10.1 virgin /etc/ld.so.conf, please?
I upgraded my system from 10.0 to 10.1. I would like to see what the /etc/ld.so.conf file looks like on a freshly installed 10.1 system. If someone could please post theirs from an unmodified freshly installed 10.1 I would appreciate it. I would also like to see any files in the /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ directory. Thanks much! Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
I upgraded my system from 10.0 to 10.1. I would like to see what the /etc/ld.so.conf file looks like on a freshly installed 10.1 system. If someone could please post theirs from an unmodified freshly installed 10.1 I would appreciate it.
/usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d /usr/X11R6/lib /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib=libc5 /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib /usr/local/lib /opt/kde3/lib /opt/gnome/lib include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf
I would also like to see any files in the /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ directory.
I have no files in that dir. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Michael Nelson wrote:
I upgraded my system from 10.0 to 10.1. I would like to see what the /etc/ld.so.conf file looks like on a freshly installed 10.1 system. If someone could please post theirs from an unmodified freshly installed 10.1 I would appreciate it.
/usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d /usr/X11R6/lib /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib=libc5 /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib /usr/local/lib /opt/kde3/lib /opt/gnome/lib include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf
I would also like to see any files in the /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ directory.
I have no files in that dir.
Wow, thank you Per. That's the way mine was after the upgrade too. Have you checked those paths? On my system, several of them don't exist, and that slows down the loading of libraries. Do all of those paths really exist on your system? Why would SuSE put those paths in there when they don't even exist on the system? Michael -- San Francisco, CA
These paths that are in the /etc/ld.so.conf file don't exist on my system: seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d ls: /usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d: No such file or directory seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib ls: /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib: No such file or directory seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib ls: /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib: No such file or directory Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
These paths that are in the /etc/ld.so.conf file don't exist on my system:
seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d ls: /usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d: No such file or directory seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib ls: /usr/i486-linux-libc5/lib: No such file or directory seahunt:~$ ls -ld /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib ls: /usr/i386-suse-linux/lib: No such file or directory
Same here. I don't think it should slow the loading of libraries though. ldconfig would figure out that those directories don't exist, and not include them in the cache - I think. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:03:14PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I don't think it should slow the loading of libraries though. ldconfig would figure out that those directories don't exist, and not include them in the cache - I think.
That's probably true. I'm trying to figure out what causes acroread to take over 1 minute to load on my 10.1 machine, and some of the lib loading stuff in strace logs has me investigating the search order ld.so uses. See: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=147966 Thanks Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:03:14PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I don't think it should slow the loading of libraries though. ldconfig would figure out that those directories don't exist, and not include them in the cache - I think.
That's probably true. I'm trying to figure out what causes acroread to take over 1 minute to load on my 10.1 machine, and some of the lib loading stuff in strace logs has me investigating the search order ld.so uses.
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ... /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 13:18, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ...
Takes 8 secs to load a document here on 10.1
Sometimes mine takes 8 seconds, sometimes it takes over a minute. This is true for some other folks too, if you read the bug report. I'm trying to figure out why it doesn't always load quickly. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 13:18, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ...
Takes 8 secs to load a document here on 10.1
Sometimes mine takes 8 seconds, sometimes it takes over a minute. This is true for some other folks too, if you read the bug report.
Loading acroread from scratch took my system 27sec just now. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 13:18, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ...
Takes 8 secs to load a document here on 10.1
It just took almost a minute to load a 2 page test document here.
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 03:34:26PM -0400, James Knott wrote:
It just took almost a minute to load a 2 page test document here.
You might want to add yourself to the cc list for the bug I referenced earlier. Perhaps we can get the heat turned up on fixing it. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
On Monday 29 May 2006 15:34, James Knott wrote:
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 13:18, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ...
Takes 8 secs to load a document here on 10.1
It just took almost a minute to load a 2 page test document here.
Just tried about 6 documents. Times were from 5 secs to 17 secs with most in the 5 to 8 range. 6 secs to load a 7mb document.
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 06:08:18PM -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
Just tried about 6 documents. Times were from 5 secs to 17 secs with most in the 5 to 8 range. 6 secs to load a 7mb document.
That's great to hear. But acrobat is pretty severely broken in SuSE 10.1 for some folks, and if it is broken for YOU I urge you to climb onto that bug referenced earlier and agitate for a fix. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
That's great to hear. But acrobat is pretty severely broken in SuSE 10.1 for some folks, and if it is broken for YOU I urge you to climb onto that bug referenced earlier and agitate for a fix.
Has anyone tried the same acroread on a 10.0 system? Showing that something got regressed is often a good start. Also, those who have fairly short (<10sec) start-times on 10.1, maybe you could do an strace, and we could compare notes. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 13:18, Per Jessen wrote:
Interesting - and acroread does take a long time to load. I hadn't really noticed, but now that you've mentioned it ...
Takes 8 secs to load a document here on 10.1
Strange- it only takes 2.2 seconds to open a document here (on 10.1). Cheers. -- Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity is permanent.
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:23:16PM +1000, Basil Chupin wrote:
Strange- it only takes 2.2 seconds to open a document here (on 10.1).
My point isn't that it doesn't work perfectly well on some 10.1 systems, it does. My point, and the point of the bug, is that on some systems it is so slow as to be virtually unusable. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
Michael Nelson wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:23:16PM +1000, Basil Chupin wrote:
Strange- it only takes 2.2 seconds to open a document here (on 10.1).
My point isn't that it doesn't work perfectly well on some 10.1 systems, it does. My point, and the point of the bug, is that on some systems it is so slow as to be virtually unusable.
Michael
The problem with what you just said is how does one decide that it is a "bug" because as you just said that it works perfectly on other installations? I, and others, have posted in this forum problems I/we have with other bits of SuSE - either this latest version or earlier - and I/we either get no response because noone else is having the same hassle or get the same sort of response I made, ie "I get this result.....". The bottom line really about this is that I have installed Windows on other people's computers which had a diverse sets of components and Windows always installs first up and works on all those systems; if I install Acrobat reader on a Windows computer it reads whatever pdf document I throw at it without blinking, and if I install ANY piece of software written for Windows it INSTALLS without first having to wank itself stupid deciding if there are dependencies which first need to be satisfied. Cheers. -- Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity is permanent.
Basil Chupin wrote:
My point isn't that it doesn't work perfectly well on some 10.1 systems, it does. My point, and the point of the bug, is that on some systems it is so slow as to be virtually unusable.
Michael
The problem with what you just said is how does one decide that it is a "bug" because as you just said that it works perfectly on other installations?
If the same software works in significantly different ways on two relatively similar hardware setups, it is a bug. Whether it is a bug in SUSE Linux or caused by something else is the real problem.
I, and others, have posted in this forum problems I/we have with other bits of SuSE - either this latest version or earlier - and I/we either get no response because noone else is having the same hassle or get the same sort of response I made, ie "I get this result.....".
Unless you describe the problem in detail, and preferably provide some useful diagnostics, this is about all you can expect. Michael has describe the problem in some detail, has even told us he's been stracing and that there's an open bugreport. That's all pretty good stuff.
The bottom line really about this is that I have installed Windows on other people's computers which had a diverse sets of components and Windows always installs first up and works on all those systems; if I install Acrobat reader on a Windows computer it reads whatever pdf document I throw at it without blinking, and if I install ANY piece of software written for Windows it INSTALLS without first having to wank itself stupid deciding if there are dependencies which first need to be satisfied.
Basil, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sounds a little like you'd rather be working on Windows? Linux is not Windows. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
My point isn't that it doesn't work perfectly well on some 10.1 systems, it does. My point, and the point of the bug, is that on some systems it is so slow as to be virtually unusable.
Michael The problem with what you just said is how does one decide that it is a "bug" because as you just said that it works perfectly on other installations?
If the same software works in significantly different ways on two relatively similar hardware setups, it is a bug. Whether it is a bug in SUSE Linux or caused by something else is the real problem.
I, and others, have posted in this forum problems I/we have with other bits of SuSE - either this latest version or earlier - and I/we either get no response because noone else is having the same hassle or get the same sort of response I made, ie "I get this result.....".
Unless you describe the problem in detail, and preferably provide some useful diagnostics, this is about all you can expect. Michael has describe the problem in some detail, has even told us he's been stracing and that there's an open bugreport. That's all pretty good stuff.
I have been describing my problems in some detail in the past - I've been on the other side of problem solving so know what I should or should not provide; having said this I also know that I sometimes provide terse information because I assume - probably incorrectly - that those who are reading can "add meat to the bones" and so save me some typing.
The bottom line really about this is that I have installed Windows on other people's computers which had a diverse sets of components and Windows always installs first up and works on all those systems; if I install Acrobat reader on a Windows computer it reads whatever pdf document I throw at it without blinking, and if I install ANY piece of software written for Windows it INSTALLS without first having to wank itself stupid deciding if there are dependencies which first need to be satisfied.
Basil, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sounds a little like you'd rather be working on Windows?
No, I would not rather be working on Windows. But I am afraid that I, and many others, are, unfortunately, forced to continue to work on Windows because something like SuSE - which I thought was finally "getting there" after many years - just doesn't cut the mustard. After trying out almost all the distros on the market I settled on SuSE which I considered had a future and had the ability to match the popularity of Windows. Until recently that is. Now it is just another floundering piece of software bobbing around in the pond, and a small one at that, without a solid and sensible captain at the helm to take it to port. All it has are little gnomes running around counting beans in their little mugs. I DON'T want to be working on Windows. But I have to. And this is what is making me so damn frustrated and making me angry. I thought that SuSE was what was going to get me out of the Windows mire - but I was wrong. Regrettably I also have a personality which attracts me to lost causes. So I will persevere with SuSE for the time being - until the time Novell gets itself into such a mess that it will become a target (if it isn't already) for M$ to buy it out and then SuSE will disappear. At which point, like Don Quixote, I'll start looking for a new windmill to play with.
Linux is not Windows.
A well used cliche, but doesn't really explain anything. Cheers. -- Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity is permanent. -- 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 Jun 6, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
No, I would not rather be working on Windows. But I am afraid that I, and many others, are, unfortunately, forced to continue to work on Windows because something like SuSE - which I thought was finally "getting there" after many years - just doesn't cut the mustard. After trying out almost all the distros on the market I settled on SuSE which I considered had a future and had the ability to match the popularity of Windows. Until recently that is. Now it is just another floundering piece of software bobbing around in the pond, and a small one at that, without a solid and sensible captain at the helm to take it to port. All it has are little gnomes running around counting beans in their little mugs.
I DON'T want to be working on Windows. But I have to. And this is what is making me so damn frustrated and making me angry. I thought that SuSE was what was going to get me out of the Windows mire - but I was wrong.
Regrettably I also have a personality which attracts me to lost causes. So I will persevere with SuSE for the time being - until the time Novell gets itself into such a mess that it will become a target (if it isn't already) for M$ to buy it out and then SuSE will disappear. At which point, like Don Quixote, I'll start looking for a new windmill to play with.
So who is telling you that you _must_ run the latest version? The OS is just a tool. Use the tool that works the best for you. Have you looked at 10.0? How about 9.3? I liked the 9.* very much, and for what I'm doing now, 10.0 seems fine. But then, my main DT box now is OSX 10.4.6. We have boxes running mac OS8, OS9. We had Yellowdog version 2.* for years, we just killed the box not too long ago. It was just a file server. We use what ever works- NOT what is trendy. We host on Cobalt RAQ 2 and 3's - Very old. Still gets the job done. All we need now is Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop to run in Linux. (yea, the real photoshop & Ill) Thanks, George
suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:
All we need now is Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop to run in Linux. (yea, the real photoshop & Ill)
I think at least Photoshop will run in Wine. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- 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
As a safe bet I would recommend purchasing a license of Crossover, has a tendency to work somewhat better there. :) Regards Per Qvindesland Per Jessen wrote:
suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:
All we need now is Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop to run in Linux. (yea, the real photoshop & Ill)
I think at least Photoshop will run in Wine.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
-- 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
Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2006 13:22 schrieb Per Qvindesland:
As a safe bet I would recommend purchasing a license of Crossover, has a tendency to work somewhat better there. :)
Regards Per Qvindesland
Per Jessen wrote:
suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:
All we need now is Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop to run in Linux. (yea, the real photoshop & Ill)
I think at least Photoshop will run in Wine.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Yes, Photoshop runs great in Crossover, you almost wouldn't even realize a difference if it runs on a windows box or under Linux/Crossover (except when starting up). *But*: Do you really need Photoshop anymore? I don't. (I know Photoshop by hart, worked with it for many years, beginning with Version 3, ending December 2005; Photoshop was the only reason I waited so long until I switched from Windows to Linux). - DigiKam is a really great tool (yes, I am a fan :-) ), you can do probably everything with it, what's dealing with the whole picture, soon (with 0.9) even with 16bit-pictures. - imageMagick is incredibly fast and does many things much quicker than Photoshop's batch jobs I formerly had to use. - The Gimp and CinePaint can do, what you can't with DigiKam and imageMagick. Ok, Gimp's user interface is not exactly what I like, and I still suffer when trying to use imageMagick ;-). But hey - how long did I have to learn to really handle Photoshop!? I agree with missing Quark and Illustrator (4me: PageMaker, InDesign) , because I haven't found something comparable yet. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist... Daniel -- Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Switzerland professional photography: http://www.daniel-bauer.com special interest site: http://www.bauer-nudes.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
On Thursday 08 June 2006 13:20, Daniel Bauer wrote:
I agree with missing Quark and Illustrator (4me: PageMaker, InDesign) , because I haven't found something comparable yet. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...
I believe that for most of the illustrator users inkscape is a good option! For others would even be a better option. you may gave it a try http://www.inkscape.org/ -- António Rodrigues Tomé artome@ubi.pt <---official e-mail address artome@gmail.com <---alternative security e-mail address http://www.dfisica.ubi.pt/~artome http://www.cgul.ul.pt/curric/cgul_tome.htm -- 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 Thursday 08 June 2006 13:20, Daniel Bauer wrote:
I agree with missing Quark and Illustrator (4me: PageMaker, InDesign) , because I haven't found something comparable yet. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...
And for Quark, I forget this my first reply, I use sribus http://www.scribus.net/ for small and fancy documents! Most of the time I like TeX. But scribus is a very good choice for people looking for a free Open-source page layout program. -- António Rodrigues Tomé artome@ubi.pt <---official e-mail address artome@gmail.com <---alternative security e-mail address http://www.dfisica.ubi.pt/~artome http://www.cgul.ul.pt/curric/cgul_tome.htm -- 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 Thursday 08 June 2006 13:20, Daniel Bauer wrote:
I agree with missing Quark and Illustrator (4me: PageMaker, InDesign) , because I haven't found something comparable yet. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...
For Illustrator, have you tried Inkscape (www.inkscape.org)? I'd be interested in seeing what a seasoned Illustrator user thinks about its strengths, shortcomings. -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - KDE yn Gymraeg www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg www.rhedadur.org.uk - Rhedeg berfau Cymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD -- 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
Basil Chupin wrote:
No, I would not rather be working on Windows. But I am afraid that I, and many others, are, unfortunately, forced to continue to work on Windows because something like SuSE - which I thought was finally "getting there" after many years - just doesn't cut the mustard.
That is of course difficult to discuss. If you feel SUSE Linux just doesn't serve all your needs, whereas Windows does, the choice is obvious. SUSE Linux serves all my business needs, and for business purposes I have been using exclusively SUSE Linux for about the last two years. We have recently started also equipping all laptops with Linux. Privately, I have a Windows machine for playing games.
I DON'T want to be working on Windows. But I have to. And this is what is making me so damn frustrated and making me angry. I thought that SuSE was what was going to get me out of the Windows mire - but I was wrong.
I think it's your choice. IMO, SUSE Linux was already at 9.3 a quite suitable alternative. A lot has improved with 10.1, and the teething problems that we're seeing are just that.
Linux is not Windows.
A well used cliche, but doesn't really explain anything.
Among other things it means it is pointless to compare the two like you did. Linux - SUSE or otherwise - is not a transparent replacement for Windows nor does it pretend to be. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- 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
Michael Nelson
Wow, thank you Per. That's the way mine was after the upgrade too. Have you checked those paths? On my system, several of them don't exist, and that slows down the loading of libraries.
/etc/ld.so.conf is only read by ldconfig. So, extra pathes will slow down ldconfig - but not the loading of libraries at program start.
Do all of those paths really exist on your system?
Why would SuSE put those paths in there when they don't even exist on the system?
They might exist depending on packages installed, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:59:34PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
/etc/ld.so.conf is only read by ldconfig. So, extra pathes will slow down ldconfig - but not the loading of libraries at program start.
OK, thanks for that clarification. It looks like Adobe fiddles with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the /usr/X11R6/bin/acroread startup script, and that may be causing longer load times in acroread. Michael -- San Francisco, CA
participants (11)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
António Rodrigues Tomé -
Basil Chupin -
Bruce Marshall -
Daniel Bauer -
James Knott -
Kevin Donnelly -
Michael Nelson -
Per Jessen -
Per Qvindesland -
suse_gasjr4wd＠mac.com