More Linux and crannies!
iDRMRSR
heh) WINDOW shopping before I mindlessly downloaded plain old UBUNTU.
I just installed KDE along with GNOME (which was standard with UBUNTU) and
now I am MUCHO happier in most regards. KDE looks just like Windoze, well
enough so that I don't feel completely lost. It also plays with BERYL much
better. I can flip and rotate my six desktops to my heart's desire.
Which is pretty ironic because, I'm ONE sole person here. What in "Bob"s
sweet name would I need SIX desktops for? However it's nice to know I could
have them if I wanted. MIDI playing is quite a bit better, too, for some
reason.
The only thing is, KDE is about 50% slower than GNOME. It's pretty obvious
the eye and ear candy is stressing the pants off the 1.3 GHZ processor in my
old box. I didn't bother to 100% configure everything in it to my liking.
I can see that would be rather daunting. So many crappy options, so little
time.
How ever I can see now that if I had INITIALLY gone with KDE I would have
spent fewer hours in total frustration.
Well, this'll give me something to do to fill my solitary hours with
something besides playing SOLITAIRE.
Especially since MySpace seems to have petered out as a source of diversion.
Less traffic there than on some of those alt.slack.whatever newsgroups you
see from time to time.
[*]
-----
Rev. 11D Meow!
if you'd SHIT or Get Off The POT, mawghn.
"iDRMRSR" <idr...@sssssubgenius.com> wrote in message
news:E7qdnSHBtvg0iuzY...@giganews.com...
Leonard the Committed
> the eye and ear candy is stressing the pants off the 1.3 GHZ processor in my
> old box.
Yeah, KDE is the choice for a gui, hands down. If you click the K with the
gear on it ond go to "settings" you can choose to re-run the setup wizard
and get rid of most of the crap like sound effects, etc. I'm running on a
366 laptop with only the antaliased fonts, and it's not too excruciatingly
slow.
just john
Yeah, KDE is my Linux GUI of choice, too. My laptop is also pretty
slow, but it seems worth it. Gnome really irritates me, and I'm not
sure why.
And then there's the "lighter" ones ... they're pretty good, too.
--
* Radio Free Entropy: http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml *
Rich Clark, aka Left Rev Egg Plant, ULC, CotSG
From the commandline, can you run hdparm /dev/hda and cut/paste the
output, please?
Steve
It just never fucking stops. Why is that? I must be using the wrong
firewall product because all this fucking racist crap keeps getting
through. Does *anyone* (anyone) have a fucking filter that actually
deals with this shit?
Or will I have to write one myself?
Regards,
Steve
iDrMrSr
Here it is:
/dev/hda:
multcount = 0 (off)
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 65535/16/63, sectors = 156301488, start = 0
If you can think of a tweak, lemme KNOW!
[*]
-----
Rich Clark, aka Left Rev Egg Plant, ULC, CotSG
Okay, here's what you can do to tweak that baby a bit:
First, before you make the change I give you below, run htparm -tT.
Next, run the following command line:
hdparm -c3 -m16 -X66 -d1 -u1 -k1 /dev/hda
Then run htparm -tT again. Note the increased throughput. Proceed to
monkey with your GUI and see if it's at all snappier.
To learn more about hdparm and how it works and can be permanently
configured, here's some urls:
http://linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2000/06/29/hdparm.html?page=2
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-16360.html
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~djm/ubuntu/#fix-dma
Artemia Salina
ULC, CotSG wrote:
> Next, run the following command line:
>
> hdparm -c3 -m16 -X66 -d1 -u1 -k1 /dev/hda
hdparm -i /dev/hda will tell you what UltraDMA modes are available
for the drive (among other info). I have one, for example, that can use
UDMA mode 6. 64 + 6 = 70, so the command above would be hdparm ... -X70 ...
With UDMA mode 2 (-X66):
Timing cached reads: 708 MB in 2.00 seconds = 353.52 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 76 MB in 3.04 seconds = 25.04 MB/sec
With UDMA mode 6 (-X70):
Timing cached reads: 664 MB in 2.00 seconds = 331.39 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.90 MB/sec
--
Popess Evokovitch: Who the hell is Rontus Mekora?
nenslo: Some dumbass.
Rontus Mekora: Not just any dumbass, I am a high frequency dumbass.
Ankara
It would probably be important to add a couple of ubuntu specific things
here:
None of the above becomes permanent unless you edit the /etc/hdparm.conf
file. I wouldnt recommend doing this until you find that the tweak works
and
the system is stable.
I would also do this first (unless you know exactly what kind of harddrive
you have
in that box) although I would add that the above tweak will probably be safe
in any
harddrive manufactured after 2001 or so, but to be absolutely sure, you can
goto the
menu:>>applications>>>system tools>>>>system information (hardinfo), find
your hard
drive and click "details" then throw the model number into google and get
your specs.
Having said that, I doubt that ANYTHING above will do anything EXCEPT speed
up your system, unless you are using a really OLD hard drive.
Ankara
Ankara
"Artemia Salina" said
> hdparm -i /dev/hda will tell you what UltraDMA modes are available
> for the drive (among other info). I have one, for example, that can use
> UDMA mode 6. 64 + 6 = 70, so the command above would be hdparm ... -X70
> ...
oops forgot about that, yeah thas the best way to find out what your
drive supports.
> With UDMA mode 2 (-X66):
>
> Timing cached reads: 708 MB in 2.00 seconds = 353.52 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 76 MB in 3.04 seconds = 25.04 MB/sec
>
> With UDMA mode 6 (-X70):
>
> Timing cached reads: 664 MB in 2.00 seconds = 331.39 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.90 MB/sec
Ankara
iDRMRSR
> Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.90 >MB/sec
OK guys, I tried all the various tweaks and all I got was SLOWER and SLOWER.
I did manage to get my cached reads up to 1019 MB/S whilst at the same time
the buffered reads came in at an astonishing 3.48 MB/S (eg, floppy disk
speeds) with some sprinkling of parms.
I even managed to get my system to TOTALLY FREEZE with one invocation which
happily I forget now. Gosh, that's becoming a nauseating PATTERN with
Linux. Remove one card in the house of cards and it comes SHATTERING DOWN.
The other funny thing is this. Whilst KDE is rilly attractive as an
operating environment IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SET THE SCREEN RESOLUTION AND
SIZE! KDE simply picks something out of its blue-ish ASS and sets it there.
There IS no way to change this. I require 1280 by 768. GNOME lets me set
its brownish ass this way, and all is good. From that point, all the fonts
are set at 10 points, all is readable with these old eyes, etc etc etc.
I then switch into KDE and the fonts are like HALF the size I'm used to.
This is because I believe the screen resolution is now 1600x900, which is
appropriate to the desired aspect ratio BUT WAY TO TINY font wize. Yeah, I
could go and set everything to 12 point fonts etc etc but that's a lot of
setting in EVERY FRIGGING app I launch....sheesh. And I did a GOOGLE for
setting up the KDE desktop size, and all I can do is CONFIRM nobody has a
way to do this.
That's Linux for ye. You only get a PARTIALLY baked cake with icing
covering only PART of it. Oh, if you manage to graft the GNOME cake with
the KDE cake, I suppose you get a whole VIRTUAL cake that's to your liking
but...
OH IS THIS FRUSTRATING.
Still I've got nothing to do with my life besides this so I might as well
see how many more egregious things I can do to this old system in the name
of seeing if there's a way to get Linux to work for ME better than Windows
ME for example (which is what this box LAST had on it).
PS I don't seem to be able to find a stinking VOLUME control under KDE,
which is necessary because Linux, upon booting, seems to want to turn off
one channel (l/r) or the other automagically, which is again VERY
FRUSTRATING. At least with GNOME I could jiggle the volume control and the
missing channel would come back on, but with KDE, I can't even find anything
like a volume control.
That's prolly because the volume setting utility is named KQZVVL or
something arcane following the usual cutesy poo way of calling things.
ARRRGHHH....
I will report more as I continue to make my blood boil here. And I will TRY
not to post HTML from UBUNTU if ever I figure out HOW NOT TO DO THAT. PAN
from GNOME was posting in plain text, but from KDE something made it decide
that HTML posts were better, and I canna find a knob to turn that option off
ANYWHERE. Nor can I find out why PAN runs differently under KDE than GNOME.
Oh my this is like trying to fit your limp dick into a keyhole for pleasure
on a cold night. I begin to think Linux is for masochists only.
[*]
-----
just john
> The other funny thing is this. Whilst KDE is rilly attractive as an
> operating environment IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SET THE SCREEN RESOLUTION AND
> SIZE! KDE simply picks something out of its blue-ish ASS and sets it there.
My thing for this is Mandriva-specific, but it's there. I don't know
what Ubuntu's version of it would be.
> PS I don't seem to be able to find a stinking VOLUME control under KDE,
aumix.
Took me a while to find it, and since then, I've never closed it.
> I will report more as I continue to make my blood boil here. And I will TRY
> not to post HTML from UBUNTU if ever I figure out HOW NOT TO DO THAT. PAN
> from GNOME was posting in plain text, ...
I found Pan good for downloading, say, the whole old-time radio binaries
group. I came back to Thunderbird for most of my newsgroup needs.
Steve
If I didn't know better, I'd say that the Nazi fucks backing Leff
Lieberman were running a red team (ha ha) on your ass, as they plan to
do if I ever risk buying a computer and attempt to continue developing
commercial software for its scientific merits as well as profit.
But I do know better, and were it not also for the fact that I know you
are contriving your messages for effect, I would conclude that you're
an incompetent bumbler. Unfortunately, you almost know what you are
doing, which allows an interesting projection of your motives from what
you actually write.
Regards,
Steve
Artemia Salina
>> Timing cached reads: 664 MB in 2.00 seconds = 331.39 MB/sec
>> Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.90 >MB/sec
>
> OK guys, I tried all the various tweaks and all I got was SLOWER and SLOWER.
>
> I did manage to get my cached reads up to 1019 MB/S whilst at the same time
> the buffered reads came in at an astonishing 3.48 MB/S (eg, floppy disk
> speeds) with some sprinkling of parms.
>
> I even managed to get my system to TOTALLY FREEZE with one invocation which
> happily I forget now. Gosh, that's becoming a nauseating PATTERN with
> Linux. Remove one card in the house of cards and it comes SHATTERING DOWN.
Doing what makes sense is recommended. Knowing what you're doing and why
is a requirement to doing what makes sense.
> The other funny thing is this. Whilst KDE is rilly attractive as an
> operating environment IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SET THE SCREEN RESOLUTION AND
> SIZE! KDE simply picks something out of its blue-ish ASS and sets it
> there.
This is why I dumped KDE in favor of Gnome. You can't change the font in
KDE in a global way. I like the high resolution (right now I'm running at
only 1280x720 and I miss the 1600x1200 that my VGA monitor gave me) but I
need to jack up the default font sizes that the youngsters who set up
these distros think are large enough.
Are you aware that Gnome has switchable themes? If you like the color
blue, I'm sure there are themes which feature the color blue.
I myself don't care what color my desktop is, as I'm more interested in
functionality than anything else, so I can't help you with theme
switching.
It's a funny thing about software packages that attempt to serve the same
need (as is the case with Gnome and KDE); they aren't necessarily all at
the same level of development. I'm sure there must be Windows software
out there somewhere which does not have all of the features that you
desire, and some that does. The same is true with Linux (or FreeBSD, or
BeOS, or Plan 9, or AIX, or IRIX, or OSX, or SVR4, or VMS, or Ultrix, or
AS400, or CSAMS... You get the idea.)
> I will report more as I continue to make my blood boil here. And I will
> TRY not to post HTML from UBUNTU if ever I figure out HOW NOT TO DO
> THAT. PAN from GNOME was posting in plain text, but from KDE something
> made it decide that HTML posts were better, and I canna find a knob to
> turn that option off ANYWHERE. Nor can I find out why PAN runs
> differently under KDE than GNOME.
Pan is incapable of posting in HTML. I have the source to the version you
are using and know for a fact that it has no facility to post in HTML.
> I begin to think Linux is for masochists only.
People got upset with me when I said that if you like computers you should
try Linux, but if you DON'T like computers -- if you don't want to think
about them any more than you think about your cell phone -- then stick
with Windows or Macs.
Your frustration just backs up my point. Since I know you're familiar with
ham radio I'll bet you're familiar with the term "appliance operator." An
appliance operator goes out and buys himself a fancy-doo-diddle radio
and does little more than push the PTT key at the appropriate times. They
never learn how radios work because when it stops working they just
throw it away and buy another one. On the other hand most ham radio
operators get into the hobby because they are interested in how radio
works. Many times they build their own radios from scratch. Other times
they buy junkers at flea markets and fix them up. They may not be as fancy
and shiny as the appliance operator's rigs, but I've run radios that were
50 or 60 years old that worked just as well as the latest Yaesu or Kenwood,
albeit less conveniently.
The same is true with computers these days, except that the appliance
operators vastly outnumber the hackers. People want a computer that is as
trouble-free as their dishwasher or coffee pot. So be it, I say. Stick
with Windows in that case.
iDrMrSr
> I like the high resolution (right now I'm running at
> only 1280x720 and I miss the 1600x1200 that my VGA monitor gave me) but I
> need to jack up the default font sizes that the youngsters who set up
> these distros think are large enough.
Heh, well, I found an option where you select the fonts in KDE and it says
FORCE ALL FONTS to 96DPI and now that made them bigger. Now I've got to
change them all back to 10 point fonts because, well, I'm not OLD enough
for 12 points just yet.
BTW, I was a mainframe programmer from 1969-1995 when I took a plunge into
Windows application development, which I ceased when I retired at the end
of 2004. And which I continued post retirement a few times when I got
somewhat panicky e-mails from the few souls still employed where I worked.
So I'm no stranger to computers in general and coding and all that.
I know I deride Linux a lot, but it's because if I had the chance, it
wouldn't BE this way. I know how bit fiddlers like to get all tied up in
which ultra DMA mode is the hottest thing (was the hottest thing) to the
expense of USABILITY. Geez, counting always starts at 1 and continues
through 9 to 10 and then onward to 15, not 0F. At least for the people
USING the shit.
The sound should just work, the video should just work, etc. Oh I know I
sound like a MAC ad here. I see no virtue in putting together this puzzle,
especially since the box I'm using is probably four or five years old.
This ain't the latest. What if I started with a brand NEW
machine...errrrrrrggghh.
BTW, there, Artemia, do you have BLENDER all mastered yet?
[*]
-----
Artemia Salina
> Now I've got to
> change them all back to 10 point fonts because, well, I'm not OLD enough
> for 12 points just yet.
You know, people often point out the inadequacy of determining a person's
character based upon their chronological age. Perhaps a new system of
identifying a person's age is in order. Simply give them an annual eye
test and grade them on the minimum font pitch that they can read. So,
you'd be old enough to get a driver's license if you can't read 5pt fonts,
and you can drink once your vision degrades to needing 8pt fonts. You can
retire when you need 10pt fonts, etc.
People would say that their kids are "2pt Futura going on 3."
> BTW, I was a mainframe programmer from 1969-1995 when I took a plunge
> into Windows application development, which I ceased when I retired at
> the end of 2004. And which I continued post retirement a few times when
> I got somewhat panicky e-mails from the few souls still employed where I
> worked. So I'm no stranger to computers in general and coding and all
> that.
You really ought to have a look at "Swine," the virtual System/360
emulator I mentioned before. It's like Wine, except that it emulates a
clunky old mainframe. Depending on your system resources you can spawn
multiple copies of Swine on your desktop. You sound of all the Hollerith
card collators becomes overwhelming with 10 or more virtual machines
running though.
> I know I deride Linux a lot, but it's because if I had the chance, it
> wouldn't BE this way. I know how bit fiddlers like to get all tied up
> in which ultra DMA mode is the hottest thing (was the hottest thing) to
> the expense of USABILITY. Geez, counting always starts at 1 and
> continues through 9 to 10 and then onward to 15, not 0F. At least for
> the people USING the shit.
Users schmoozers. I'm like one of those computer theorists who sees
computer hardware as just a nuisance that impedes my freedom to theorize.
Computers aren't for users, unless they're wearing lab coats and
horn-rimmed glasses, checking the blinking lights and filling out
checklists on their clipboards.
> The sound should just work, the video should just work, etc. Oh I know
> I sound like a MAC ad here. I see no virtue in putting together this
> puzzle, especially since the box I'm using is probably four or five
> years old. This ain't the latest. What if I started with a brand NEW
> machine...errrrrrrggghh.
I'm waiting for all the drivers I need to become mature and then I'm
getting a Core 2 Duo box (note that that is an Intel chip rather than
AMD, which should hearten all you conservatives out there). The secondary
JBMicro SATA/PATA controller on most of the C2D capable motherboards
is problematic, so I'm waiting for those issues to be resolved.
I'm not a gamer by any means so I won't get into SLI, but I do do heavy
3D rendering and audio/video stuff so I need plenty of chug from the CPU
and memory.
> BTW, there, Artemia, do you have BLENDER all mastered yet?
Yes. But I've put that aside for the time being because I've found this:
http://makewiki.aleppax.it/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/User/BasicMakehumanUsageMiniVideoTutorial
(aka http://tinyurl.com/yaed6c)
Leonard the Committed
> slow, but it seems worth it. Gnome really irritates me, and I'm not
> sure why.
>
> And then there's the "lighter" ones ... they're pretty good, too.
I've got a test machine set up at the local community mental health drop
in center with XFCE on it running in kiosk mode. Main reason for doing
this was to make a simpler interface and faster performance on a celeron
466. The clients seem to be pretty happy with it. Just goes to show ya,
even feakazoid headcases prefer Linux! Really cant understand why the
director down there is so tied to Win XP for this application, it's a HELL
of alot easier to administer 8 public machines used by several differrent
users a day with Linux.
Rich Clark, aka Left Rev Egg Plant, ULC, CotSG
>> Timing cached reads: 664 MB in 2.00 seconds = 331.39 MB/sec
>> Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.90 >MB/sec
>
> OK guys, I tried all the various tweaks and all I got was SLOWER and SLOWER.
Play with it until you find a setting you can live with.
> I did manage to get my cached reads up to 1019 MB/S whilst at the same time
> the buffered reads came in at an astonishing 3.48 MB/S (eg, floppy disk
> speeds) with some sprinkling of parms.
>
> I even managed to get my system to TOTALLY FREEZE with one invocation which
> happily I forget now. Gosh, that's becoming a nauseating PATTERN with
> Linux. Remove one card in the house of cards and it comes SHATTERING DOWN.
Liar. You messed with hdparm and got some combination of settings that
fux0rd it. Start over. Have fun.
> The other funny thing is this. Whilst KDE is rilly attractive as an
> operating environment IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SET THE SCREEN RESOLUTION AND
> SIZE! KDE simply picks something out of its blue-ish ASS and sets it there.
Dunno why that is. KDE and Gnome should just pick up on the default
screen size set forth in /etc/X11/Xorg.conf.
Run Kmix.
> That's prolly because the volume setting utility is named KQZVVL or
> something arcane following the usual cutesy poo way of calling things.
>
> ARRRGHHH....
>
> I will report more as I continue to make my blood boil here. And I will TRY
> not to post HTML from UBUNTU if ever I figure out HOW NOT TO DO THAT. PAN
> from GNOME was posting in plain text, but from KDE something made it decide
> that HTML posts were better, and I canna find a knob to turn that option off
> ANYWHERE. Nor can I find out why PAN runs differently under KDE than GNOME.
>
> Oh my this is like trying to fit your limp dick into a keyhole for pleasure
> on a cold night. I begin to think Linux is for masochists only.
No, actually it's a system designed by programmers for programmers who
have a difficult time falling back on their experiences of when they
were 3-y/o and had to be spoonfed everything. Open your mind, baby, and
realize that you might have to work for your supper.
Rich Clark, aka Left Rev Egg Plant, ULC, CotSG
Perusing the MakeHuman main site, I came across this and thought it
looked a fair bit like Dr.Mr.Sr. in his Linux travails:
Steve
Despite the fact of your overt denial of the fact that your infowar
garbage is directed my way, you simply cannot get past the evidence
that shows you to be a know-nothing TOURIST.
Regards,
Steve
Curtis R Anderson
This got me thinking again.
I tweaked all that hdparm stuff some time ago on this laptop (gleepy)
and my main desktop (clyde). I have 32 bit access enabled on both, but
right now I'm on the laptop in my usual pub, so I have this output from
hdparm. The vintage Thinkpad 600E system has two drives currently
installed, as:
/dev/hda:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 58140/16/63, sectors = 58605120, start = 0
/dev/hdb:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 16383/255/63, sectors = 78140160, start = 0
I set up hdparm-type parameters with a utility I wrote which scans the
/proc filesystem and makes decisions based on what I have in the
UltraSlimBay slot. If there is a hard drive, it mimics hdparm by calling
the necessary ioctl() calls. It's bloody amazing what one can do with OS
source code!
My intent with that utility was to call it every time I took the laptop
out of hibernation so I could change what was in the bay without a
reboot. I would have to cause that second drive to be /dev/hdc as the
ThinkPad requires that. Right now, there's a green LED illuminated on
the bottom of the laptop warning me not to remove what's in the slot.
I don't know if this is the only laptop which allows warm swapping of
what's in its removable bay or not, but one can do things with hdparm -U
and its ilk.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
"In Heaven there is no beer / That's why we drink it here ..."
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gle...@intelligencia.com
mailto:gle...@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen