Re: Bug#197797: gnome-terminal v2 is horribly slow to display
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:54:21PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:42:15PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I can't check for you, your font configuration.
> >
> > I _have_ checked it with no result, and _you_ did _not_ give me any
> > hint on what I should look at. If you have more info, then please do
> > give it.
>
> Read fontconfig documentation ?
> Search with Google why AA are slow ?
AA ? Ascii Art ?!
What would that to do with fontconfig ? I had a terminal emulator
that worked correctly, now it does not any more, and I'm apparently
not using any strange font... How is it that most developpers happen
to help people to track problems, when some others mostly answer "read
all the internet, you'll find the answer" ?
And did you yourself try to run some command like "ldd
/usr/bin/gnome-terminal" in screen in a gnome-terminal ? And compare
that to the same within screen within an xterm ? The former takes
more than 3 seconds of wallclock ("time" is not taking the display
time into account, don't bother using it). Reminds me of the 8086
preformance when running "DIR" on a floppy disk.
> Do a strace to see why gnome-terminal is slow ?
That's called profiling, and strace is not the best tool for this.
And no I'm not in the mood of rebuildign gnome to do profiling on this
thing.
> Try to changes the gnome-terminal font ?
Now that's something a bit more constructive. After one hour of
otherwise sterile debates :(
Trying that, I realize that in their fight for GUI simplification the
gnome guys have stripped the filtering features from the
font-selection dialog. So that I cannot any more just select from the
monospaced fonts available on my system, and I to choose among the
hundreds of various fonts I installed once from a CD, without any hint
as to whther they're monospaced or proportional.
Guess what ? 99% of them are proportional, which makes them totally
useless on a terminal emulator. Should I file a new bug ? Or would
it closed directly for any obscure reason ?
Hn, the fontconfig/README.Debian gives me a hint that bitmap fonts are
not used by default. Could this affect the issue ? Hm... X should be
caching characters, so that should not.
> try to disable font paths in fontconfig configuration ?
Disable what ?
$ cat /etc/fonts/local.conf
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<!-- /etc/fonts/local.conf file for local customizations -->
<fontconfig>
</fontconfig>
After running "dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig" I now have a single line.
Not sure that will help however.
> >> > PS: I understand you may see lots of bugreports, but please don't
> >> > close them before the issue is settled, it's much more annoying to get
> >> > a bug reopenned than it is to close it...
> >>
> >> I'm closing bug who doesn't exist. See the BTS, you are the only one who
> >> complain about this feature, the nyou have a configuration problem.
> >
> > It looks like many people are being pissed off by such an aggressive
> > behaviour. This is going against the quality of the distribution.
> > Hence the CC of this mail.
>
> Who is exactly agressive ? you ?
The one who is so convinced there is no bug in _HIS_ package that he
pisses off bug reporters without an explanation ? The one who has to
be asked 4 times by different packages before starting to enlighten
the lowly users about why their bug was closed ? Just guess...
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: