Sorry if this is a dup, I wasn't properly subscribed to test, so I wanted to repeat this message for laptop users if it didn't go through.
Yeah, I know beta two is out. :)
I just installed beta 1 (9.0.93) on a Tecra 8200. The first few times it would hang at /sbin/loader (I think) - right before the graphical mode started up. I tried the 'nofb' option, but that didn't work. I then passed the following into the command line:
linux nofb pci=off
and the install start working correctly. I had to answer 'no' to 'have driver disk', and 'no' to 'load driver' when new devices were found on boot.
I also had to change my boot into level 3, and disable pcmcia, since that service was hanging and preventing me from booting. I haven't tried any devices in pcmcia yet, so I don't know if it will work or not. After that, everything booted fine. I ran startx, and X started correctly.
My next question is 'where's gnome 2.4'? How do I get it?
Thanks! -Frank
===== - Frank Merenda Author - Uptime - http://www.steidler.net/uptime/ -a community based Linux blog and newsletter- Registered Linux User #234428 - http://counter.li.org webmaster - Humane Society of Jackson County - http://www.hsjc.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
I just installed Beta2 on my Dell Latitude CPx750 without any problems. Whats so cool about laptop installs is that you can swap out hard drives really easy. I have a hard drive just for this purpose.
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Byte
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 19:36, Frank Merenda wrote:
Sorry if this is a dup, I wasn't properly subscribed to test, so I wanted to repeat this message for laptop users if it didn't go through.
Yeah, I know beta two is out. :)
I just installed beta 1 (9.0.93) on a Tecra 8200. The first few times it would hang at /sbin/loader (I think) - right before the graphical mode started up. I tried the 'nofb' option, but that didn't work. I then passed the following into the command line:
linux nofb pci=off
and the install start working correctly. I had to answer 'no' to 'have driver disk', and 'no' to 'load driver' when new devices were found on boot.
I also had to change my boot into level 3, and disable pcmcia, since that service was hanging and preventing me from booting. I haven't tried any devices in pcmcia yet, so I don't know if it will work or not. After that, everything booted fine. I ran startx, and X started correctly.
My next question is 'where's gnome 2.4'? How do I get it?
Thanks! -Frank
=====
- Frank Merenda
Author - Uptime - http://www.steidler.net/uptime/ -a community based Linux blog and newsletter- Registered Linux User #234428 - http://counter.li.org webmaster - Humane Society of Jackson County - http://www.hsjc.com
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 00:15, ByteEnable wrote:
I just installed Beta2 on my Dell Latitude CPx750 without any problems. Whats so cool about laptop installs is that you can swap out hard drives really easy. I have a hard drive just for this purpose.
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Not just you. I've noticed it too.
-sv
seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 00:15, ByteEnable wrote:
I just installed Beta2 on my Dell Latitude CPx750 without any problems. Whats so cool about laptop installs is that you can swap out hard drives really easy. I have a hard drive just for this purpose.
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Not just you. I've noticed it too.
-sv
me too - which makes me happy coz rh9 is a bit of a slugger on my machine. pantz
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Not just you. I've noticed it too.
me too - which makes me happy coz rh9 is a bit of a slugger on my machine.
Any information on what may be behind the performance improvements?
Smaller binaries (hence less disk I/O)? More efficient app init (esp GNOME/KDE)? Memory footprint reduction? Compiler changes? (insert other blind guesses here)
I'm interested, as much as anything to know whether it actually affects me (long-time XFCE4 user, don't like GNOME/KDE).
Craig Ringer
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 09:57, Craig Ringer wrote:
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Not just you. I've noticed it too.
me too - which makes me happy coz rh9 is a bit of a slugger on my machine.
Any information on what may be behind the performance improvements?
Smaller binaries (hence less disk I/O)? More efficient app init (esp GNOME/KDE)? Memory footprint reduction? Compiler changes? (insert other blind guesses here)
I'm interested, as much as anything to know whether it actually affects me (long-time XFCE4 user, don't like GNOME/KDE).
Any gains in interative "feel" between Red Hat Linux 9 and Beta2 are very likely kernel changes. A compiler change that sped everything up 10% would be close to a miracle, and wouldn't have a noticeable effect on most operations.
GNOME and KDE have not undergone any fundemental changes since RHL 9 (GNOME 2.2 => GNOME 2.4 is mostly features in individual apps.)
Changes in kernel scheduling and VM/IO policy can have quite a noticeable effect on overall feel; unfortunately, a gain in one place may well be a loss somewhere else... it's not something that can be easily quantified and measured.
Regards, Owen
Any information on what may be behind the performance improvements? [snip] I'm interested, as much as anything to know whether it actually affects me (long-time XFCE4 user, don't like GNOME/KDE).
Any gains in interative "feel" between Red Hat Linux 9 and Beta2 are very likely kernel changes. A compiler change that sped everything up 10% would be close to a miracle, and wouldn't have a noticeable effect on most operations.
[snip]
Thanks for the info. I was rather curious, and appreciate the response.
BTW, I've noticed quite apalling performance penalties on all my machines that appear to stem from freetype/xft2. Setting GDK_USE_XFT=0 can in many cases massively increase the percieved responsiveness of apps. It appears to be text rendering - while text can be very slow, image handling in, say, the GIMP remains as snappy as ever. Switching back to a virtual desktop (well, view anyway) with a maximised mozilla is a good way to tell - you can watch it (quickly) redraw. Disabling xft2 support in mozilla makes it too fast to see.
I've observed the issue in RH8, RH9, and the new beta. It happens on both local and network X11, with varying video chipsets, resolutions, and X server configurations. I see issues with all sorts of machines - a Pentium 133 thin client (S3 Trio), a 300MHz PC-104 NSC Geode (NSC video), my home Athlon XP 1.5GHz (NVidia GeForce4-4200 with NVidia.com drivers), and the Dual Xeon 2.4GHz (ATi Rage XL) I use at work. When you can watch the different parts of the mozilla window redraw (albeit quickly) on a dual Xeon, it strikes me that something is a bit funny.
What really bought it home, though, was doing a 'find /' in a full-screen gnome-terminal with GDK_USE_XFT=1, and comparing it to the time taken in a full-screen xterm. I expect performance penalties from AA fonts, but it _doubled_ the time taken to list the entire tree. I'd done a 'find / >&/dev/null' before each to make sure the directory tree was cached, and as I have 750MB of RAM I'd say it fit ;-) . Setting GDK_USE_XFT=0 and using gnome-terminal resulted in an intermediate result, but somewhat closer to the AA gnome-terminal than the xterm. Sorry, I don't have the exact numbers on hand but can come up with them again quickly (ish) if needed.
I've ended up disabling the use of XFT2 and freetype where possible on my LTSP server at work, to keep the client machines (P133s with 32Mb of RAM) reasonably responsive. These machines are fairly snappy normally - with an 800x600 display - but become quite sluggish when using things like the xft2-enabled mozilla builds, or even displaying _menus_ in gtk2 apps when xft2 is being used. OpenOffice also appears to suffer, as do qt3 applications.
Note that I've tried XFree86 4.3 and didn't notice much, if any, improvement in performance with text handling.
So - any idea why the performance hit with the use of XFT2/freetype is so large? Any ideas on how to address the issue - or plans for fixing it?
Craig Ringer
So - any idea why the performance hit with the use of XFT2/freetype is so large? Any ideas on how to address the issue - or plans for fixing it?
From the profiling I tried its the Xserver - render acceleration is not
accelerated. With some cards switching off acceleration using the vesa server with shadowfb actualyl speeds stuff up
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 11:53, Alan Cox wrote:
So - any idea why the performance hit with the use of XFT2/freetype is so large? Any ideas on how to address the issue - or plans for fixing it?
From the profiling I tried its the Xserver - render acceleration is not
accelerated. With some cards switching off acceleration using the vesa server with shadowfb actualyl speeds stuff up
Another odd thing that can help performance in some cases is to disable putting pixmaps in video ram .. (I forget the exact Xaa option for the XFree86Config.)
It probably won't help the desktop as a whole, you lose in some places what you gain in others, but it will make AA text rendering significantly faster on most cards.
Regards, Owen
Another odd thing that can help performance in some cases is to disable putting pixmaps in video ram .. (I forget the exact Xaa option for the XFree86Config.)
It probably won't help the desktop as a whole, you lose in some places what you gain in others, but it will make AA text rendering significantly faster on most cards.
Option "XaaNoPixmapCache"
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 09:55, Alan Cox wrote:
GNOME and KDE have not undergone any fundemental changes since RHL 9 (GNOME 2.2 => GNOME 2.4 is mostly features in individual apps.)
2.2->2.4 removed a DNS lookup from several bits of gnome startup
Nautilus is also reported to have significant speed-ups in 2.4.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:57:55PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
Not just you. I've noticed it too.
me too - which makes me happy coz rh9 is a bit of a slugger on my machine.
Any information on what may be behind the performance improvements?
One possibility, especially if you were comparing to an up2date kernel from test1 (only a week's worth of changes, basically), would be that the scheduler interactivity changes that were just accepted into Linus's tree in the 2.6.0-test kernels were backported. (A think-o in that backport is what caused the SMP instability and has now been fixed in the packages at http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/severn/)
We at least think we can really notice the difference.
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
One possibility, especially if you were comparing to an up2date kernel from test1 (only a week's worth of changes, basically), would be that the scheduler interactivity changes that were just accepted into Linus's tree in the 2.6.0-test kernels were backported. (A think-o in that backport is what caused the SMP instability and has now been fixed in the packages at http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/severn/)
We at least think we can really notice the difference.
At least on this desktop, it seems faster, but "jerky" -- operations normally go smoothly and quickly, but sometimes they pause mid-operation for a second or so (Athlon 1700+, 768 megs, just running ~12 xterms, mozilla, and xmms)
later, chris
On Friday 26 September 2003 13:30, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
One possibility, especially if you were comparing to an up2date kernel from test1 (only a week's worth of changes, basically), would be that the scheduler interactivity changes that were just accepted into Linus's tree in the 2.6.0-test kernels were backported. (A think-o in that backport is what caused the SMP instability and has now been fixed in the packages at http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/severn/)
We at least think we can really notice the difference.
I can notice a perceptable difference in speed on my Sony FXA-49 laptop. Perceptable usually translates to greater than 10%, IME.
The fonts are different, though. (upgrade from RHL9 to FC0.94) Thinner; smaller; but not bad. Some of the icons in the panel (KDE) are ugly, though.
Crossover office appears to work OK, too. Which is good, since I am a heavy Visio 5.0 user (Visio 5 won't even install on WinXP, much less run, but it runs fine on Crossover office on the new FC0.94).
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 15:34, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 26 September 2003 13:30, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
One possibility, especially if you were comparing to an up2date kernel from test1 (only a week's worth of changes, basically), would be that the scheduler interactivity changes that were just accepted into Linus's tree in the 2.6.0-test kernels were backported. (A think-o in that backport is what caused the SMP instability and has now been fixed in the packages at http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/severn/)
We at least think we can really notice the difference.
I can notice a perceptable difference in speed on my Sony FXA-49 laptop. Perceptable usually translates to greater than 10%, IME.
The fonts are different, though. (upgrade from RHL9 to FC0.94) Thinner; smaller; but not bad.
The final will actually look more like RHL9 - I tracked down a problem with using the wrong set of Luxi fonts last week, but didn't have a chance to build it into the Cambridge tree before Beta2 was pusehd.
If you edit /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and remove <dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF</dir> you should get the correct appearance.
Regards, Owen
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 15:34, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 26 September 2003 13:30, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
One possibility, especially if you were comparing to an up2date kernel from test1 (only a week's worth of changes, basically), would be that the scheduler interactivity changes that were just accepted into Linus's tree in the 2.6.0-test kernels were backported. (A think-o in that backport is what caused the SMP instability and has now been fixed in the packages at http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/severn/)
We at least think we can really notice the difference.
I can notice a perceptable difference in speed on my Sony FXA-49 laptop. Perceptable usually translates to greater than 10%, IME.
The fonts are different, though. (upgrade from RHL9 to FC0.94) Thinner; smaller; but not bad.
The final will actually look more like RHL9 - I tracked down a problem with using the wrong set of Luxi fonts last week, but didn't have a chance to build it into the Cambridge tree before Beta2 was pusehd.
If you edit /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and remove
<dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF</dir> you should get the correct appearance.
Regards, Owen
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Ditto. I'm assuming you are talking about Vera: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/ttf-bitstream-vera/1.10/
First thing I do.....
-benjamin
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:44, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Ditto. I'm assuming you are talking about Vera: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/ttf-bitstream-vera/1.10/
First thing I do.....
umm - they're in the distro.
bitstream-vera-fonts
-sv
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Ditto. I'm assuming you are talking about Vera: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/ttf-bitstream-vera/1.10/
First thing I do.....
Last time I checked Vera didn't even have enough characters defined in it for full UK English
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:37:25PM -0500, Stephan Schutter wrote:
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Because they don't cover some diacritical marks used in Europe, unlike Luxi. That would result in a "broken desktop" for some users, by default. Mirek
Miloslav Trmac schrieb:
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Because they don't cover some diacritical marks used in Europe, unlike Luxi. That would result in a "broken desktop" for some users, by default.
Since switching to utf8 in RH8, it already is a broken desktop for some users by default. E. g. OpenOffice crashes when using german spelling in connection with utf8 and there are no de_DE.8859-15@euro locales.
Christoph
Don't oyu use cyrillic fonts in Checkia/Slovakia any way?
Miloslav Trmac wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:37:25PM -0500, Stephan Schutter wrote:
Why not use the bitstream free fonts by default???? They look great.
Because they don't cover some diacritical marks used in Europe, unlike Luxi. That would result in a "broken desktop" for some users, by default. Mirek
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:47:08AM -0500, stephan schutter wrote:
Don't oyu use cyrillic fonts in Checkia/Slovakia any way?
No, Latin alphabet with quite a few additional letters. See http://www.cestina.cz/cestina/kodovani/kun.gif for letters used in Czech; Slovak uses a similar, but not exactly the same set of letters. Mirek
ByteEnable wrote:
I just installed Beta2 on my Dell Latitude CPx750 without any problems. Whats so cool about laptop installs is that you can swap out hard drives really easy. I have a hard drive just for this purpose.
Is it me, or is this Beta2 snappier than RH9 ?
I had the same impression on the same system.
-Rick