Le 11/06/2003 18:50, « Hal Burgiss » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ ssh feenix uptime
> 12:41pm up 316 days, 7:57, 13 users, load average: 0.29, 0.29,0.19
>
>
> I do enjoy stability and will take the time and effort to get what I
> want out of software and hardware
Le 10/06/2003 01:43, « MWafkowski » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the "elephant" in the
> middle of the living room.
>
>
mega cliché delete
>
*** Thanks Mike for your point of view.
For your info, ever since I joined the list in the RH
On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 06:36, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> >Windows XP Pro also has "Remote Desktop", built in ready to go right out
> >of the box.
>
> That only works with another XP machine. X allows connections from any
> machine that runs X, including Winboxes (see Cygwin/XFree86, eXceed, etc).
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 06:43 pm, Ben Russo wrote:
> Robert Adkins wrote:
> >Man...
> >
> > I have no idea why you have such slowness in you machine, except maybe
> >you need more memory in your system.
> >
> > Personally, I am running Red Hat 9 on a Duron 900 with 512 MB of RAM.
> >The s
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:15:59AM +0200, T. Ribbrock wrote:
>
> :-) Copy/paste is exactly one of the things I like better under X...
> Mark, middle mouse button drop. Works and is very simple to use (and
Same here. Easier to use (hehehe), and much more functional.
--
Hal Burgiss
--
redhat
On 11-Jun-2003/18:48 -0400, Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Ribbrock wrote:
>>Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
>>eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed,
>>but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with
On 11-Jun-2003/18:43 -0400, Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I like my Linux workstations, I would love to see open-standards e-mail
>and open-office used on a larger number of
>peoples desks. I think that KDE and or GNOME has come a long way...
>But I agree with the original
>poster, X
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:59:40AM +1000, Brad wrote:
>
> I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and home for the past 18
> months and I really like it. However, at times it is woefully slow to do
> anything.
[ snip benchmark results ]
Hummm This isn't at all normal.
Your computer is
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:43:56PM -0400, Ben Russo wrote:
[...]
> poster, X is SLOW SLOW SLOW and the GUI's are nowhere near as
> smooth and clean looking.
The latter is clearly a matter of personal preference. To me, for
example, a nicely set-up Window Maker screen is miles ahead of the
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:48:34PM -0400, Ben Russo wrote:
> Windows XP has virtual desktops (not as fully customizable as most
> X-window managers, but good enough).
So, after about 15-20 years, Windows has finally caught up in
usability? >;-)
> You have to get the Microsoft XP power toy for mu
Ah too true. I have yet to exploit the remote desktop but I do use the
virtual desktops with glee. I've heard that Windows will have that in the
next version. I bought a video card that has dual-head but unfortunately,
I'm still running 98 on my Windows partition. It doesn't support dual
monito
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 04:41:29PM -0500, Randy Perkins wrote:
>
> hello
> how does one get uptime like this with all the kernel updates
> that are put out for security. my systems are stable but i dont know
> how to update the kernel without rebooting
Look at them and weigh benefit vs ris
This has troll written all over it.
Please people, do not feed the troll! This list will degrade into a Linux
vs. Windows mess!
+++ MWafkowski [RedHat] [Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:43:54PM -0400]:
> You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the "elephant" in the
> middle of the living roo
T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:18:39PM -0400, AragonX wrote:
[...]
Now here is where we see eye to eye. Somewhat...
X has been disappointing to me. I still have to use Windows because I
can't get my games on X.
[...]
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your ma
Robert Adkins wrote:
Man...
I have no idea why you have such slowness in you machine, except maybe
you need more memory in your system.
Personally, I am running Red Hat 9 on a Duron 900 with 512 MB of RAM.
The system is VERY snappy.
From a cold start Kmail loads up and is ready t
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed,
but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with
almost no effort at all - and that I've been able to so for years.
That's somethng MS still
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:18:39PM -0400, AragonX wrote:
[...]
> Now here is where we see eye to eye. Somewhat...
>
> X has been disappointing to me. I still have to use Windows because I
> can't get my games on X.
[...]
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my
eyes
> hello
> how does one get uptime like this with all the kernel updates
> that are put out for security. my systems are stable but i dont know
> how to update the kernel without rebooting
You can't. However, you usually don't need to do kernel security updates
for a non-public system. The
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 11:50, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> My other system:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ ssh feenix uptime
> 12:41pm up 316 days, 7:57, 13 users, load average: 0.29, 0.29,0.19
>
hello
how does one get uptime like this with all the kernel updates
that are put out for security.
> Myth #1 - Stability. Linux is a more stable OS then windows (2000/XP).
> This
> true enough, UNLESS you're talking about desktop Linux ie: KDE or Gnome.
> To believe that any "out of the box" install of any current major distro
> setup as a desktop (KDE or Gnome) is more stable than an equivale
On 11-Jun-2003/07:30 -0700, Jonathan Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd have to agree here. My personal Workstation runs:
[snipped list of services similar to my own list]
>I usually have open:
[snipped list of apps not much different to what I run]
I do run vim instead of emacs, but I won
Man...
I have no idea why you have such slowness in you machine, except maybe
you need more memory in your system.
Personally, I am running Red Hat 9 on a Duron 900 with 512 MB of RAM.
The system is VERY snappy.
From a cold start Kmail loads up and is ready to use in less
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:30:48AM -0700, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> I'd have to agree here. My personal Workstation runs:
>
[...]
I would agree. I have two linux desktops here and both are on a par
with the W98 systems I use at work. But what is more impressive to me
is that my main workstatio
I mostly agree. In Windows many libraries are loaded already, that's why
IE starts up so quickly. Same goes for other apps.
X has a client-server architecture that makes is very flexible but also
slower than the Windows GUI. Look at how clunky Nautilus is.
Open Office is a hog. It uses a ridiculo
I'd have to agree here. My personal Workstation runs:
* two database servers (MySQL and PostgreSQL)
* a web server which gets moderate usage
* a file server
* a mail server
This is my development box which I use for a number of applications, adn
the desktop is pretty responsive especially
(Top posting because of the length of the OP)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is what else have you got running?
If it's a usual dist, you've probably got a dozen services starting by
default, including Apache, maybe named etc.
all of these will be using up precious resources.
Also, d
Also, there's a tool that RH ships (or used to ship) on the CD but didn't
install. I forget what it's called, but it helps speed up the loading of
shared objects.
Jon
On 11 Jun 2003, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 07:59, Brad wrote:
> > I have been using Linux on the desktop at wor
Try this:
find the PIDs of your X-server, your window manager, and your file
manager.
After X-Windows starts, for each PID, run as root:
renice -20 WHATEVERTHATPIDWAS
And see how that helps. There's a way to do this automatically on
startup, but it depends on how you are doing logins (xdm, gdm
Is there a good benchmark package to objectively test the performance when
one makes tweaks/changes?
Frank Wise
---
We ought to do good to others as simply as a horse runs, or a bee makes
honey, or a vine bears grapes season after season without thinking of the
grapes it has borne.
- M
MWafkowski wrote:
To believe that any "out of the box" install of any current major distro
setup as a desktop (KDE or Gnome) is more stable than an equivalent install
of XP or 2000 on the same hardware is plain NUTS!
While I agree with you fundamentally, this is also a very subjective
matter. I'
You've had the nerve (or the innocence 8^) to expose the "elephant" in the
middle of the living room.
Among all the high fives and rah-rahing on this list (and other Linux lists
I belong to) about Linux vs Windows there are some things most of us would
seem to rather ignore.
Linux people have th
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 07:59, Brad wrote:
> I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and home for the past 18
> months and I really like it. However, at times it is woefully slow to do
> anything.
> No performance tweaking of either OS has been performed.
I just want to point out here that it
try to move /etc/cron.daily/slocate.cron to cron.monthly
On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 22:59, Brad wrote:
> I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and home for the past 18
> months and I really like it. However, at times it is woefully slow to do
> anything.
>
> =
33 matches
Mail list logo
