On ', 2003-09-21 at 19:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:43:49 +0300,
Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However under 2.4 its already working quite nicely.
some people do get some trouble at times, but its quite stable. I
suspend and
On ', 2003-09-11 at 13:39, Tim Connors wrote:
Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:33:32 +0300:
Actually those are all the things that converted me to linux. Windows
kept failing on me in all those respect every monday and thursday.
I don't know what I am doing wrong,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:43:49 +0300,
Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However under 2.4 its already working quite nicely.
some people do get some trouble at times, but its quite stable. I
suspend and resume several dozen times without problems, by that time
on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:20:24AM +0200, Nicos Gollan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
IMO the whole X(free) system needs a healthy kick in the butt. It's
one of the main factors in keeping Linux away from the desktop, not
just lacking in performance and features, but also a royal PITA to
on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:51:22PM +0200, Yves Goergen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:00 PM CET, Erik Steffl wrote:
btw the overhead of client/server isn't anything that one needs to
be concerned about even on 386 (X with reasonable WM performs
same/better
]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?
on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:51:22PM +0200, Yves Goergen
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:00 PM CET, Erik Steffl wrote:
btw the overhead of client/server isn't anything
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:00, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:01:19AM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
Second is the fact that most people just use the OS they get with their
computer and are afraid to try and replace it. Plus, they already paid
for the M$ license (even if
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
fonts. So, if you have a new font, you may need to tell
OpenOffice.org about it, X about it, GS about it
This is gradually getting better now that we have fontconfig, which
hopefully gives all the info all apps needs, but to
there are some really petty people on this list.
which is a shame.
--
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Meyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2003 3:52 PM
To: Debian-User
Subject: Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003, Joyce
At Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:41:05 +1000 ,
Joyce, Matthew wrote:
Uh, no, what's keeping Linux away from the desktop is the
lack of APPLICATIONS. Joe Public couldn't care less about X,
or anything else, as long as it works. The idiot gamers
aside, X is plenty for what Joe Public needs in a
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:02, Neal Lippman wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
Nope, runs fine here and in production environments.
Way back when, probably around 1996 or 1997, I first tried to install
Linux. Back then, I tried distro's
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 05:40, Scott C. Linnenbringer wrote:
On 01 Sep 2003 18:02:27 -0400, Neal Lippman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A few months ago, I decided to put debian on my old Laptop, an IBM
Thinkpad 770ED (PII-266, 64MB Ram). Once again, with KDE running, the
desktop was so
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 07:00, csj wrote:
At Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:32:19 -0700,
Marc Wilson wrote:
Feel free to hit 'd' now, if you like, what follows is an
opinion piece that apparently no one at all agrees with, given
the state of the community
I'm sorry. I pressed the wrong key.
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neal Lippman declaimed:
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
Way back when, probably around 1996 or 1997, I first tried to install
Linux. Back then, I tried distro's from Corel and
At Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:01:19 +0300,
Micha Feigin wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 07:00, csj wrote:
Indesign, a program for Joe Public?! Come on, how many Joe and
Jane Public's are there who would be interested in doing
high-quality layouts for outputs to color-separting film setters?
We
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 15:04, Yves Goergen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:42 PM CET, Nicos Gollan wrote:
Windows OTOH was designed (and please don't start arguing whether
designed is the right term... we all know what we think about that
;-) ) to provide a nice UI on a relatively
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 18:01, Micha Feigin wrote:
The main problem I see with linux is the lack of commercial programs.
Unfortunately for some stuff there is no way around it. For commercial
quality image/video processing for example there is no alternative at
the moment, or places where you
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:01:19AM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
Second is the fact that most people just use the OS they get with their
computer and are afraid to try and replace it. Plus, they already paid
for the M$ license (even if forcefully/unknowingly) so why switch to a
free one after you
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:20, Nicos Gollan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 00:02, Neal Lippman wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
It's not X eating resources like mad, it's the way desktop environments
forcing it to do things
Neal Lippman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This does still beg the question of how Win95/98/Me/NT, etc, managed to
provide a reasonable desktop when KDE/Gnome could not, however.
I don't think either KDE or Gnome tries too hard at optimizing for
older machines.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL
Neal Lippman wrote:
...
Well, most replies to my posting have pinned the blame on KDE and
Gnome rather than X per se. I'll have to reinstall on the laptop and see
how it looks with a more minimal WM.
I hope you're not reinstalling just to change the WM...
This does still beg the
Feel free to hit 'd' now, if you like, what follows is an opinion piece
that apparently no one at all agrees with, given the state of the
community
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:20:24AM +0200, Nicos Gollan wrote:
IMO the whole X(free) system needs a healthy kick in the butt. It's one of the
On 01 Sep 2003 18:02:27 -0400, Neal Lippman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A few months ago, I decided to put debian on my old Laptop, an IBM
Thinkpad 770ED (PII-266, 64MB Ram). Once again, with KDE running, the
desktop was so slow and unresponsive as to be really unusable (except
in an xterm
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:32:19 -0700, Marc Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, no, what's keeping Linux away from the desktop is the lack of
APPLICATIONS. Joe Public couldn't care less about X, or anything
else, as long as it works. The idiot gamers aside, X is plenty for
what Joe Public
Neal Lippman declaimed:
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
Way back when, probably around 1996 or 1997, I first tried to install
Linux. Back then, I tried distro's from Corel and Redhat. My system was
a Pentium 133 with 48 (and then 96) MB
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:32, Marc Wilson wrote:
[snip]
p.s. you're paying way too much for that cheap shit you're smoking.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 07:55:53AM +, benfoley wrote:
p.s. you're paying way too much for that cheap shit you're smoking.
Like I said, do the advocates ever listen to themselves?
--
Marc Wilson | Let he who takes the plunge remember to return it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | by Tuesday.
On Monday 01 September 2003 22:46, Michael Heironimus wrote:
[snip]
If you want to run X on an older machine you should pick out a basic
window manager you like and use that. If you're really stuck on the idea
of a desktop environment you could also try XFce. Decide what it is that
you think
At Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:32:19 -0700,
Marc Wilson wrote:
Feel free to hit 'd' now, if you like, what follows is an
opinion piece that apparently no one at all agrees with, given
the state of the community
I'm sorry. I pressed the wrong key.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:20:24AM +0200, Nicos
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:00, csj wrote:
Some ex-X coders have already forked XFree86. There's already an
established dri project at sourceforge which is responsible for
creating the more bleeding edge 3D support for X (note the use of the
relative more).
Judging from all the pother
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:56, Erik Steffl wrote:
X is GREAT. just because a particular combination of
software/hardware doesn't work well (too slow) doesn't mean there's a
need to throw out the baby with the...
X is really good at what it was built to be. It provides an interface to
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:17, benfoley wrote:
as desktops, kde and gnome are complete hogs, both of which seem
obsessively determined to win a race that no-one beyond their developers
needs to give a rat's ass about. xfce is good. icewm is even less of a
resource drain, and fluxbox is
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:42 PM CET, Nicos Gollan wrote:
Windows OTOH was designed (and please don't start arguing whether
designed is the right term... we all know what we think about that
;-) ) to provide a nice UI on a relatively powerful workstation
without the whole overhead of a
At 2003-09-02T12:04:40Z, Yves Goergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see? All those things, a nice, responsive UI, that font management
that actually works, all those little things keep me with Windows (XP for
that part) for my desktop.
You can get all that from a Unix terminal, too - I use a
Marc Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
InDesign or the equivalent (and TeX ain't it either),
Well, there's Pagestream, but it's commercial. I haven't used it on
Linux, but I have on other platforms and it's a nice piece of work.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am the rocks.
Lost Carrier?
Nicos Gollan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:56, Erik Steffl wrote:
X is GREAT. just because a particular combination of
software/hardware doesn't work well (too slow) doesn't mean there's a
need to throw out the baby with the...
X is really good at what it was built to be. It provides
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:00 PM CET, Erik Steffl wrote:
btw the overhead of client/server isn't anything that one needs to
be concerned about even on 386 (X with reasonable WM performs
same/better
as windows)
Could be, yes (I don't know). Just as a note, Windows has the same
Excuse my ignorance but couldn't the problem (at least in some part) lie in
the fact that everything is coded/compiled for a 386? Surely code could at
least run more efficiently with code that is compiled to use things like MMX,
MMX2 and 3Dnow technology? I find it insane that I'm gonna have to
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:00, Erik Steffl wrote:
why? it's true that in _some_ cases X isn't the _best_ performer but
in general I find it much better than windows, mostly because of
flexibility.
You've made better experiences than I did, then... On each and every system I
had the
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:51 PM CET, Yves Goergen wrote:
So what libraries do I have to install (I guess I already have them
all) and what's the correct value for $DISPLAY ?
Ha! *big-grin* I got it...
Just looking around in Webmin to find the Samba config and - zak - I found
the SSH
Nicos Gollan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:00, Erik Steffl wrote:
why? it's true that in _some_ cases X isn't the _best_ performer but
in general I find it much better than windows, mostly because of
flexibility.
You've made better experiences than I did, then... On each and every
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:51, Yves Goergen wrote:
I have set up a debian Linux box and would like to run X applications on
it. I haven't installed nor run the X server on the Linux machine itself,
but I'd like to tunnel the X connection through SSH. That works fine for my
account at
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:59, Wayne Gemmell wrote:
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
311 root 18 0 149M 148M 696 S 0.9 59.4 5:08 cupsd
1870 wayne 10 0 40260 38M 30272 S 0.0 15.5 0:04 soffice.bin
1916 wayne 9 0
Sorry for the separate post, but I found it too late...
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:51, Yves Goergen wrote:
And a question just of interest: Is there something like a global clipboard
in Linux as we know it from Windows? I mean not only per application, but
shared by the entire system (or
Yves Goergen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:00 PM CET, Erik Steffl wrote:
btw the overhead of client/server isn't anything that one needs to
be concerned about even on 386 (X with reasonable WM performs
same/better
as windows)
Could be, yes (I don't know). Just as a note, Windows has
Yves Goergen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:51 PM CET, Yves Goergen wrote:
So what libraries do I have to install (I guess I already have them
all) and what's the correct value for $DISPLAY ?
Ha! *big-grin* I got it...
Just looking around in Webmin to find the Samba config and - zak -
I'm really sorry for having started this one. I'll try to keep out of this
discussion after this one and maybe we can let it die in peace ;-)
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 22:15, Erik Steffl wrote:
- QT seems to have some serious issues (google for kde konsole fonts).
that's possible but
This doesn't look as if soffice.bin (StarOffice?) was the culprit, it's
rather a problem with CUPS (close to 60% memory used by this process
alone). Are you trying to print some color pictures on an inkjet printer?
That's a pretty memory consuming task since the picture would be rasterized
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no central font management. For some time now, X seems to
support
what do you mean? you have font server (standalone or just use X
server). how much more central can you get? BTW AFAIK there's no
way to have standalone fontserver for
At Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:31:21 +0200,
Nicos Gollan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:00, csj wrote:
Some ex-X coders have already forked XFree86. There's already an
established dri project at sourceforge which is responsible for
creating the more bleeding edge 3D support for X (note
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:09:53PM -0400, Neal Lippman wrote:
| what would be the obstacle [...] for a new graphics paradigm to sit
| atop Linux?
You already listed the obstacles.
Anyways, FWIW here are some projects attempting to redesign how
graphics are handled :
http://www.directfb.org/
Wayne Gemmell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Thats almost all my memory gone. I'm thinking of downloading koffice
just to do day to day things because if I tr load any other programs
the system becomes unbearable!
Just a warning: don't mind trying to export a kspread sheet to some
other
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Michael Heironimus wrote:
X usually doesn't need much CPU power, as long as you have a reasonably
well-supported video card. Your problem is that you're running GNOME and
KDE, which are huge, bloated, and slow (and I'm being kind in saying
that). They have been for a long
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 14:32, Marc Wilson wrote:
But as long as there aren't equivalents to Photoshop (and I'm sorry, but
Gimp ain't it, not while it doesn't do something basic like CYMK), InDesign
or the equivalent (and TeX ain't it either), Office (yes, OOo may be there
someday, but it isn't
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:09:53PM -0400, Neal Lippman wrote:
| what would be the obstacle [...] for a new graphics paradigm to sit
| atop Linux?
You already listed the obstacles.
Anyways, FWIW here are some projects attempting to redesign how
graphics are handled :
Uh, no, what's keeping Linux away from the desktop is the
lack of APPLICATIONS. Joe Public couldn't care less about X,
or anything else, as long as it works. The idiot gamers
aside, X is plenty for what Joe Public needs in a graphical
environment as long as he can move windows around
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
There have been computer games for as long as there have been computers.
[quibble]
The first computers were not driven by electricity.
Why don't you take a history lesson first before commenting on computers
and computer games?
[/quibble]
--
Nifty
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
Way back when, probably around 1996 or 1997, I first tried to install
Linux. Back then, I tried distro's from Corel and Redhat. My system was
a Pentium 133 with 48 (and then 96) MB Ram. This system ran both Win 95
Maybe the
problem is KDE and not X - but I had similar trouble with Gnome, so it
isn't just a KDE issue.
hmm.. both Gnome and KDE are... BIG
I mean they consume alot of resources
I don't know exactly why.. but on my Duron 800mhz with 512 Mb Ram
KDE was kinda bulky too...
so I installed and am
On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:02 AM CET, Neal Lippman wrote:
So, my question is: Why does X seem to need so much more CPU power
than windows - such that systems I have tried to use that worked fine
with various windows flavors just were unusable with KDE loaded? I
assume the problem isn't
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 00:02, Neal Lippman wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone has any info on why X seems to need so much
CPU power?
It's not X eating resources like mad, it's the way desktop environments
forcing it to do things that it was never meant to do.It was never meant to
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:02:27PM -0400, Neal Lippman wrote:
Linux, any sort of desktop - eg Gnome or KDE, not a vanilla WM) was just
so slow as to be unusable. Eventually I gave up for a while and went
snip
Thinkpad 770ED (PII-266, 64MB Ram). Once again, with KDE running, the
desktop was so
62 matches
Mail list logo
