Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
sounds about right [took me that long as well] perhaps installing precompiled binaries? it might be faster? On Saturday 28 June 2003 11:23 am, Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... Thanks Joe ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
Joe Pokupec wrote: I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? X is huge and bloated. CDE was a graphic user environment designed by a committee of Unix vendors: Sun had NeWS, OpenWindows, Motif/MWM and CDE choose the latter rather than either of the former, HP had HP/UX and that wretched bottom center console thing [a poor clone of the CMU 'wmc' console under Andrew], who else? AIX 'smit'? Anyway, since then, CDE has pursued the goal of emulating aspects of the M$ Windows GUI. KDE is the open source project attempting provide a familiar end-user desktop. Which is a much kinder way of saying they're inheriting much of the mess found by emulating the X/Open Group/SCO/whomever-owed CDE emulating Win 98. Did I mention Qt yet? Anyway, KDE and all of the dependencies can take a really long time to build. [ I will not rant about X's lack of a unified imaging model and the screen vs. printing issue. Or about font mechanisms, or alpha blending. The KDE Project does a good job considering what it is they are working with. Apropos: in the movie, The Highlander, the apology made in Connor MacLeod's famous duel on Boston Common...? :-) ] -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 03:14:23PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: X is huge and bloated. CDE was a graphic user environment designed by a committee of Unix vendors: Sun had NeWS, OpenWindows, Motif/MWM and CDE choose the latter rather than either of the former, HP had HP/UX and that wretched bottom center console thing [a poor clone of the CMU 'wmc' console under Andrew], who else? AIX 'smit'? Anyway, since then, CDE has pursued the goal of emulating aspects of the M$ Windows GUI. AIX smit makes X huge and bloated? Smit is an application which runs either curses or X for display purposes. It is certainly not to blame for X being bloated. Marc -- Marc Wiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that really is my last name. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
Marc Wiz wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 03:14:23PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: X is huge and bloated. CDE was a graphic user environment designed by a committee of Unix vendors: Sun had NeWS, OpenWindows, Motif/MWM and CDE choose the latter rather than either of the former, HP had HP/UX and that wretched bottom center console thing [a poor clone of the CMU 'wmc' console under Andrew], who else? AIX 'smit'? Anyway, since then, CDE has pursued the goal of emulating aspects of the M$ Windows GUI. AIX smit makes X huge and bloated? Smit is an application which runs either curses or X for display purposes. It is certainly not to blame for X being bloated. No: MIT is to blame for X being huge and bloated. I was wondering what other blighted aspects of various vendor OS'es that I could point to that reminded me of the first impression I got of CDE, and 'smit' was what came to mind when I considered AIX. To put it mildly, I'd rather have seperate dedicated tools than a jumbo swiss-army knife. That way, I'd have lots of tools which actually do their particular job well, rather than single tool which doesn't do anything at all particularly well. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... Thanks Joe Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 04:07:58PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: AIX smit makes X huge and bloated? Smit is an application which runs either curses or X for display purposes. It is certainly not to blame for X being bloated. No: MIT is to blame for X being huge and bloated. I was wondering what other blighted aspects of various vendor OS'es that I could point to that reminded me of the first impression I got of CDE, and 'smit' was what came to mind when I considered AIX. To put it mildly, I'd rather have seperate dedicated tools than a jumbo swiss-army knife. That way, I'd have lots of tools which actually do their particular job well, rather than single tool which doesn't do anything at all particularly well. I don't wish to get too deep into this since it is off topic for the list but I will for right now. I have worked with smit quite a bit both as a user and as a developer developing and fixing smit menus. If you would take a look under the covers you would find it uses lots of tools to do it's job. In some ways smit is a glorified command wrapper. And it is quite a good one at that. As I mentioned earlier you have two choices for smit; the curses interface and the Motif one. (You probably have a web based interface but I'm not sure about that) Smit does do it's job quite well. I would like to know the reasoning that it does not do anything particularly well. If there is something you don't like you can customize and/or change it's behaviour. I have used similar tools like HP's SAM, whatever ATT called theirs when SYSVr4 came out and linuxconf. While I smit is the only one of those tools I know a great deal about none of those other tools come close to doing what smit does. For any further discussion we should take this off the list unless somehow it has a bearing on FreeBSD. Marc -- Marc Wiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that really is my last name. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 04:07:18PM -0500, Marc Wiz wrote: ... I have worked with smit quite a bit both as a user and as a developer developing and fixing smit menus. If you would take a look under the covers you would find it uses lots of tools to do it's job. In some ways smit is a glorified command wrapper. And it is quite a good one at that. I think one of the nicest features of smit is that it (a) shows the commands it's going to execute, and (b) logs them which can be useful for understanding what's going on under the covers and scripting things that are done frequently. As I mentioned earlier you have two choices for smit; the curses interface and the Motif one. (You probably have a web based interface but I'm not sure about that) Curses interfaces are great. It's one of the things I really like about yast2 in the SuSE 8.[12] Linux distributions. I often run the curses interface when doing remote maintenance over fairly slow links. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war and they are screened at once from scrutiny ... In war, then, as in peace, assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark of all our rights and privileges. -- William Ellery Channing ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
RedHat installs KDE as binary packages, wheres FreeBSD ports compiles everything from source. If you want to install the binary package for FreeBSD, either use /stand/sysinstall or pkg_add(1). More information is also in the handbook. Han Hwei Woo http://www.argosy.ca/~hhw - Original Message - From: Joe Pokupec [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Free BSD List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:59 PM Subject: Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE? Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... Thanks Joe Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
The reason the bsd port takes longer to build is that it has to be compiled first. Redhat uses pre-compiled binaries (the rpm). You can download packages under FreeBSD - I like compiling from the ports so that I am certain I get it linked against the right version of the libraries. I used to start a compilation of kde before going on vacation though, it took easily 15 hours on a duron 700. I have switched to fluxbox since, which takes under 5 minutes to compile and install and does what I need :) Nick On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:59:36PM -0800, Joe Pokupec wrote: Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... Thanks Joe Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
KDE is not part of Freebsd! I takes about 5 minutes to install FBSD on my machine! If you're referring to kde taking so long to install, it's because it has to build first from source. If you were to install kde from source in RH9 I'm sure it would take that much time also. The reason it installs fast in RH9 is because it installs from a binary file (which is already compiled), you can also install kde in less than 10 minutes in FreeBSD if you use the package system, just use /stand/sysinstall or pkg_add, read the section on it on the handbook. Joe Pokupec wrote: Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... Thanks Joe Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
This is the funniest thing I have ever read Bill, hilarious. You just made my day :-D Anyways, Bill along with all the other guys are right, it's huge which is why it takes so long to compile, however if you install it through /stand/sysinstall it'll take like 10 minutes to install because it's precompiled for that version of FreeBSD. Dave - Original Message - From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joe Pokupec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Free BSD List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE? Joe Pokupec wrote: Hi All, I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a: What are these machines? Processor? RAM? make install clean after reading tfm. The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text is scrolling by... On both machines... Is there something I should know? Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ... if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time) The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile. I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary, but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time... I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to another console on one of the machines and run top to get an idea of what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build. disclaimer I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's policy will cover it. I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building. (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!) Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited. /disclaimer -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:59:36PM -0800, Joe Pokupec wrote: Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? If you're willing to use FreeBSD's precompiled packages (which are available on the CDs), the install time can take about 15-45 minutes as well. FreeBSD packages are the equivalent for Redhat's RPMs; and can be generated from the ports system. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Once is dumb luck. Twice is coincidence. Three times and Somebody Is Trying To Tell You Something. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 11 Hour Installs on KDE?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:59:36 -0800 Joe Pokupec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Guys, Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)... RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15 hours (and counting)? lol, very simply... If it is taking 15 minutes to install it is not compiling any thing or very little. I would suggest you use /stand/sysinstall or pkg_add to install KDE if you are worried about time. If you want a quick install the pkg_add is the way to go, but it should be noted that this is not very pretty since it is not heavily optimized. I personally like optimizing every thing with either -O2 or -O3. This takes awhile, but for the most part it has been worth it, from my experience. The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
