For your information, just updated to KDE2.1 beta 2 using Yast and ftp from kde.org. went like a dream. Logged in and it ran with no problem at all:)) -- Stu "The specification said Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux"
Stu
For your information, just updated to KDE2.1 beta 2 using Yast and ftp from kde.org. went like a dream. Logged in and it ran with no problem at all:))
I updated a few weeks ago to SuSE 7.0. Still working fine apart from Kmail which dropped daed after a Pine upgrade. Not much of a loss there :) Thanks Richard
Richard wrote:
Stu
For your information, just updated to KDE2.1 beta 2 using Yast and ftp from kde.org. went like a dream. Logged in and it ran with no problem at all:))
I updated a few weeks ago to SuSE 7.0. Still working fine apart from Kmail which dropped daed after a Pine upgrade.
Ah, does this mean that the problems wrt the RPM/YaST dependencies of the KDE2 packages on SuSE 7.0 are resolved? It got annoying enough for me that I ended up ditching the RPMs altogether and installing KDE2.1b1 from source. -- Rachel
Rachel On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Rachel Greenham wrote:
I updated a few weeks ago to SuSE 7.0. Still working fine apart from Kmail which dropped dead after a Pine upgrade.
Ah, does this mean that the problems wrt the RPM/YaST dependencies of the KDE2 packages on SuSE 7.0 are resolved? It got annoying enough for me that I ended up ditching the RPMs altogether and installing KDE2.1b1 from source.
Well, as far as I can see the whole thing to do with KDE 2 is still a little bit unreliable. I had good results with KDE 1.92 and 1.94 also 2.0 RPMs with SuSE 6.4 and 7.0. Then again all kinds of things went wrong as well. The KDE 2.1 beta 1 RPMs are installing fine on the SuSE 7.0 boxen that I've seen. But, saying that kind of thing might be really stupid ? I did find that 2.1 beta 1 was more reliable for installation and day to day use than 2.0 or 2.0.1 which sounds a bit weird but that's the way it turned out. Thanks Richard
Is it faster (or less processor-RAM demandant) than kde 2.0.1? Thanks On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Stewart Watson wrote:
For your information, just updated to KDE2.1 beta 2 using Yast and ftp from kde.org. went like a dream. Logged in and it ran with no problem at all:)) -- Stu
"The specification said Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux"
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
Eduardo On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Eduardo Diaz Uriarte wrote:
Is it faster (or less processor-RAM demandant) than kde 2.0.1?
Well, don't know about RAM dependant. I use 128Mb of RAM. I found that there was a goodish increase in speed when I moved over to 2.1 beta 1 from 2.0.1. Only thing I found wrong was that Kmail didn't like me. It kept falling off the screen. Solved that one by installing the SuSE Pine update. That killed Kmail altogether. Pine's much better :)) Thanks Richard
participants (4)
-
Eduardo Diaz Uriarte -
Rachel Greenham -
Richard -
Stewart Watson