On 2010/04/03 11:01 (GMT+1000) Chris Jones composed:
> Fedora did in fact reduce the number of VT's
> somewhere along the line.
Fedora 13 has 6, same as Mandriva 2010.1 and openSUSE 11.3, and Knoppix
installed to a HD. Maybe you're thinking about movement of X from 7 to 1 when
booting Fedora dire
>> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:57:10 -0300
>> From: Fl?vio Etrusco
>> Subject: Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
>> IIRC Fedora lowered the number of login terminals for reasons other
>> than process/memory overhead - though I can't remember what reas
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:57:10 -0300, Flávio Etrusco
wrote:
> IIRC Fedora lowered the number of login terminals for reasons other
> than process/memory overhead - though I can't remember what reasons
> were from the top of my head ;-)
> BTW, does a terminal allocate any video memory when using KMS
Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> What about the system startup duration impact ?
What about it?
My intuition is that starting a few extra VTs should not take
significant time. Produce evidence to the contrary if you disagree.
Max.
> Max Bowsher a écrit :
>> Jérôme Bouat wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> I thi
What about the system startup duration impact ?
Max Bowsher a écrit :
> Jérôme Bouat wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough.
>>
>> I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared.
>> However, it would decrease the numbe
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jérôme Bouat wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough.
>>
>> I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared.
>> However, it would decrease the number of processes (mor
Am Mittwoch, den 31.03.2010, 22:41 +0100 schrieb Max Bowsher:
> Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough.
> >
> > I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared.
> > However, it would decrease the numb
Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough.
>
> I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared.
> However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable
> process list, less processes context s
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means
> that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals.
>
> On the other side, if you are a newbie, you will possibly never use a
> virtual terminal.
>
> Thus I th
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:23 +0200, Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means
> that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals.
I entirely disagree with this. I use multiple virtual terminals every
day but would have no idea how to
On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means
that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals.
On the other side, if you are a newbie, you will possibly never use a
virtual terminal.
Thus I think the default configuration should provide only 2 virtual
ter
On 31.03.2010 22:15, Brandon Kuczenski wrote:
> "Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please
> eliminate three. I am not a crackpot!"
Please keep the discussion respectful. Whatever you are arguing for will
not be truer or more significant by insulting others.
In the Ubuntu
"Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please
eliminate three. I am not a crackpot!"
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F16.html
Why in the name of all that is good? My process list features 7 gettys,
it's true, but they're utterly insignificant compared to the 194 other
proce
13 matches
Mail list logo
