Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
Some of the widget thingys. What's with the big eyeballs anyway?
They watch :)
No, there's no other purpose. I have at least one instance of XEyes on
my desktop since I found this little application in 1992 when I first
started using a Sun workstat
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:10 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or
Dale writes:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
>> Dale writes:
>>> Alex Schuster wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.wonkology.org/comp/desktop/2011-07-24/desktop6.png
>>>
>>> You might want to remove that one. Look closely at the bank screen.
>>>
>> That's okay, this is not really my account number, althou
On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:27:48 Alex Schuster wrote:
> I would need many more desktops then. How many do you have?
Mostly I have six, but when I'm in a major redevelopment phase of my web
site that goes up to eight.
> So you also use activities? I don't, and I think they don't suit me as I
>
On Thursday, 28 July 2011 22:27:48 Alex Schuster did opine thusly:
> Probably not. The image file name is citrusdal.jpg, this is the name
> of a small town in South Aftica as Wikipedia tells me.
It's a nice town. In season, you can buy the most fantastic oranges
there that you ever tasted.
--
Peter Humphrey writes:
> On Thursday 28 July 2011 19:14:07 Alex Schuster wrote:
>
>> Desktop 4: Remote. I go here when I administrate remote systems, via ssh
>> in a Konsole, RDesktop, or NX. The folder views have shortcuts to start
>> NX/Rdesktop/VPN sessions, or Dophins opening FTP locations an
On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 14:38:01 Dale wrote:
> How do you tell KDE that you want a widget thingy on one desktop and not all
of them?
Settings -> workspace behavior -> Virtual Desktops -> Tick "diffrent widgets
for each desktop"
in earlier kde versions when they were trying to figure out what t
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I can
put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left. That is more than eno
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
Alex Schuster wrote:
http://www.wonkology.org/comp/desktop/2011-07-24/desktop6.png
You might want to remove that one. Look closely at the bank screen.
That's okay, this is not really my account number, although very close :)
But even if
On Thursday 28 July 2011 20:06:09 Alex Schuster wrote:
> I'll wait a little and then upgrade to 4.7, and then I'll decide if I stay
> with it. If not, the question would be what to use instead, I would miss
> so many things.
Me too. I'm sure you wouldn't like gnome: it has far too much of the Win
On Thursday 28 July 2011 19:14:07 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Desktop 4: Remote. I go here when I administrate remote systems, via ssh
> in a Konsole, RDesktop, or NX. The folder views have shortcuts to start
> NX/Rdesktop/VPN sessions, or Dophins opening FTP locations and such.
Is that Bow Fell (othe
Dale writes:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
> http://www.wonkology.org/comp/desktop/2011-07-24/desktop6.png
>
> You might want to remove that one. Look closely at the bank screen.
That's okay, this is not really my account number, although very close :)
But even if it were, I guess it wouldn't be to
Alex Schuster wrote:
I made some screenshots [*] after I started with an empty .kde4 directory
one week ago. They show what is started automatically when I log into KDE,
well, except for the last desktop where I fired up a browser for online
banking.
Desktop 1: Administration stuff. A Konsole w
Dale writes:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Dale writes:
> >> Alex Schuster wrote:
> >>> I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run
> >>> KDE here.
> >>
> >> I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
> >> time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk op
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:16:35 -0500, Dale wrote:
Speaking of tmpfs, I should have re-emerged OOo on tmpfs. It filled up
/var and died, just a few minutes before it would have finished. Oh
well, I'll make /var bigger next time. Maybe a couple more Gbs. I put
that http
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I
> can
> > put half on tmpfs a
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:16:35 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Speaking of tmpfs, I should have re-emerged OOo on tmpfs. It filled up
> /var and died, just a few minutes before it would have finished. Oh
> well, I'll make /var bigger next time. Maybe a couple more Gbs. I put
> that http-replicator on he
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 16:35:13 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
> > > that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
> > > memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
Alex Schuster wrote:
I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe
here.
I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
y
Dale writes:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
> > I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe
> > here.
>
> I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
> time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
> you got a lot running or some
Dale wrote:
I run KDE here and it uses less than 1Gbs all the time. Most of the
time it hovers around 1Gb with a lot of junk open. If your used 8Gbs,
you got a lot running or something. o_O
That should read "less than 2 Gbs all the time". I hit the wrong
button. lol
Dale
:-) :-)
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
That's what I was expecting too. It is confusing for sure.
Years ago, I used tmpfs, and it was slightly faster, but on average only
few seconds in an hou-long emerge.
I don't use tmpfs any more, as 8G of RAM is barely enough to run KDe here.
I ru
Dale writes:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> I wasn't thinking of systems with that much memory. Like you, I'd expect
>> your system to be faster, even if not by much, using tmpfs.
> That's what I was expecting too. It is confusing for sure.
Years ago, I used tmpfs, and it was slightly faster, but o
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I
can put half on tmp
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
> > otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
> I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I
> can put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:54:22 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> > It makes sense because the ramdisk is using memory that would
> > otherwise be used for compilation and filesystem caches.
>
> tmpfs isn't implemented as a ramdisk, it's implemented as a thin layer
> on top of the filesystem cache.
Tha
Joshua Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dale wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dalewrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything.
Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I can
put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left. That is more than eno
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>
> I have 16Gbs here. It's not like I'm going to run out or anything. I can
> put half on tmpfs and still have 8Gbs left. That is more than enough to
> compile even OOo
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported doing a
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> >>> I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
>> >>> that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
>> >>> memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
>> >>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:58:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>> I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
> >>> that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
> >>> memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
> >>>
> >> In this last week someone reported doing actu
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
In this last week someone reported doi
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I wonder how effective tmpfs is for PORTAGE_TMPDIR as the builds
> > that need a lot of disk space can often require a fair bit of
> > memory too, and tmpfs is using it all.
>
> In this last week someone reported doing actually measur
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 15:40:03 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> > Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped
>> > out to the swap partition. Perhaps you
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
>> the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
>
> The default size for a tmpfs file
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 15:40:03 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped
> > out to the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at
> > the time.
>
> The default size
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
The default size for a tmpfs filesystem is half the physical RAM, u
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:33 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Doesn't do that here. When tmpfs is full it starts being swapped out to
> the swap partition. Perhaps you didn't have any swap at the time.
The default size for a tmpfs filesystem is half the physical RAM, unless
you specify more as a mo
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Peter Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 14:29:12 Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick wrote:
>> > What will libreoffice do if /var/tmp/portage is a tmpfs? Start
>> > swapping like mad?
>>
>> No; the tmpfs runs out of space, and th
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 14:29:12 Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick wrote:
> > What will libreoffice do if /var/tmp/portage is a tmpfs? Start
> > swapping like mad?
>
> No; the tmpfs runs out of space, and the build fails. Had that happen
> with Thunderbird, and thus en
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 08:24:37 Alexander Puchmayr wrote:
>> Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
>> /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
>>
>> none /var/tmp/portage tmpfs
>> si
On Wednesday 27 Jul 2011 08:24:37 Alexander Puchmayr wrote:
> Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
> /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
>
> none/var/tmp/portagetmpfs
> size=10g,nr_inodes=1m
>
> I have 4GB ram, and the s
Depending on your available ram and swap space, you might want to mount
/var/tmp/portage as tmpfs. My fstab entry shows
none/var/tmp/portagetmpfs size=10g,nr_inodes=1m
I have 4GB ram, and the speed benefit especially for open/libre-office is quite
impressive.
The
On Monday 25 July 2011 11:02:34 Mick did opine thusly:
> After some deliberation I've started emerging libreoffice. It gave
> the usual office suite warnings at the beginning that there isn't
> enough space in /var (I have 5.8G and it was asking for more than
> 7G+).
>
> Half way through the emer
On Monday 25 Jul 2011 12:18:34 YoYo Siska wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:40:55AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> > I never understood properly how the mount --bind/rbind works. I
> > understand that the original partition content becomes visible on a
> > second partition, but I'm not at all sure what h
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:40:55AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> On Monday 25 Jul 2011 11:24:33 YoYo Siska wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:02:34AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> > > After some deliberation I've started emerging libreoffice. It gave the
> > > usual office suite warnings at the beginning that th
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Mick wrote:
> After some deliberation I've started emerging libreoffice. It gave the
> usual
> office suite warnings at the beginning that there isn't enough space in
> /var
> (I have 5.8G and it was asking for more than 7G+).
>
> Half way through the emerge I no
On Monday 25 Jul 2011 11:24:33 YoYo Siska wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:02:34AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> > After some deliberation I've started emerging libreoffice. It gave the
> > usual office suite warnings at the beginning that there isn't enough
> > space in /var (I have 5.8G and it was ask
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:02:34AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> After some deliberation I've started emerging libreoffice. It gave the usual
> office suite warnings at the beginning that there isn't enough space in /var
> (I have 5.8G and it was asking for more than 7G+).
>
> Half way through the emerg
51 matches
Mail list logo
