On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:29 -0800, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Friday, 06 February 2009, at 16:40:28 (-0200),
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>
> > Sorry! I was trying to give the sense that all applications would
> > get this priority. Maybe have a textblock explaining why it is
> > useful?
>
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:29:28 -0800 Michael Jennings said:
> On Friday, 06 February 2009, at 16:40:28 (-0200),
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>
> > Sorry! I was trying to give the sense that all applications would
> > get this priority. Maybe have a textblock explaining why it is
> > useful?
>
On Friday, 06 February 2009, at 16:40:28 (-0200),
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> Sorry! I was trying to give the sense that all applications would
> get this priority. Maybe have a textblock explaining why it is
> useful?
Perhaps a different verbiage altogether would be more clear? "Child
Pro
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Friday, 06 February 2009, at 14:35:21 (-0200),
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>
>> I'd make "Application Priority" plural, like "Applications Priority".
>
> That would be grammatically incorrect.
Sorry! I was trying to give the sense
On Friday, 06 February 2009, at 14:35:21 (-0200),
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> I'd make "Application Priority" plural, like "Applications Priority".
That would be grammatically incorrect.
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.g
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:50 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:37:35 +0100 Viktor Kojouharov
> said:
>
>> Continuing from the previous discussion on this topic, someone suggested
>> that the nice level for app execution should be configurable.
>>
>> I've attached a
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:37:35 +0100 Viktor Kojouharov
said:
> Continuing from the previous discussion on this topic, someone suggested
> that the nice level for app execution should be configurable.
>
> I've attached a patch that does this, so if there are no complaints,
> I'll commit it soon.
s
Continuing from the previous discussion on this topic, someone suggested
that the nice level for app execution should be configurable.
I've attached a patch that does this, so if there are no complaints,
I'll commit it soon.
Index: src/bin/e_config.c
===
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:05:00 -0200 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
> babbled:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Steve Jones
>> wrote:
>>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Frederick Reeve wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 200
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:05:00 -0200 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
babbled:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Steve Jones
> wrote:
> > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Frederick Reeve wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:54:52 -0200
> >>> "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Frederick Reeve wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:54:52 -0200
>>> "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri" wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
>>>
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Frederick Reeve wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:54:52 -0200
>> "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:15:25 +1030 "Graham Gowe
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Frederick Reeve wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:54:52 -0200
> "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:15:25 +1030 "Graham Gower"
>> > babbled:
>> > n.b. - i didn't
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:54:52 -0200
"Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:15:25 +1030 "Graham Gower"
> > babbled:
> > n.b. - i didn't notice this as i use "low power automatic" (conservative)
> > gover
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:15:25 +1030 "Graham Gower"
> babbled:
> n.b. - i didn't notice this as i use "low power automatic" (conservative)
> governor - it doesnt clock up as much as automatic does - but it will for
> sustained c
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:15:25 +1030 "Graham Gower"
babbled:
> 2009/1/8 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> >
> > I really dislike such governor option for the same reason Matthew
> > Garrett: the faster you finish the task, the less power you use, less
> > time with hot cpu... even less time hd spinning (
2009/1/8 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
>
> I really dislike such governor option for the same reason Matthew
> Garrett: the faster you finish the task, the less power you use, less
> time with hot cpu... even less time hd spinning (for io+cpu bound
> tasks, like compile).
That's entirely the point th
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Viktor Kojouharov wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:10 -0200, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was using E17 with the new Ubuntu 8.10 and realized that the cpu
>> frequency wasn't scaling. Then I checked that with gnome and even
>> without a window manager an
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:10 -0200, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was using E17 with the new Ubuntu 8.10 and realized that the cpu
> frequency wasn't scaling. Then I checked that with gnome and even
> without a window manager and it worked fine.
>
> Well, it seems that E always starts its c
19 matches
Mail list logo
