Re: Gnome2.2 backport and XFree86 4.3 on woody [was R:e XFree86 4.3 in Woody]
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 13:47, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 15:07, James Strandboge a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 15:03, Michael Bennett Cohn wrote:
> > > With more help from friends at #debian, I actually managed to get rid of the offending XFree86 files. I then finished the backport install according to James' instructions.
> > >
> > > In general, it seems to be working. But I have a few concerns:
> > >
> > > 1) I think that James and whoever is promoting his backport should have the explanation
> >
> > > and instructions he gave me earlier in this thread clearly displayed on the relevant web pages.
> >
> > > The average woody user does not subscribe to this list.
> > >
> > The main way I advertised the backport was through this list and
> > debianplanet.org. Both of those have these instructions. As for
> > others, I would like them to have proper instructions, but there isn't
> > much I can do.
>
> That leads us to what I told you, that we should "open the debate".
> I'm sorry, I didn't have the time yet to create you an account and to
> introduce you to the way it works.
> Be patient, please.
>
> [...]
ok. But what are we doing here? This seems pretty open.
>
> > > 3) Gnome2.2 runs much slower than the old Gnome, on the same box. I'm hoping that this
> >
> > > ponderousness is a feature of Gnome itself and not related to the backport.
> > >
> > This is true in general for gnome2.2, especially with the RENDER
> > extension turned on (anti-aliased text).
> I do not agree. All the GNOME 2.2 installations I have seen so far are
> really faster and more responsive than their previous GNOME 1.x version
> on the same hardware.
> I've been told, however, that RedHat's version was really lightning
> fast. How could this be?
> How could you deactivate the RENDER extension? Is it possible at all?
>
Turn off anti-aliased fonts. It all depends on the hardware-- I have
some where gnome2.2 is faster and some not. Maybe redhat has the
preemptible and low latency patches in their kernel?
> > I backported sawfish-- it works fine with gnome2.2. As for gnome1.4
> > packages, they should be fine since the libraries they depend on can be
> > installed in parallel. In practice, two rather large gnome1.4 apps--
> > gnucash 1.8 and evolution 1.2 worked fine under the backport.
> And Galeon still does.
> No plans to backport it also "officially"?
> I still have the problem with Acrobat Reader and Flash Player as plugins, though.
> I backported myself Mozilla 1.4 and Galeon 1.3.7 (still the same
> problems).
I won't backport "officially" if people have problems. I don't see the
problems with acrobat and flash though with epiphany 0.8.2 and galeon
1.3.7.20030803. I may upload them (and mozilla-1.4) soon to my
"unofficial" mozilla-1.3 directory (even though they were compiled with
mozilla-1.4).
Jamie
--
Email: jstrand1@rochester.rr.com
GPG/PGP ID: 26384A3A
Fingerprint: D9FF DF4A 2D46 A353 A289 E8F5 AA75 DCBE 2638 4A3A
Reply to: