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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
