Is firefox slower on all sites or just mainly cnn? Could it be that the cnn site is more compatible with ie? If cnn is using css or flash its prob more compatible with ie? I havent looked at cnn site yet. On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:26:08 +0200 O?uz Eren wrote:

I have IE5 installed in my linux box over crossover office (it was a prerequisite to install office xp, which i need to work with some excel vba stuff); so i compared IE5 and firefox's load times of cnn.com. IE5 was just a bit faster then Firefox: a second or two.

Regards,

...

...

My favorite benchmark is CNN.

This is what my 56k dialup takes to resolve the URL's in that page:

time for H in ar.atwola.com cnn.dyn.cnn.com i.a.cnn.net i.cnn.net www.cnn.com; \ do host $H; done

real 0m0.897s user 0m0.043s sys 0m0.037s

( SuSE-9.2 )

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:05:38 -0800 (PST), Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote: protection around

...

http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 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

-- 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

______________________________________________________________ http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service

On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 09:49 -0500, Harry Giles wrote:

it clown wrote:

...

Is firefox slower on all sites or just mainly cnn? Could it be that the cnn site is more compatible with ie? If cnn is using css or flash its prob more compatible with ie? I

Try this:

http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php

Harry G

I just tried the suggestion which does seem to speed my Firefox pageload time up but I clicked the wrong selection the first time and managed to create a new line called 0 it has no value but I would like to remove it if possible, backspace and delete don't work so how is it done. Regards Roger

On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 11:00 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Roger Beever [02-20-05 10:36]:

...

I just tried the suggestion which does seem to speed my Firefox pageload time up but I clicked the wrong selection the first time and managed to create a new line called 0 it has no value but I would like to remove it if possible, backspace and delete don't work so how is it done.

I guess, barring other suggestions, you could always edit ~/.mozilla/firefox/abcxyz.defalt/prefs.js by hand with vi or nano or pico and remove the unwanted line

*warning*: be sure to close *all* instances of firefox *first*. -- Patrick Shanahan Thanks that was the place to go. Except since the line was obviously malformed / not acceptable to Firefox it did not save it. But it did keep it while that session was open. Roger

On Sunday 20 February 2005 11:45 am, Chris Carlen wrote:

Harry Giles wrote:

...

it clown wrote:

...

Is firefox slower on all sites or just mainly cnn? Could it be that the cnn site is more compatible with ie? If cnn is using css or flash its prob more compatible with ie? I

Try this:

http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php

Harry G

Holy Sh*t!!!

That speeds things up remarkably! It works too on Mozilla.

Now for the interesting part:

On Mozilla in Win2k, by default it is set with these parameters "false" and the repaint variable doesn't exist. Thus, by default the two browsers are configured the same on Linux vs. Win2k.

But the browser surfs slower on Linux with these default settings. Also, Win2k still just slightly exceeds the performance of Linux when the Linux browser is set with the modified parameters (pipelining on) and Windows is not. Oh wow, now with these settings on Windows, it is even faster, so Linux still winds up 2-3 times slower :-(

Thus, there is still something wrong with the Linux side.

Christopher R. Carlen

Chris, I'm thinking you have something not just quite right on your Linux side or Windows is in some way causing you to see the differences you see. Although, I'm using SuSE 9.2, I'm not seeing the time differences with any of my browsers on the cnn site. When I say differences, I mean the readings you are getting on your Windows side, are comparable to my Linux readings. But, I only have Linux installed, not a dual boot. I can't say with any assurance that Windows is affecting things, but I know there have been several mails on this list complaining about things like this and they trace it down to something Windows has done after running it or before running their Linux session. You might try booting directly to Linux after turning the computer on. Just rebooting is not going to clear things out that Windows might have done. Just a thought, Lee -- --- KMail v1.7.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.2 --- Registered Linux User #225206 Sign at college bookstore: Accepted at more colleges than you were--VISA

On Monday 21 February 2005 01:26 pm, Christopher Carlen wrote:

Thanks for the input.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I'm running Win2k in a VMware virtual machine under Linux with bridged networking through the same physical interface as Linux is driving.

So interestingly, that means it is the Linux hardware driver that is handling Windows' networking!

Also I have a real physical Win2k dual boot, which is turned off when switching OSes, because it is a funny configuration:

To make the Windows useable for security hazardous operations such as general surfing with IE, I gave it it's own hard drive. There is a switch on the front of the PC to select which hard drive to boot.

So the Linux HD is actually unpowered when Win2k runs. Thus, the machine must be completely powered down when before switching HDs.

Anyway, the performance of Win2k running on native hardware vs. VM is the same. Very good, vs. the Linux slooowness.

Keep in mind, that some of the suggestions implemented thus far have improved Linux to the point of being very useable and in many cases almost the same as the Windows. Those being to use options timeout:1 in /etc/resolv.conf, and some parameter changes in the browsers.

So at this point I am continuing to investigate the root cause of the problem more for academic purposes. I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Is it highly probable that it is a DNS server quirk on the ISP's side of things.

============ Nope, sorry, didn't remember you mentioning you were running it inside Linux in VMware. Now that brings up another thought and still to the point of how Win might be affecting things in your setup. As I mentioned, your Win times are about comparable to my Linux times with all my browsers, so there is definitely something going on there that I don't have here. It will be interesting to see what you find. Of course, for a second or two, I'm not sure I would put this much time into it, but I guess 2 seconds of a persons life each day is detrimental to his/her well being if Windows is involved, huh? ;o) keep us posted, Lee -- --- KMail v1.7.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.2 --- Registered Linux User #225206 Sign at college bookstore: Accepted at more colleges than you were--VISA

James P. Bennett wrote:

When attempting to set up ftp, I tried to check by ftp'ing to my own workstation. Here's what I found (using pure-ftp), with ftpd running.

linux Archive/new# ftp 172.30.130.130 Connected to 172.30.130.130. 220---------- Welcome to Pure-FTPd [TLS] ---------- 220-You are user number 1 of 10 allowed. 220-Local time is now 20:35. Server port: 21. 220-Only anonymous FTP is allowed here 220-IPv6 connections are also welcome on this server. 220 You will be disconnected after 15 minutes of inactivity. Name (172.30.130.130:jbennett): root 230 Anonymous user logged in Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp> mdir (remote-files) usage: mdir remote-files local-file ftp> ls 229 Extended Passive mode OK (|||20318|) 150 Accepted data connection drwxr-xr-x 2 0 0 4096 Apr 6 2004 . drwxr-xr-x 2 0 0 4096 Apr 6 2004 .. 226-Options: -a -l 226 2 matches total ftp> pwd 257 "/" is your current location ftp> cd home 550 Can't change directory to home: No such file or directory ftp>

What am I doing wrong?

jim

Is it chrooting you? You're logging in as an anonymous user, so you'd be chrooted to nothing. (Assuming chroot to your home directory) -- -Chris Kwasneski Software Engineer Yuma Proving Grounds

The Tuesday 2005-02-22 at 11:41 -0500, James P. Bennett wrote:

...

When attempting to set up ftp, I tried to check by ftp'ing to my own workstation. Here's what I found (using pure-ftp), with ftpd running.

...

...

220-Local time is now 20:35. Server port: 21. 220-Only anonymous FTP is allowed here

...

...

Name (172.30.130.130:jbennett): root 230 Anonymous user logged in

------^^^^^^^^

...

257 "/" is your current location ftp> cd home 550 Can't change directory to home: No such file or directory ftp>

What am I doing wrong?

Nothing. You have only allowed the user "anonymous". I would assume because each file therein is owned by a real user and

Carlos E. R. wrote: therefore "anonymous" does not have permission to view anything therein. I would like to hear from the gurus on the list why this is so too. -- ======================================================================== Hylton Conacher - Linux user # 229959 at http://counter.li.org Currently using SuSE 9.0 Professional with KDE 3.1 ========================================================================

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 10:52, Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC) wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

220-Local time is now 20:35. Server port: 21. 220-Only anonymous FTP is allowed here

...

...

Name (172.30.130.130:jbennett): root 230 Anonymous user logged in

------^^^^^^^^

...

257 "/" is your current location ftp> cd home 550 Can't change directory to home: No such file or directory ftp>

What am I doing wrong?

Check your FTP configuration to see where the -ftp- root dir is. I doubt that it is "/" and would therefore be empty unless you have previously setup some structure under it. As you reported in an earlier post when you did an ls all that came back was the . (the current) and .. (the parent) dirs meaning there is nothing else there to see or cd to. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please* "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Carlos, On Thursday 24 February 2005 16:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Thursday 2005-02-24 at 17:52 +0200, Hylton Conacher:

...

...

...

ftp> What am I doing wrong?

Nothing. You have only allowed the user "anonymous".

I would assume because each file therein is owned by a real user and therefore "anonymous" does not have permission to view anything therein. I would like to hear from the gurus on the list why this is so too.

No. The user "anonymous" of a ftp server does not exist. It is a convention, a convenient virtual "user" for access to the server by anybody, without password. The convention is to supply your email as password.

The user "anonymous" sees nothing, unless you define a default tree of files for him to see (/srv/ftp, for example). This does not depend on the server being chrooted or not.

Look closely. It (the server) told him the current directory was "/" and he tried a "cd home" and was told "No such file or directory". That can only be true if the FTP server is running in a chroot jail.

...

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

Carlos, On Saturday 26 February 2005 04:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Thursday 2005-02-24 at 18:12 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

The user "anonymous" sees nothing, unless you define a default tree of files for him to see (/srv/ftp, for example). This does not depend on the server being chrooted or not.

Look closely. It (the server) told him the current directory was "/" and he tried a "cd home" and was told "No such file or directory". That can only be true if the FTP server is running in a chroot jail.

Not really. It also happens if you don't define a default tree structure, for the user "anonymous". I know, I tried (with vsftpd in my case)

Look:

cer@nimrodel:~> ls /srv/ftp cer@nimrodel:~> ftp localhost Connected to localhost. 220 "Welcome to nimrodel FTP service." Name (localhost:cer): anonymous 331 Please specify the password. Password: 230 Login successful. Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp> ls 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||18629|) 150 Here comes the directory listing. 226 Directory send OK. ftp> pwd 257 "/" ftp>

ftp> cd home 550 Failed to change directory. ftp> cd / 250 Directory successfully changed. ftp> ls 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||49268|) 150 Here comes the directory listing. 226 Directory send OK. ftp>

¿Convinced? My anonymous user sees _nothing_.

I don't see the difference. You changed to directory "/" but did not see the contents of that the server host's root directory (I assume it's not some kind of phantom Linux with no files in its root directory).

After I create a file in /srv/ftp, he sees that file - and that is as it should be. And no, my vsftpd is not chrooted:

#chroot_local_user=YES #chroot_list_enable=YES #chroot_list_file=/etc/vsftpd.chroot_list

OK, fine. Vsftp simulates it. From the FTP client's perspective, it's a distinction without a difference. The "/" is synthesized for the client and is not the server's "/", so "/home" is not going to provide access to the server host's "/home".

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz