Minix, maybe.  However, the Intel 80386 had been available
> for a couple of years already by 1990, and Linux was started as an
> experiment to use the "advanced features" of the 386, and so was 32 bit
> right from the start.
> 

And just to come full-circle, there is now a port of linux to the 8086
called ELKS. See it at . I have half a
mind to try it out on an old PC I have here.

dt

-- 
Dave Thayer   | If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about
Denver, Colorado USA  | cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | the time, for no good reason. - Jack Handey


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Shyamal Prasad]

"Ron" == Ron Reinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Ron> I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that
Ron> professors where running Linux on 8088's and 8086's around
Ron> 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was running OS9 on a
Ron> CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
Ron> Regards, Ron

You're probably thinking Minix (students were using it, like your's
sincerely). The Minix source license was a little restrictive if I
remember right. Linux required 386 starting out, because it used the
virtual memory features in the 386. I guess I just dated myself
too...

Cheers!
Shyamal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Stephen Ryan]

On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 18:23, Ron Reinhart wrote:
>  >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> > (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> > Intel.
> 
> I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where 
> running
> Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was
> running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
> Regards,
> Ron

Linux, no.  Minix, maybe.  However, the Intel 80386 had been available
for a couple of years already by 1990, and Linux was started as an
experiment to use the "advanced features" of the 386, and so was 32 bit
right from the start.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nick]

Hi Derek
I remember hearing about Corel, I never knew Debian was to be its successor,
almost makes me wish I started learning Linux earlier.
I have had some success with a few distros for example Redhat, Mandrake,
Slackware, Fat Linux and now Debian but I have to say Debian is the easiest
to setup with very little help which was not the case with the other distros
I mentioned above. Second to Debian I would choose Redhat but unfortunately
the support was not there where as with Debian I have had support from day
one and if reading the documentation from the Debian web site wasn't enough
the mailing list provided me with all the support I could ask for.
Personally I don't think Debian should be frowned upon as just an
introductory package to Linux, it is a very powerful Linux distribution with
over three thousand packages to choose from, we are spoilt for choice. I
intend to try the Ham radio software in the near future and I have already
been using a Debian package called GSchem for drawing up schematics. My next
trick will be to findout if my modem is compatible.

Nick


- Original Message -
From: "Derek Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Debian PC Requirements


> Nick wrote:
>
>
> > I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
> > Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages
make
> > it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have
to
> > ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows
cd's
>
> Hey, Nick, you're our kind of guy!  Many people complain that Debian
> isn't a good intro system for Linux.  It's too hard to get it working
> (so they say).  I started with a Debian system (Corel Linux) and while
> the Corel part was junked fairly quickly, I've never been sorry I chose
> Debian.
>
> So, as people have told you, any currently (or even not so current)
> available processor should be usable.  The tricky bits are the video and
> modems.  You seem to have the video worked out, but modems...  So many
> are Winmodems that it becomes important to check for compatibility first.
> >>
> >>My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
> >>be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you
> >>slight
> >>head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
> >>too).
> --
> derek
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Ron Reinhart]

 >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> Intel.

I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where running
Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was
running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
Regards,
Ron




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:

Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have


That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
-s" should show something like:


Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
/dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1

If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.



a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's


No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
lines like:

deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib

basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have 
woody.

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Shyamal Prasad]

"Ron" == Ron Reinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Ron> I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that
Ron> professors where running Linux on 8088's and 8086's around
Ron> 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was running OS9 on a
Ron> CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
Ron> Regards, Ron

You're probably thinking Minix (students were using it, like your's
sincerely). The Minix source license was a little restrictive if I
remember right. Linux required 386 starting out, because it used the
virtual memory features in the 386. I guess I just dated myself
too...

Cheers!
Shyamal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Stephen Ryan]

On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 18:23, Ron Reinhart wrote:
>  >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> > (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> > Intel.
> 
> I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where running
> Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was
> running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
> Regards,
> Ron

Linux, no.  Minix, maybe.  However, the Intel 80386 had been available
for a couple of years already by 1990, and Linux was started as an
experiment to use the "advanced features" of the 386, and so was 32 bit
right from the start.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Kemal R Seitveliyev]

Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have
a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's
the latest release I presume... The guys who built the thing did terrific
job... Also Codeweavers Office works: almost like real thing! Only slow
slow slow..

I have a question: may be there are answers already somewhere, but despite
looking around I did not manage to find many so far.. I am pretty new to
the Linux as you would guess..

How to make my laptop on wake-up automatically check the
network pcmcia card, try to get to the network and get machine's IP set
via DHCP? Also, how to force-kill the PCMCIA network card when it refuses
to switch off because its "busy"?

Would much appreciate any leads.. Also, will be glad to help anybody with
Portege like mine if any advise needed (although, of course, there is not
really much advise that I can give)...

Best to all of you,

Kemal



On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Chris Jenks wrote:

> At 08:05 AM 4/9/02, Nick wrote:
>
> Not Michael, I'm Chris. Hardware requirements is a thing of the MS Windows
> world. Newer versions of MS Windows usually have issues running on older
> boxes. That's not the problem you have to watch out for with Debian (or Linux
> in general). The only hardware gotchas you have to worry about are
> Win-Modems and brand new hardware that doesn't have drivers for linux yet.
>
> Running a Linux box doesn't mean that they try less to crack you box. I think
> that they try harder. There are viruses that hit linux (about 1 every 2
> years) but
> there are a lot more Trojan horses, and people trying to find back doors into
> your system.
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Ron Reinhart]

 >It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> Intel.

I hate to date myself so badly but it seems to me that professors where running
Linux on 8088's and 8086's around 1990 or so before 32bit Intel chips.  I was
running OS9 on a CoCo3 at the time so I can't say from my own experience.
Regards,
Ron




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Kemal R Seitveliyev wrote:
> Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
> at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
> slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have

That sounds like you don't have a swap partition, the results of "swapon 
-s" should show something like:

Filename TypeSizeUsedPriority
/dev/hda10   partition   248968  107692  -1

If there isn't any swap space at all, or it doesn't say "partition", you 
need to get some space on your drive to dedicate to swap.  It's just not 
believable that a properly configured Linux system on a 300MHz processor 
with 96MB ram will run slower than the same machine running Windows 2000.

> a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
> I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's

No reason to assume it is.  See your /etc/apt/sources.list.  It contains 
lines like:
deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib

basically if the word after the URL is 'woody' or 'testing' you have 
woody.
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Kemal R Seitveliyev]

Well, it actually does not run very fast on my computer. Windows 2000 runs
at acceptable speeds.. Linux sort of
slows down substantially with every extra program started... I have
a Toshiba Portege 7010ct with 300 mhz processor, 96 mb ram, and have what
I assume to be woody - it got network-installed three days ago, so it's
the latest release I presume... The guys who built the thing did terrific
job... Also Codeweavers Office works: almost like real thing! Only slow
slow slow..

I have a question: may be there are answers already somewhere, but despite
looking around I did not manage to find many so far.. I am pretty new to
the Linux as you would guess..

How to make my laptop on wake-up automatically check the
network pcmcia card, try to get to the network and get machine's IP set
via DHCP? Also, how to force-kill the PCMCIA network card when it refuses
to switch off because its "busy"?

Would much appreciate any leads.. Also, will be glad to help anybody with
Portege like mine if any advise needed (although, of course, there is not
really much advise that I can give)...

Best to all of you,

Kemal



On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Chris Jenks wrote:

> At 08:05 AM 4/9/02, Nick wrote:
>
> Not Michael, I'm Chris. Hardware requirements is a thing of the MS Windows
> world. Newer versions of MS Windows usually have issues running on older
> boxes. That's not the problem you have to watch out for with Debian (or Linux
> in general). The only hardware gotchas you have to worry about are
> Win-Modems and brand new hardware that doesn't have drivers for linux yet.
>
> Running a Linux box doesn't mean that they try less to crack you box. I think
> that they try harder. There are viruses that hit linux (about 1 every 2
> years) but
> there are a lot more Trojan horses, and people trying to find back doors into
> your system.
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 09 April 2002 12:11 pm, Pappu wrote:

> It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> Intel.

For the sake of completeness, I will point out that this in incorrect.

http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8su0gF8Iu1zN5WiwRAnoJAJ9Ikf0jrL1UWQIMRxk8gQ7kEjhxCgCfY7xm
MTEw+viN1hsICggF29pATrs=
=1Tx5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:



I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages make
it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have to
ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows cd's


Hey, Nick, you're our kind of guy!  Many people complain that Debian 
isn't a good intro system for Linux.  It's too hard to get it working 
(so they say).  I started with a Debian system (Corel Linux) and while 
the Corel part was junked fairly quickly, I've never been sorry I chose 
Debian.


So, as people have told you, any currently (or even not so current) 
available processor should be usable.  The tricky bits are the video and 
modems.  You seem to have the video worked out, but modems...  So many 
are Winmodems that it becomes important to check for compatibility first.


My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you
slight
head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
too).

--
derek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 08:05 AM 4/9/02, Nick wrote:

Michael
Why do you think I am making the transition to Debian Linux, I have had
enough of WINDOWS! I want to stop using Windows because the multitude of
Viruses seem to be tailor made for "Windows"! Even the best Security
software doesn't stop viruses from infiltrating a Windows system and
Antivirus programs and firewalls such as Norton seem to just make hackers
all the more determined to attack a Windows computer because there are so
many free tools to hack Windows.

I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages make
it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have to
ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows cd's.

Nick


Not Michael, I'm Chris. Hardware requirements is a thing of the MS Windows
world. Newer versions of MS Windows usually have issues running on older
boxes. That's not the problem you have to watch out for with Debian (or Linux
in general). The only hardware gotchas you have to worry about are
Win-Modems and brand new hardware that doesn't have drivers for linux yet.

Running a Linux box doesn't mean that they try less to crack you box. I think
that they try harder. There are viruses that hit linux (about 1 every 2 
years) but

there are a lot more Trojan horses, and people trying to find back doors into
your system.

Chris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Nick]

Michael
Why do you think I am making the transition to Debian Linux, I have had
enough of WINDOWS! I want to stop using Windows because the multitude of
Viruses seem to be tailor made for "Windows"! Even the best Security
software doesn't stop viruses from infiltrating a Windows system and
Antivirus programs and firewalls such as Norton seem to just make hackers
all the more determined to attack a Windows computer because there are so
many free tools to hack Windows.

I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages make
it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have to
ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows cd's.

Nick


- Original Message -
From: "Chris Jenks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Debian PC Requirements


> At 06:26 AM 4/9/02, Michal Melewski wrote:
> > > Basically Nick this isn't windows. It will run on what every you want
> > it to.
> > > I'm not sure if it will run on a 286 or a 8086, but I'm pretty sure no
one
> > > has
> > > those sitting around anywhere (well I do, but they're not being used).
> >I'm sure it won't :)
> >Linux can't be run on machines weaker then 386 because 286 didn't have
> >'protected mode'. (i'm not sure whether it's proper name but...)
>
> I thought I saw somewhere on the web that the old ATARI's had a port.
> (I have one of those sitting in the basement too. Atari 800lx).
>
> My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
> be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you
slight
> head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
> too).
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Pappu]

On Tuesday, 9 April 2002 06:11:47 -0400, Chris Jenks wrote:
 > I'm not sure if it will run on a 286 or a 8086,
It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
(Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
Intel. 

bye,
pappu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Howells]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 09 April 2002 12:11 pm, Pappu wrote:

> It requires at least  a 386 to run. The kernel  of the GNU/Linux system
> (Linux) is a 32  bit kernel and 386 is the start  of 32 bit chips from
> Intel.

For the sake of completeness, I will point out that this in incorrect.

http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8su0gF8Iu1zN5WiwRAnoJAJ9Ikf0jrL1UWQIMRxk8gQ7kEjhxCgCfY7xm
MTEw+viN1hsICggF29pATrs=
=1Tx5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Derek Broughton]

Nick wrote:


> I am very new to Debian, I have had some success with Redhat but I like
> Debian, its ease of installation and all the great tools and packages make
> it a very sexy package and it's FREE! But if I am ever to learn I have to
> ask questions or else I will never be in a position to bin my Windows cd's

Hey, Nick, you're our kind of guy!  Many people complain that Debian 
isn't a good intro system for Linux.  It's too hard to get it working 
(so they say).  I started with a Debian system (Corel Linux) and while 
the Corel part was junked fairly quickly, I've never been sorry I chose 
Debian.

So, as people have told you, any currently (or even not so current) 
available processor should be usable.  The tricky bits are the video and 
modems.  You seem to have the video worked out, but modems...  So many 
are Winmodems that it becomes important to check for compatibility first.
>>
>>My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
>>be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you
>>slight
>>head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
>>too).
--
derek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 06:26 AM 4/9/02, Michal Melewski wrote:
> Basically Nick this isn't windows. It will run on what every you want 
it to.

> I'm not sure if it will run on a 286 or a 8086, but I'm pretty sure no one
> has
> those sitting around anywhere (well I do, but they're not being used).
I'm sure it won't :)
Linux can't be run on machines weaker then 386 because 286 didn't have
'protected mode'. (i'm not sure whether it's proper name but...)


I thought I saw somewhere on the web that the old ATARI's had a port.
(I have one of those sitting in the basement too. Atari 800lx).

My point in the email was: if you can buy it on the market, you should
be able to run Debian on it. Only the cutting edge stuff will give you slight
head aches from lack of drivers. (Well win-modems will cause head aches
too).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Michal Melewski]

> Basically Nick this isn't windows. It will run on what every you want it to.
> I'm not sure if it will run on a 286 or a 8086, but I'm pretty sure no one 
> has
> those sitting around anywhere (well I do, but they're not being used).
I'm sure it won't :)
Linux can't be run on machines weaker then 386 because 286 didn't have
'protected mode'. (i'm not sure whether it's proper name but...)


-- 
Michael "carstein" Melewski  |  "One day, he said, in a taped segment   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]|   that suggested chemical interrogation,
mobile: 502 545 913  |   everything had gone gray."
gpg: carstein.c.pl/carstein.txt  |   -- Corto , 'Neuromancer'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian PC Requirements

[Chris Jenks]

At 05:56 AM 4/9/02, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:

On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 12:50, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Basically, if you have a 386 PC with 300 MB of hard disk
> space and 16 MB of memory or anything higher, then you'll be fine.

Just one clarification: Such a machine will definately not run fast, and
some programs will not fit all at once. But that's fine for a basic
setup.


Basically Nick this isn't windows. It will run on what every you want it to.
I'm not sure if it will run on a 286 or a 8086, but I'm pretty sure no one has
those sitting around anywhere (well I do, but they're not being used).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]