On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 06:52:29PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Jan Stary [h...@stare.cz] wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 23 14:50:44, ch...@nmedia.net wrote:
> > > Without a dmesg, Xorg.log, and those sort of things,
> > > how can anyone possibly give you a clue?
> > >
> > > With KMS and such, there ar
Kevin Chadwick [ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk] wrote:
> > Under X, KMS performance should be faster on a lot of
> > hardware. The whole point of KMS is to bring modern, better
> > supported drivers to OpenBSD (and get rid of the crappy X
> > security model).
>
> I hope that's true but I think the most im
> Under X, KMS performance should be faster on a lot of
> hardware. The whole point of KMS is to bring modern, better
> supported drivers to OpenBSD (and get rid of the crappy X
> security model).
I hope that's true but I think the most important point is that it is
slower because it is so much s
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Paul de Weerd [we...@weirdnet.nl] wrote:
> >
> > Probably the updates to your (now graphical) terminal. Time is spent
> > updating the frame buffer. Consider it a feature: you can now
> > (better) read along with what's happening ;)
> >
Paul de Weerd [we...@weirdnet.nl] wrote:
>
> Probably the updates to your (now graphical) terminal. Time is spent
> updating the frame buffer. Consider it a feature: you can now
> (better) read along with what's happening ;)
>
> A workaround is to start processes that produce lots of output in
Jan Stary [h...@stare.cz] wrote:
>
> On Sep 23 14:50:44, ch...@nmedia.net wrote:
> > Without a dmesg, Xorg.log, and those sort of things,
> > how can anyone possibly give you a clue?
> >
> > With KMS and such, there are major changes
> > which may impact some hardware more than others.
>
> This
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:40:57PM +0200, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
| > Why is this and what can I do about it?
Probably the updates to your (now graphical) terminal. Time is spent
updating the frame buffer. Consider it a feature: you can now
(better) read along with what's happening
Jan Stary [h...@stare.cz] wrote:
> Since some time ago, the text console seems to be very slow.
>
> if I stay in the xterm window, it takes forever.
>
> This is happening in both the text console and an xterm,
> with or without running tmux (so I don't think it's tmux's fault).
>
> Why is this a
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:25:36PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> Since some time ago, the text console seems to be very slow.
Since the change to KMS. Linux has the same problem.
>
> For example, a compilation of a TeX file takes very long if run
> just like `tex file.tex'; but when run as 'tex file
Since some time ago, the text console seems to be very slow.
For example, a compilation of a TeX file takes very long if run
just like `tex file.tex'; but when run as 'tex file.tex > /dev/null',
it gets much faster, presumably by not having to do the textual output.
Similarly for a lengthy ./confi
10 matches
Mail list logo
