Hey Måns, have you tried Gnome-2.6.2?
DiskMan
Its a LOT better than 2.6.0 and 2.4.x... I haven't had too may problems with
it and I optimized the heck out of it, and it runs pretty good. About the
only real snafu I've encountered is X11. For some odd reason the screen
doesn't refresh as it should and there are often artifacts left around on
the screen until you click on something else and activate it... From what I
understand, this is a little of an error with X11 as of late... I've read
about it all over the net concerning alphas and amd's.
Here are some screenshots... and a few pointers.
Make sure you install shared-mime-info, you can snag it at sourceforge.org
Make sure you have fontconfig up to snuff
Make sure you have the basic install of xserver available to
(http://www.freedesktop.org). Some of the components of
Gnome-2.6.2 depend on it (i.e. libxklavier.tar.bz2)
These were several 'little' things the install docs failed to mention.Oh one
other thing, you will be AMAZED at how fast Nautilus runs now, jez.. It
opens in about 2secs in comparison to 2.4.x, which was more like 30secs!
Will L G
PS if you decide to upgrade X, just simply download the binaries. I couldnt'
get the damn thing to compile with gcc-3.0.4 and binutils-2.13.90 OR
gcc-3.41 and binutils-2.14 (my standard tools for the trade)...
Måns Rullgård
> http://kcnetwork.net/tmp/gnome-2.6.2/
>
> Its a LOT better than 2.6.0 and 2.4.x...
Has version number climbed that high now? I haven't looked at gnome
in ages, since just about the only thing I used from it was a couple
of panel applets like the CPU load meter and the clock. Installing a
gigabyte of bloat just for that doesn't make much sense to me.
> I haven't had too may problems with it and I optimized the heck out
> of it, and it runs pretty good. About the only real snafu I've
> encountered is X11. For some odd reason the screen doesn't refresh
> as it should and there are often artifacts left around on the screen
> until you click on something else and activate it... From what I
> understand, this is a little of an error with X11 as of late... I've
> read about it all over the net concerning alphas and amd's.
Is this only with gnome, or is it X in general?
> Here are some screenshots... and a few pointers.
>
> Make sure you install shared-mime-info, you can snag it at sourceforge.org
> Make sure you have fontconfig up to snuff
> Make sure you have the basic install of xserver available to
> (http://www.freedesktop.org). Some of the components of
> Gnome-2.6.2 depend on it (i.e. libxklavier.tar.bz2)
>
> These were several 'little' things the install docs failed to mention.Oh one
> other thing, you will be AMAZED at how fast Nautilus runs now, jez.. It
> opens in about 2secs in comparison to 2.4.x, which was more like 30secs!
It's nice to hear that someone actually makes code faster these days,
instead of waiting for a CPU upgrade.
> PS if you decide to upgrade X, just simply download the binaries. I couldnt'
> get the damn thing to compile with gcc-3.0.4 and binutils-2.13.90 OR
> gcc-3.41 and binutils-2.14 (my standard tools for the trade)...
It's been a while since I built X on my Alphas. I know it can be a
little sensitive to gcc and binutils versions. I'll give it a shot
with whatever I have installed and see what happens.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
Xfce-4 but in Xfce its far less noticable. In Gnome, you can get rid of it
almost entirely by not using wallpaper and going with a blank background.
I tried using different vid drivers and res but that didn't work... So I'm
going to what for a fix for xserver (the addon mod downloaded at
http://www.freedesktop.org/) and see if that works... Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xpt6o...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
>> PS if you decide to upgrade X, just simply download the binaries. I couldnt'
>> get the damn thing to compile with gcc-3.0.4 and binutils-2.13.90 OR
>> gcc-3.41 and binutils-2.14 (my standard tools for the trade)...
>
> It's been a while since I built X on my Alphas. I know it can be a
> little sensitive to gcc and binutils versions. I'll give it a shot
> with whatever I have installed and see what happens.
I have successfully built XFree86 4.4.0 on my SX164 using gcc 3.3.3
and binutils 2.15.90, after applying this patch which I found
somewhere on the net.
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c~ 2004-02-24 03:18:23.000000000 -0500
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c 2004-02-24 03:21:14.000000000 -0500
@@ -1596,6 +1596,19 @@
break;
}
+ case R_ALPHA_SREL32:
+ {
+ dest32 = (unsigned int *)(secp + rel->r_offset);
+ symval += rel->r_addend;
+ symval -= (unsigned long) dest32;
+ if ((long)symval >= 0x80000000 || (long)symval < -(long)0x80000000)
+ FatalError("R_ALPHA_SREL32 overflow for %s: %lx\n",
+ ElfGetSymbolName(elffile, ELF_R_SYM(rel->r_info)),
+ symval);
+ *dest32 = symval;
+ break;
+ }
+
#endif /* alpha */
#if defined(__mc68000__)
case R_68K_32:
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
out.... Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xu0vy...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
> "Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote...
>> Måns Rullgård <m...@kth.se> writes:
>>
>> >> PS if you decide to upgrade X, just simply download the
>> >> binaries. I couldnt' get the damn thing to compile with
>> >> gcc-3.0.4 and binutils-2.13.90 OR gcc-3.41 and binutils-2.14 (my
>> >> standard tools for the trade)...
>> >
>> > It's been a while since I built X on my Alphas. I know it can be a
>> > little sensitive to gcc and binutils versions. I'll give it a shot
>> > with whatever I have installed and see what happens.
>>
>> I have successfully built XFree86 4.4.0 on my SX164 using gcc 3.3.3
>> and binutils 2.15.90, after applying this patch which I found
>> somewhere on the net.
[patch]
> THANKS for the patch, I'm going to give it a shot and see how it works
> out.... Will L G
I noticed something in the elf loader is doing unaligned accesses.
They only happen during startup, so it's not much of a problem.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
Elf_RelocateEntry() Unsupported relocation type 28
Thats what I was getting, among many others ;-)
Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1x3c3h...@kth.se...
DiskMan
version 4.1.0 and everything works like a charm! If u like, I can roll some
of these Gnome files into an RPM and you can download them? It runs pretty
sweet! Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xpt6o...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
>> I noticed something in the elf loader is doing unaligned accesses.
>> They only happen during startup, so it's not much of a problem.
>
> You mean something like this:
> Elf_RelocateEntry() Unsupported relocation type 28
No, those are pretty bad errors. I only got a bunch for "type 10",
and the patch fixed that. Which gcc and binutils version are you
using?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Måns Rullgård
> Got it worked out, it was actually XFree86 all the while.. I rolled back to
> version 4.1.0 and everything works like a charm!
That's pretty old. I've been running 4.3.99.8 or something with no
problems at all. It could be a driver problem. I have a Permedia3
card. What do you have?
> If u like, I can roll some of these Gnome files into an RPM and you
> can download them? It runs pretty sweet! Will L G
Thanks, but I don't think I need them. I don't use gnome much, and
I'm also nowhere near my Alpha at the moment.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
For example, all folders open in a new window irregardless to what you set
it for... also, you can't change some of the file associations, u simply
open up to two buttons and thats it... other than that it seems to run
pretty good.. Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xk6ws...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
> I've hit several little bugs with Gnome, they all revolve around Nautilus...
> For example, all folders open in a new window irregardless to what you set
> it for...
Nothing beats an xterm and ls/mv/rm. I've yet to see an xterm spawn
new windows when I change directories.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xllh5...@kth.se...
onion
That's how it's supposed to work in GNOME 2.6, it's the f*ng spatial mode..
--
Kaj-Michael Lang , mil...@tal.org
Måns Rullgård
>> For example, all folders open in a new window irregardless to what you set
>
> That's how it's supposed to work in GNOME 2.6
which is precisely why I loathe these over-rated desktop environments,
whatever that is supposed to mean. *I* decide how things are supposed
to work on *my* computer.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Michal Jaegermann
>> For example, all folders open in a new window irregardless to what you set
>
> That's how it's supposed to work in GNOME 2.6, it's the f*ng spatial mode..
This is settable in gconf, although you have to dig where to look, and
this is not a property of GNOME but of this monstrosity called Nautilus
started by some ex-Apple guys and continued by various "usabilty
experts" running amok. Who says that you have to run _that_? Even if
you insist on having it then what forcing you into defaults you dislike?
Michal
Måns Rullgård
> onion <mil...@tal.org> wrote:
>>> For example, all folders open in a new window irregardless to what you set
>>
>> That's how it's supposed to work in GNOME 2.6, it's the f*ng spatial mode..
>
> This is settable in gconf, although you have to dig where to look,
> and this is not a property of GNOME but of this monstrosity called
> Nautilus started by some ex-Apple guys and continued by various
> "usabilty experts" running amok.
Well put.
> Who says that you have to run _that_? Even if you insist on having
> it then what forcing you into defaults you dislike?
What is forcing me into defaults I dislike? Why, whoever removed
almost all the configuration options, with the explanation that "the
default is what works best, I'm a usability expert".
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Michal Jaegermann
> Michal Jaegermann <mic...@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>> Who says that you have to run _that_? Even if you insist on having
>> it then what forcing you into defaults you dislike?
>
> What is forcing me into defaults I dislike? Why, whoever removed
> almost all the configuration options, with the explanation that "the
> default is what works best, I'm a usability expert".
Actually tons of options is still there. You do not have clickable
buttons to modify most of these but I would not expect that this will be
a big problem for you. :-)
Michal
Måns Rullgård
What bothers me is that they used to be there, easily accessible from
the configuration gui. Now I'd have to delve deeply into the maze
that is gconfd and the xml madness that lies therein, just to change
some simple setting. Even if I could figure it out, and I have done
so a couple of times, I have more useful things to do with my time.
Either provide a gui to set the options, or use a sensible documented
configuration file format.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Michal Jaegermann
> Michal Jaegermann <mic...@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> writes:
>>
>> Actually tons of options is still there. You do not have clickable
>> buttons to modify most of these but I would not expect that this will be
>> a big problem for you. :-)
>
> What bothers me is that they used to be there, easily accessible from
> the configuration gui. Now I'd have to delve deeply into the maze
> that is gconfd and the xml madness that lies therein, just to change
> some simple setting.
Er, no. No xml required.
$ gconftool-2 -R /
/desktop:
/desktop/gnome:
/desktop/gnome/file_views:
show_hidden_files = false
icon_theme = Bluecurve
show_backup_files = false
/desktop/gnome/applications:
/desktop/gnome/applications/component_viewer:
exec = nautilus %s
/desktop/gnome/applications/help_viewer:
needs_term = false
accepts_urls = true
exec = nautilus
/desktop/gnome/applications/window_manager:
workspace_names = (no value set)
current = (no value set)
default = /usr/bin/metacity
number_of_workspaces = (no value set)
/desktop/gnome/applications/browser:
.....
$ gconftool-2 -R / | wc -l
3940
$ gconftool-2 --help
Usage: gconftool-2 [OPTION...]
-s, --set Set a key to a value and
sync. Use with --type.
-g, --get Print the value of a key to
standard output.
.......
Quite easy to script to modify various "interesting" values.
In particular:
$ gconftool-2 --get /apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser
false
and here we go if we hate "spatial" view. One '--set' may save
tons of discussions. A simple shell function can even toggle
that depending on your mood.
Try
$ gconftool-2 -a /apps/nautilus/preferences
for all properties in that "directory" or
$ gconftool-2 -R /apps/nautilus
to have a more complete view.
There is also this graphical 'gconf-editor' which seems to work despite
dire warnings. OTOH it is good to know that if things will get screwy
one may get in with a regular editor and clean things up. Long before
Windoze "invented" registry I had nasty encounters with "netinfo" system
on NeXT and I truly hated that due to its a "binary corruptible blob"
nature. Even if this was light years ahead of that Windoze concotion.
Don't get me wrong. I am also non-plussed with dumbing down easy
interfaces but lets not overdo it. Some reasonable documentation would
be also highly desirable. OTOH a view that it is impossible to get on
GUI thousands of possible options, so some choices have to be done, is
also not entirely without a merit.
Michal
Måns Rullgård
> Måns Rullgård <m...@kth.se> wrote:
>> Michal Jaegermann <mic...@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> Actually tons of options is still there. You do not have clickable
>>> buttons to modify most of these but I would not expect that this will be
>>> a big problem for you. :-)
>>
>> What bothers me is that they used to be there, easily accessible from
>> the configuration gui. Now I'd have to delve deeply into the maze
>> that is gconfd and the xml madness that lies therein, just to change
>> some simple setting.
>
> Er, no. No xml required.
>
> $ gconftool-2 -R /
OK, I missed out on that one when I looked at it. I'd still prefer a
regular text file instead of scores of directories, each containing
only a single file, though.
[...]
> Don't get me wrong. I am also non-plussed with dumbing down easy
> interfaces but lets not overdo it. Some reasonable documentation would
> be also highly desirable. OTOH a view that it is impossible to get on
> GUI thousands of possible options, so some choices have to be done, is
> also not entirely without a merit.
My point is that they could do it for gnome 1.4, so why not in 2.x?
Anyhow, it should be pretty obvious that gnome is not meant for me,
and I will probably never like it, so let's just drop this pointless
discussion here.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
an option that is somewhat misleading stating that you can change that
behavior. After some moron over there told me to update 2.7.2, which I did,
I noticed it was doing the same thing and as buggy as hell to boot. I ended
up going back to 2.6.3 which is WAY better and more stable. The few bugs it
has, I can easily live with... Oh I found, u can browse using File Browser
(an extension of Nautilus) and that works fine.
I did notice one other little bug-a-boo, libjpeg doesnt' appear to be able
to 'understand' a lot of jpegs/jfif's created under windows :-( Will L G
"onion" <mil...@tal.org> wrote in message
news:ec5Qc.1026$kV3...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
Måns Rullgård
> I did notice one other little bug-a-boo, libjpeg doesnt' appear to be able
> to 'understand' a lot of jpegs/jfif's created under windows :-( Will L G
Is that only on Alpha, or generally? Do you have any examples?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
create thumbnails for certain jpegs. You can still view them fine in Eye of
Gnome or GQView but Nautilus just simply shows the default 'image icon'.
I just remembered something, I rolled over to 2.7.2 and the issue was fixed
in Nautilus but there was one little problem, it had a WHOLE string of other
problems so I simply reinstalled 2.6.3 and left it at that.... I created
RPM's of 2.6.3 just need to redo them in order to remove the nonsense error
dependencies.... I fixed about half so far have to finish the other half or
so... Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xpt63...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
> "Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote...
>> " DiskMan" <som...@microsoft.com> writes:
>>
>> > I did notice one other little bug-a-boo, libjpeg doesnt' appear
>> > to be able to 'understand' a lot of jpegs/jfif's created under
>> > windows :-( Will L G
>>
>> Is that only on Alpha, or generally? Do you have any examples?
>
> Yea, I have a couple of pics.
Any that are (or can be made) publicly available.
> When in Nautilus or File Browser, it will only create thumbnails for
> certain jpegs. You can still view them fine in Eye of Gnome or
> GQView but Nautilus just simply shows the default 'image icon'.
Some JPEGs have a small preview/thumbnail included in the file. Maybe
Nautilus only shows this.
> I just remembered something, I rolled over to 2.7.2 and the issue
> was fixed in Nautilus
Maybe it's not the embedded preview after all.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
DiskMan
http://kcnetwork.net/tmp/gnome-2.6.2/nautilus-01.jpg
See how most of the thumbnails are missing, now if I resave them using Gimp,
Nautilus doesn't have any issues creating them... One thing to note, any
thumbnails that are unusually small remain that way even after resaving...
Oddly enough though, thats not an issue under Gnome-2.7.2.. it works fine in
this regard but had problems with just about everything else ;-) Will L G
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xhdre...@kth.se...
DiskMan
undersized thumbnail remains the same?
http://kcnetwork.net/tmp/gnome-2.6.2/nautilus-02.jpg
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xhdre...@kth.se...
Måns Rullgård
> Here you go, here's a screencap...
> http://kcnetwork.net/tmp/gnome-2.6.2/nautilus-01.jpg
>
> See how most of the thumbnails are missing,
Oh, that's just the "parental guidance" function kicking in, so the
kids won't see those pictures ;-)
> now if I resave them using Gimp, Nautilus doesn't have any issues
> creating them...
I think the Gimp can create previews in JPEG images. Check whether
it's enabled in your setup.
> One thing to note, any thumbnails that are unusually small remain
> that way even after resaving...
Maybe the Gimp reused the old preview.
> Oddly enough though, thats not an issue under Gnome-2.7.2..
If my theory holds, I suppose this is because they use a scaled
version of the full image instead, all to keep your CPU busy.
> it works fine in this regard but had problems with just about
> everything else ;-) Will L G
Then don't use it.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se