It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site, I realised how slow the Firefox 1.06 is currently on RC1. To be specific. I had installed Gnome 1 CD install of RC1, and I found that Firefox, was slow, not on actual loading, but just scrolling large web pages. I also found that it would sometimes keep scrolling even after I stopped trying to scroll. Am I unique in this experience? Peter 'Pflodo' Flodin
Peter Flodin wrote:
It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site, I realised how slow the Firefox 1.06 is currently on RC1.
To be specific. I had installed Gnome 1 CD install of RC1, and I found that Firefox, was slow, not on actual loading, but just scrolling large web pages. I also found that it would sometimes keep scrolling even after I stopped trying to scroll.
Am I unique in this experience?
Firefox 1.06 is VERY slow when you compare it to the Deer Park Beta 1... DP Bet1 is faster to load, faster to render pages... faster in pretty much everything compared to Firefox 1.06. I installed the Beta 1 with a little.. caution, but now run it on all my Linux machines. And if you're brave, you can install the Nightly Tester Tools extension so that you can make all your favourite extensions work in Beta 1 - but... not all of them will work... so use with caution http://users.blueprintit.co.uk/~dave/web/firefox/buildid/nightly.html C.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Peter Flodin wrote:
It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site,
There are actually current MozillaFirefox packages for SUSE Linux available from ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/firefox (and mirrors of ftp.suse.com). Regards Christoph
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Peter Flodin wrote:
It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site,
There are actually current MozillaFirefox packages for SUSE Linux available from
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/firefox
(and mirrors of ftp.suse.com).
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental? houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Peter Flodin wrote:
It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site,
There are actually current MozillaFirefox packages for SUSE Linux available from
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/firefox
(and mirrors of ftp.suse.com).
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs. Regards Christoph
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:58:45PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Peter Flodin wrote:
It wasn't until I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 from the mozilla site,
There are actually current MozillaFirefox packages for SUSE Linux available from
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/firefox
(and mirrors of ftp.suse.com).
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs.
Uh. My mistake. What I should have asked is why it has not addded as a Yast source. So why have they not run whatever script theyr run on other dirs so that poeple can add it as Yast source. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs.
Uh. My mistake. What I should have asked is why it has not addded as a Yast source. So why have they not run whatever script theyr run on other dirs so that poeple can add it as Yast source.
I already CCed the maintainer and will try to make sure to get this fixed... ;) Regards Christoph
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:30:43PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs.
Uh. My mistake. What I should have asked is why it has not addded as a Yast source. So why have they not run whatever script theyr run on other dirs so that poeple can add it as Yast source.
I already CCed the maintainer and will try to make sure to get this fixed... ;)
Are you sure it is broken? Could be that they did that intentionally. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:30:43PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs.
Uh. My mistake. What I should have asked is why it has not addded as a Yast source. So why have they not run whatever script theyr run on other dirs so that poeple can add it as Yast source.
I already CCed the maintainer and will try to make sure to get this fixed... ;)
Are you sure it is broken? Could be that they did that intentionally.
Well, we never had metadata/repodata for the mozilla project dirs, but it actually makes sense to change this in my opinion. Regards Christoph
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:47:34PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
Well, we never had metadata/repodata for the mozilla project dirs, but it actually makes sense to change this in my opinion.
Well, time to make a Yum resources page. Or just a sources page (or do we need to call it repositories?) houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:47:34PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
Well, we never had metadata/repodata for the mozilla project dirs, but it actually makes sense to change this in my opinion.
Well, time to make a Yum resources page. Or just a sources page (or do we need to call it repositories?)
I guess it's something for the http://www.opensuse.org/Additional_YaST_Package_Repositories page, or a more generic "Package repositories for SUSE Linux" page. (metadata/repodata/yum (however you like to call them) repos are supported by the latests YaST, that's in 10.0). Regards Christoph
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:21:14PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:47:34PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
Well, we never had metadata/repodata for the mozilla project dirs, but it actually makes sense to change this in my opinion.
Well, time to make a Yum resources page. Or just a sources page (or do we need to call it repositories?)
I guess it's something for the http://www.opensuse.org/Additional_YaST_Package_Repositories page, or a more generic "Package repositories for SUSE Linux" page. (metadata/repodata/yum (however you like to call them) repos are supported by the latests YaST, that's in 10.0).
I am thinking about how to do the fact that it is on mirrors and might be different on each one. This is what stpped me from adding the 'normal' sources in a better way. I am still not happy with the word "repositories" and am thinking of a page: YaST_sources (To be sure, is it Yast, YaST or YAST?) What are your opnions on the word "repositories"? The reason I like "Source" better is because it is used in Yast and will be less confusing for the beginner if only one word is used. This should include standard Yast, Yum, Aditional Yast and apt. An other way might be to have seperate pages for Yast, Yum and apt wich is perhaps a better approach. On such a page more detail can be given and as long as links to the other pages are given, it should be fine. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:47:34PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
Well, we never had metadata/repodata for the mozilla project dirs, but it actually makes sense to change this in my opinion.
Well, time to make a Yum resources page. Or just a sources page (or do we need to call it repositories?)
I guess it's something for the http://www.opensuse.org/Additional_YaST_Package_Repositories page, or a more generic "Package repositories for SUSE Linux" page. (metadata/repodata/yum (however you like to call them) repos are supported by the latests YaST, that's in 10.0).
I am thinking about how to do the fact that it is on mirrors and might be different on each one. This is what stpped me from adding the 'normal' sources in a better way.
As long as we create the metadata for the mozilla project tree (which hopefully will happen soon), the metadata will be the same on every mirror.
I am still not happy with the word "repositories" and am thinking of a page: YaST_sources (To be sure, is it Yast, YaST or YAST?) What are your opnions on the word "repositories"? The reason I like "Source" better is because it is used in Yast and will be less confusing for the beginner if only one word is used.
Actually repository is the correct word for YaST "sources". Calling them sources is a bit ambiguous. Quoting http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=repository - a place, room, or container where something is deposited or stored I guess that's the perfect description for the thing we are talking about ;) Regards Christoph
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:58:46PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
As long as we create the metadata for the mozilla project tree (which hopefully will happen soon), the metadata will be the same on every mirror.
Will think about that later on how to put it in a nice form. First the Howto-Mail_server at this moment.
I am still not happy with the word "repositories" and am thinking of a page: YaST_sources (To be sure, is it Yast, YaST or YAST?) What are your opnions on the word "repositories"? The reason I like "Source" better is because it is used in Yast and will be less confusing for the beginner if only one word is used.
Actually repository is the correct word for YaST "sources". Calling them sources is a bit ambiguous.
If repository is the correct word, then Yast must use repository instead of sources. If you call it sources in Yast and repository on websites, this WILL lead to confusion. Consistency is very importand in how clear something is to people who do not know what is going on. Not everybody has English as a main languange (I am not even saying first) and will understand the word repository. More people will understand source. This is not about semantics, this is about user-friendlyness. Again, I do not care wich one is used, as long as it is the same in both Yast and in other places. As I work for YaST, I want to use the names Yast is using. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
I am still not happy with the word "repositories" and am thinking of a page: YaST_sources (To be sure, is it Yast, YaST or YAST?) What are your opnions on the word "repositories"? The reason I like "Source" better is because it is used in Yast and will be less confusing for the beginner if only one word is used.
Actually repository is the correct word for YaST "sources". Calling them sources is a bit ambiguous.
If repository is the correct word, then Yast must use repository instead of sources. If you call it sources in Yast and repository on websites, this WILL lead to confusion.
Actually YaST is talking about "installation sources", which is correct to. Just using "sources" is kind of ambiguous. If you want a one-word solution, use "repository"...
Consistency is very importand in how clear something is to people who do not know what is going on.
Not everybody has English as a main languange (I am not even saying first) and will understand the word repository. More people will understand source.
This is not about semantics, this is about user-friendlyness. Again, I do not care wich one is used, as long as it is the same in both Yast and in other places. As I work for YaST, I want to use the names Yast is using.
Sure, that's just fine ;) Regards Christoph
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:37:02PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
If repository is the correct word, then Yast must use repository instead of sources. If you call it sources in Yast and repository on websites, this WILL lead to confusion.
Actually YaST is talking about "installation sources", which is correct to. Just using "sources" is kind of ambiguous. If you want a one-word solution, use "repository"...
I am not looking so much for a one word solutuion as a consitent solution. So we eiter use Repositories everywhere or 'instalation sources' everywhere. Not 'Instalation sources' in Yast and 'repositories' on openSUSE. I would love to hear other opnions. Or people who (dis-)agree or just vote what is best. houghi -- Quote correct (NL) http://www.briachons.org/art/quote/ Zitiere richtig (DE) http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren Quote correctly (EN) http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
houghi wrote:
I am not looking so much for a one word solutuion as a consitent solution. So we eiter use Repositories everywhere or 'instalation sources' everywhere.
Not 'Instalation sources' in Yast and 'repositories' on openSUSE.
I would love to hear other opnions. Or people who (dis-)agree or just vote what is best.
One big issue could be that a lot of directories are already called YAST_SOURCE or similar. So I dont think it is a problem to keep Yast source. And I dont think it is bad to differ between yast sources, apt repositories and yum whatevers. Unless you can add the same directory with the same path in all three of them. OJ -- "Lautsprecher verstärken die Stimmen, nicht aber die Argumente." (Hans Kasper, deutscher Lyriker)
Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 16:45 schrieb houghi:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:37:02PM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
If repository is the correct word, then Yast must use repository instead of sources. If you call it sources in Yast and repository on websites, this WILL lead to confusion. Actually YaST is talking about "installation sources", which is correct to. Just using "sources" is kind of ambiguous. If you want a one-word solution, use "repository"... ... I would love to hear other opnions. Or people who (dis-)agree or just vote what is best.
Hi houghi, I think, "repositories" ist the best word for it, but "installation sources" is acceptable and understandable by(to?) most of the users. Only "sources" or "YaST sources" is wrong, I will always think of source code on these terms. -- mdc
I think, "repositories" ist the best word for it, but "installation sources" is acceptable and understandable by(to?) most of the users. Only "sources" or "YaST sources" is wrong, I will always think of source code on these terms. AFAIK, "most of the users" don't know what is a source code but know what is a
Le Mercredi 14 Septembre 2005 21:22, meister@netz00.com a écrit : source. Anyway, the problem is only about the Yast Repositories wiki page, it's possible to solve it by adding an alias to the current article.
Hi, On 2005-09-13 at 17:30:43 +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote (shortened):
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, houghi wrote:
Is there a reason these can not be added as a Yast source? I asume because they are experimental?
Well, there doesn't seem to be any metadata/repodata in that dirs.
Uh. My mistake. What I should have asked is why it has not addded as a Yast source. So why have they not run whatever script theyr run on other dirs so that poeple can add it as Yast source.
I already CCed the maintainer and will try to make sure to get this fixed... ;)
yum repodata is now available for the experimental stuff. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/10.0/ But please note that there might be really experimental packages there and don't complain if something doesn't work ;-) You can give feedback, though. CU, Wolfgang -- SUSE LINUX GmbH -o) Tel: +49-(0)911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstr. 5 /\\ Fax: +49-(0)911-740 53 679 90409 Nuernberg, Germany _\_v simply change to www.suse.com
On 9/17/2005 10:29 AM Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
yum repodata is now available for the experimental stuff. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/10.0/
I was wondering if the brand new Seamonkey Alpha is there somewhere, or if this is still the "normal nightly". OJ -- 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. (Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant)
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Johannes Kastl wrote:
On 9/17/2005 10:29 AM Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
yum repodata is now available for the experimental stuff. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/10.0/
I was wondering if the brand new Seamonkey Alpha is there somewhere, or if this is still the "normal nightly".
The Seamonkey Alpha is in there. Just look for the seamonkey-* packages. Regards Christoph
I was wondering if the brand new Seamonkey Alpha is there somewhere, or if this is still the "normal nightly".
I don't really know what you mean by "brand new Seamonkey Alpha". The night build is this (was yesterday) seamonkey-1.1a.en-US.linux-i686.installer 1.1a seems 1.1 alpha? on ftp suse I see only 0.9... jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
On 2005-09-17 at 13:47:54 +0200, jdd wrote (shortened):
I was wondering if the brand new Seamonkey Alpha is there somewhere, or if this is still the "normal nightly".
I don't really know what you mean by "brand new Seamonkey Alpha". The night build is this (was yesterday)
Probably he meant SeaMonkey 1.0a
seamonkey-1.1a.en-US.linux-i686.installer
1.1a seems 1.1 alpha? on ftp suse I see only 0.9...
The current seamonkey packages are based on the 1.8 branch which will end up in SeaMonkey 1.0. At the moment I don't have packages for Trunk/1.9. The available package are slightly newer than the "official" 1.0a builds. CU, Wolfgang -- SUSE LINUX GmbH -o) Tel: +49-(0)911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstr. 5 /\\ Fax: +49-(0)911-740 53 679 90409 Nuernberg, Germany _\_v simply change to www.suse.com
On 9/17/2005 3:06 PM Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Probably he meant SeaMonkey 1.0a
That was what I was talking about. The one you can get here, but not as RPMs: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/releases/1.0a/seamonkey-1.0...
The current seamonkey packages are based on the 1.8 branch which will end up in SeaMonkey 1.0. At the moment I don't have packages for Trunk/1.9.
The available package are slightly newer than the "official" 1.0a builds.
As far as I know the "released alpha" is also based on 1.8 branch, so thats what I wanted to know. OJ -- Übrigens gibt es jetzt eine Briefmarke von Bill Gates. Leider klebt die nicht so richtig. Eine unabhängige Kommission hat inzwischen festgestellt, dass die Leute immer auf die falsche Seite spucken.
participants (9)
-
Christoph Thiel -
Clayton -
houghi -
jdd -
Johannes Kastl -
meister＠netz00.com -
Peter Flodin -
Wolfgang Rosenauer -
Youssef CHAHIBI