Thanks.
Running _ldconfig_ did the trick.
.brad
Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
Le 23.04.2004 23:14:11, Brad Kligerman a écrit :
Hi again.
I compiled gimp-2.0.1 relatively painlessly, but when I try to
start it from a command line, I get the following error:
In which path did you build gimp
Hi again,
I have almost completed all the paperwork to get The GIMP Foundation up
and running. The last slightly compliciated bit left is to get the
bylaws finished.
I have a draft version of the bylaws that need a few gaps filled in.
I've put it here: http://www.phasevelocity.org/bylaws.doc The
Steve Crane wrote:
Do you have any variant of Microsoft SQL Server on that machine? SQL
Server loads as a service (i.e. when the machine starts up) and will
grab as much memory as it can. If so, stop the SQL services and try
working with the GIMP again. Might make a difference.
No... not.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Brad Kligerman wrote:
> $ gimp-2.0
> gimp-2.0: error while loading shared libraries: libgimpwidgets-2.0.so.0:
> cannot
> open shared object file: No such file or directory
You probably need to do ldconfig or something to update the list of
shared libraries.
>
> I also notice
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:54:59 -0300
> From: Joao S. O. Bueno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Environment settings & big images
>
> On Thursday 22 April 2004 16:42, David Neary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sven Neuma
Hi again.
I compiled gimp-2.0.1 relatively painlessly, but when I try to start
it from a command line, I get the following error:
$ gimp-2.0
gimp-2.0: error while loading shared libraries:
libgimpwidgets-2.0.so.0: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
I also noticed th
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:26:17PM +1200, Jaco Swart wrote:
> Hm, mine is Gimp 1.2.5 on a 1.8GHz P4, W2K, but just 256M RAM. The Tile
> Cache is set to 128M. In the case I described, I did have PS open at
> first, but no images loaded. After that, I closed PS and Framemaker and
> tried again -
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:50:39PM +1000, David Burren wrote:
>
> Carol Spears wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:23:32AM +1000, David Burren wrote:
> >
>
> > is the very fact that the linux community shared with YOU part of what
> > slows gimp down?
>
> Now this sounds like you getting a
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:50:39PM +1000, David Burren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i am curious. do you think that if the adobe geniuses could make their
> > software compile on linux, if it would slow it down.
>
> No. In fact they've got it to compile on a Unix (ie. MacOS X) and
Slightly of
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known
> > fact and it's not trivial to improve.
>
> How, exactly? I've heard this too, but I have no clear idea how
> they do so - do they have a similar caching system, and just make
> bett
10 matches
Mail list logo
