Why change stuff at random. *sheesh*
Amazing. The new Keramik 3.0.4 package is reporting to KDE that it doesn't support transparent menu's. That's kinda funny since every release prior to this one did. pfft.. I smell a rebuild coming. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
On Thursday 17 October 2002 07.43, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Amazing. The new Keramik 3.0.4 package is reporting to KDE that it doesn't support transparent menu's. That's kinda funny since every release prior to this one did. pfft.. I smell a rebuild coming.
A little anecdote The other day I installed kde on a very small computer, with not a lot of memory. KDE was completely unusable. Even the smallest action sent the machine into a swapping frenzy, even if it was just clicking the kinternet icon. It would swap for over 10 minutes, during which time naturally the machine couldn't do anything else. I then tried xfce on that machine, and suddenly it was usable again. I even got good response time, programs would come up almost immediately and in general using the computer became not the recipe for heart attacks it was before. I'm now using blackbox even on my big machine at home. If I could just find an email program as usable as kmail I'd get rid of kde completely. I know this has nothing to do with anything, I just had to relate my experience. Anders
On Thursday 17 October 2002 08:22 am, Anders Johansson wrote:
now using blackbox even on my big machine at home. If I could just find an email program as usable as kmail I'd get rid of kde completely.
~ maybe <Pine> would do as mailer ? WindowMaker seems to use about 2.7 MB memory ~ nice :) -- best wishes ____________ sent on Linux ____________
On Thursday 17 October 2002 11.06, tabanna wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 08:22 am, Anders Johansson wrote:
now using blackbox even on my big machine at home. If I could just find an email program as usable as kmail I'd get rid of kde completely.
_____________
~ maybe <Pine> would do as mailer ?
pine or mutt are excluded. When you handle lots of mail I find you need a graphical program. Much as Iike text programs in other situations, it doesn't give you the same overview as a graphical program when it comes to handling large amounts of mail. I find kmail to be the perfect compromise. It is a graphical program that's completely controllable from the keyboard, and with every feature I need from a mail program. It is by far the best thing to come out of the kde project, in my experience. The other stuff is good, but kmail is great. top marks all around. I wonder if it would be worth the work to port it away from the kde framework. hmmmm
WindowMaker seems to use about 2.7 MB memory ~ nice :)
When I decided to move away from kde I gave all the other window managers included on the disks a try. I liked window maker too, but I stuck with blackbox. Mostly because I had heard so much good of it from this list. It took me a while to figure out that you had to run an external program (bbkeys) to use keyboard shortcuts. But once I had that figured out, all my needs were met. Anders
Sorry if this is a completely newbie question, but I'm on day four of using Linux (on a PC) in an office where everyone else is using Macs, so my question is; how do I access Mac (OSX) shared folders? I guess I need to configure netatalk in some way, but all the articles I have googled so far seem to be aimed at setting up the Linux machine as a file/print server. I'm using Suse 8.1, btw. thanks in advance, Carl -- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
Hi, Haven't used MACs for a while... ...but isn't it AppleTalk? Q On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 13:38, Carl wrote:
Sorry if this is a completely newbie question, but I'm on day four of using Linux (on a PC) in an office where everyone else is using Macs, so my question is; how do I access Mac (OSX) shared folders?
I guess I need to configure netatalk in some way, but all the articles I have googled so far seem to be aimed at setting up the Linux machine as a file/print server.
I'm using Suse 8.1, btw.
thanks in advance,
Carl
-- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
"Netatalk lets a Macintosh see a Linux box. To do the reverse (have the Linux box see the Mac) you need to install the afpfs module" [ from: http://www.anders.com/projects/netatalk/ ] however, it seems afpfs isn't currently being maintained. I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe making life hard for myself. I can't be the only person using Linux on a PC trying to access Macs. =) Carl -- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
I missed the start of the discussion, so I am not sure what you mean by "seeing", but I have no problem sshing into my OS X mac from my Linux box. I am not in front of my Mac right now to check, but you may need to turn on sharing in order to be able to do that. It may be in preferences. Avi On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 11:55, Carl wrote:
"Netatalk lets a Macintosh see a Linux box. To do the reverse (have the Linux box see the Mac) you need to install the afpfs module"
[ from: http://www.anders.com/projects/netatalk/ ]
however, it seems afpfs isn't currently being maintained.
I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe making life hard for myself. I can't be the only person using Linux on a PC trying to access Macs. =)
-- Avi Schwartz Universe-watching, like golf and aging, avi@CFFtechnologies.com promotes humility - William R. Everdell
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 11:55 AM, Carl wrote:
"Netatalk lets a Macintosh see a Linux box. To do the reverse (have the Linux box see the Mac) you need to install the afpfs module"
[ from: http://www.anders.com/projects/netatalk/ ]
however, it seems afpfs isn't currently being maintained.
I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe making life hard for myself. I can't be the only person using Linux on a PC trying to access Macs. =)
Carl
-- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
I have a linux file server running with netatalk. I also use samba on the osx machine to share fairly well with the windows boxen. My experience has been that it's easier to ftp or ssh into the mac machines. for what it's worth will
No one seemed to mention the OS version as OS X will certainly offer more options than OS 9. Matt On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 19:24, will wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 11:55 AM, Carl wrote:
"Netatalk lets a Macintosh see a Linux box. To do the reverse (have the Linux box see the Mac) you need to install the afpfs module"
[ from: http://www.anders.com/projects/netatalk/ ]
however, it seems afpfs isn't currently being maintained.
I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe making life hard for myself. I can't be the only person using Linux on a PC trying to access Macs. =)
Carl
-- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
I have a linux file server running with netatalk. I also use samba on the osx machine to share fairly well with the windows boxen. My experience has been that it's easier to ftp or ssh into the mac machines.
for what it's worth
will
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Friday 18 October 2002 02:24, will wrote:
I have a linux file server running with netatalk. I also use samba on the osx machine to share fairly well with the windows boxen. My experience has been that it's easier to ftp or ssh into the mac machines.
for what it's worth
will
I guess that I hoped to be able to connect with Linux in the same way I used to with Windows 2000 (using MacLan), and be able to see Mac hard drives as directories (although once the Macs in our office upgraded to OSX, even this was buggy). So thanks for the suggestions - will try ftp/ssh instead. Carl -- carl huber | wet web work | glue London
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:55 am, you wrote:
"Netatalk lets a Macintosh see a Linux box. To do the reverse (have the Linux box see the Mac) you need to install the afpfs module"
[ from: http://www.anders.com/projects/netatalk/ ]
however, it seems afpfs isn't currently being maintained.
I get the feeling I'm missing something obvious here, and maybe making life hard for myself. I can't be the only person using Linux on a PC trying to access Macs. =)
Carl
Nope, your not. I've got Netatalk working and communicating between my Linux box and my Mac 0S 8.5 box, primarily because the Linux box is the print server. But it is only one way, I can mount the Linux on the Mac, but not vice versa. *HOWEVER*, you should not have to use atalk for Mac OS X, it should just work out of the box -- the advantage of having that BSD layer below the Quartz. You should be able to NFS mount file systems between the two machines. At one point in time, I actually had this working between my OS X Server box and my Linux box. But as that was a long time ago, memory as to how to set it up has faded -- though I do recall that it was easer to get OS X Server talking with Linux than it was to get either of them to talk to my NeXT slab. Since I don't have X for real, anything I attempt to re-construct on my OS X Server box may not quite work for your version of OS X. However, if the suggestion about File Sharing that someone made is true, that's cool. Otherwise you may end up having to dealve into the wonderful world of NetInfo. -- --Gregory
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:25:46 +0200
Anders Johansson
pine or mutt are excluded. When you handle lots of mail I find you need a graphical program. Much as Iike text programs in other situations, it doesn't give you the same overview as a graphical program when it comes to handling large amounts of mail.
Have you tried Sylpheed or Sylpheed-claws? It is lighweight, and has alot of nice features, plus it's shortcomings are being actively fixed. It has a release every month or so. You can create as many folders or mailboxes as you need, and the filtering is pretty good. It's actually smaller than pine :-) -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, tabanna wrote:
~ maybe <Pine> would do as mailer ? WindowMaker seems to use about 2.7 MB memory ~ nice :)
I use pine for my emailing, vi for editing, windowmaker for preferred windowmanager and I usually get along decently well. Rohit -- (+91-22-692) 2101 D2, floor-3, Chand : SE : TLSI : 3578 SuSE 8.0 2.4-18-4GB on i686 : sendmail-8.9.3-42 : pine-4.44-121 rohit.sharma@iitbombay.org [maximus_two@yahoo.com] 9821394599@bplmobile.com ********************************************************* Disclaimer This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. ********************************************************* Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
On Thursday 17 October 2002 04:22, Anders Johansson wrote: [... KDE bogs a limited-resource computer]
I then tried xfce on that machine, and suddenly it was usable again. I even got good response time, programs would come up almost immediately and in general using the computer became not the recipe for heart attacks it was before.
I'm now using blackbox even on my big machine at home. If I could just find an email program as usable as kmail I'd get rid of kde completely.
How much of the KDE overhead is invoked if you start KMail in blackbox? /kevin
On Thursday 17 October 2002 17.32, Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 04:22, Anders Johansson wrote:
[... KDE bogs a limited-resource computer]
I then tried xfce on that machine, and suddenly it was usable again. I even got good response time, programs would come up almost immediately and in general using the computer became not the recipe for heart attacks it was before.
I'm now using blackbox even on my big machine at home. If I could just find an email program as usable as kmail I'd get rid of kde completely.
How much of the KDE overhead is invoked if you start KMail in blackbox?
hm. Good question. I thought I knew how to read the numbers in "free" and "ps", but apparently I don't. kmail has a virtual size of 35 MB of which about 20 is resident, and the kdeinit processes take up some number of MB too (RSS) but according to "free" the available memory only drops by about 13MB when I start it. Can anyone tell me how to read this? USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND andjoh 3314 3.6 3.9 35284 20456 ? S 17:36 0:00 kmail andjoh 3316 0.1 1.9 22172 10036 ? S 17:36 0:00 kdeinit: Running... andjoh 3319 0.2 2.0 22516 10512 ? S 17:36 0:00 kdeinit: dcopserver --nosid --suicide andjoh 3322 0.2 2.1 24656 11012 ? S 17:36 0:00 kdeinit: klauncher andjoh 3324 3.8 2.5 24456 13036 ? S 17:36 0:00 kdeinit: kded andjoh 3335 0.1 2.1 22576 10896 ? S 17:36 0:00 kdeinit: kio_imap4 imap /tmp/ksocket-andjoh/klaunchermkxnta.slave-socket /tmp/ksocket-andjoh/kmailXzHVPb.slave-socket and free, before and after total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 514108 497140 16968 0 40420 359032 -/+ buffers/cache: 97688 416420 Swap: 658656 332 658324 total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 514108 509244 4864 0 42084 356524 -/+ buffers/cache: 110636 403472 Swap: 658656 332 658324 Something just doesn't add up here. Anders
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Anders Johansson wrote:
hm. Good question. I thought I knew how to read the numbers in "free" and "ps", but apparently I don't. kmail has a virtual size of 35 MB of which about 20 is resident, and the kdeinit processes take up some number of MB too (RSS) but according to "free" the available memory only drops by about 13MB when I start it. [...snip...] Something just doesn't add up here.
I think all those kdeinit processes have some memory shared. This might be shown as used by each process, but because it is actually only used once, it will only be deducted once in the output from free. The output from top and ps is simply not meant to be added up, because that often gives wrong results. Regards Ole
On Thursday 17 October 2002 23.30, Ole Kofoed Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Anders Johansson wrote:
hm. Good question. I thought I knew how to read the numbers in "free" and "ps", but apparently I don't. kmail has a virtual size of 35 MB of which about 20 is resident, and the kdeinit processes take up some number of MB too (RSS) but according to "free" the available memory only drops by about 13MB when I start it.
[...snip...]
Something just doesn't add up here.
I think all those kdeinit processes have some memory shared. This might be shown as used by each process, but because it is actually only used once, it will only be deducted once in the output from free.
The output from top and ps is simply not meant to be added up, because that often gives wrong results.
OK, but even just the kmail process had 20 megs as Resident Set Size, and 35 MB as Virtual size. Before I started kmail - and I'm running blackbox here, before I started kmail there were no kde processes running at all - I had 13 MB more memory free than after. So 20MB RSS results in 13 MB less free memory? I don't get it. Anders
Not to be a jerk or anything but people have been railing on how to reply to email and how to do this or that. I have a request. How about not hijacking email threads and changing them? That would rock..umm..ok thanks. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
On Friday 18 October 2002 01.40, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Not to be a jerk or anything but people have been railing on how to reply to email and how to do this or that.
I have a request. How about not hijacking email threads and changing them? That would rock..umm..ok thanks.
Sure, that was a mistake. I'm sorry. On the subject of netiquette, you should have used a subject that actually conveyed something useful about the contents of your mail, and used the proper mailing list (suse-kde@suse.com for kde related issues). That would rock too. Anders
* Anders Johansson
How much of the KDE overhead is invoked if you start KMail in blackbox?
hm. Good question. I thought I knew how to read the numbers in "free" and "ps", but apparently I don't. kmail has a virtual size of 35 MB of which about 20 is resident, and the kdeinit processes take up some number of MB too (RSS) but according to "free" the available memory only drops by about 13MB when I start it.
One thing to read memory for one process that also hints how much is $ cat /proc/<pid>/status When I do: $ cat /proc/`pidof blackbox`/status [...] VmSize: 4360 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 2236 kB VmData: 476 kB VmStk: 28 kB VmExe: 328 kB VmLib: 3120 kB I see that blackbox takes 4360 kB of memory, but the 3120 kB of them is XLib which is also loaded b/c of X. If one uses no other KDE programs, it makes for horrible startup times, since you need to load all the kdelibs stuff. Could someone using WindowMaker please send the Vm* data above for WindowmMaker, I think it's bigger than blackbox b/c of all the bloat :-) -- Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk [Favorite flag: Cloaking] "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J.
On Friday 18 October 2002 10:23 am, Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
Could someone using WindowMaker please send the Vm* data above for WindowmMaker
Hi :) this is my WindowMaker :- ________________ VmSize: 4844 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 2732 kB VmData: 680 kB VmStk: 80 kB VmExe: 484 kB VmLib: 3192 kB -- best wishes, richard ____________ sent on Linux ____________
On Thursday 17 October 2002 03:32 pm, Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
How much of the KDE overhead is invoked if you start KMail in blackbox?
In my case, using windowMaker, i see :- kmail 21 mb konsole 11 mb kdeinit { 6 processes} 40 mb windowmaker 2.7 mb -- best wishes ____________ sent on Linux ____________
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:29, tabanna wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 03:32 pm, Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
How much of the KDE overhead is invoked if you start KMail in blackbox?
____________________
In my case, using windowMaker, i see :-
kmail 21 mb konsole 11 mb kdeinit { 6 processes} 40 mb windowmaker 2.7 mb
Yikes! 72 MB to run a mail client? Is GNOME2 that bad? I've got a decently powered PC with 256MB of memory (and better at home...), but I think I still need to reconsider using KDE... lovely as it is, and all... /kevin -- ** Hey! Nice hat!
* Kevin McLauchlan
kmail 21 mb konsole 11 mb kdeinit { 6 processes} 40 mb windowmaker 2.7 mb
Yikes! 72 MB to run a mail client?
Is GNOME2 that bad?
Often even worse. The dependencies on Evolution are horrible as an example. And it's not 72 MB to run a mailclient. Apples to apples please. -- Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk [Favorite flag: Cloaking] "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J.
participants (15)
-
Anders Johansson -
Avi Schwartz -
Ben Rosenberg -
Carl -
Gerald Waugh -
Gregory Sawyer -
Kevin McLauchlan -
Mads Martin Joergensen -
Matthew Johnson -
Ole Kofoed Hansen -
Quinton Delpeche -
Rohit -
tabanna -
will -
zentara