Gnome 2.24

kensai · 2008-10-13 09:22:18

FLCLFan wrote:

Lighten up peoples.

No hard feelings. Is just that sometimes it isn't joking, but well, I didn't get it so it was my fault. Now, lets enjoy GNOME 2.24 before the x86_64 packages appear so we can say, "we got it first".

Roberth · 2008-10-13 12:58:19

Where is GDM?

wonder · 2008-10-13 13:03:45

Roberth wrote:

Where is GDM?

click on page 3 and read the last message on that page

Roberth · 2008-10-13 13:31:06

wonder wrote:

Roberth wrote:
Where is GDM?
click on page 3 and read the last message on that page

Sorry missed that post.

FLCLFan · 2008-10-13 22:31:01

kensai wrote:

FLCLFan wrote:
Lighten up peoples.
Now, lets enjoy GNOME 2.24 before the x86_64 packages appear so we can say, "we got it first".

You may have that first but I have 32 more bits then you do! Thats 50% and 2x the number of bits you have! More bits ftw!

SomeGuyDude · 2008-10-13 23:11:39

FLCLFan wrote:

kensai wrote:
FLCLFan wrote:
Lighten up peoples.
Now, lets enjoy GNOME 2.24 before the x86_64 packages appear so we can say, "we got it first".
You may have that first but I have 32 more bits then you do! Thats 50% and 2x the number of bits you have! More bits ftw!

That's 200%, if you're looking at it from the angle of how many bits you have versus how many he does.

sandstorm · 2008-10-13 23:17:37

SomeGuyDude wrote:

FLCLFan wrote:
kensai wrote:
Now, lets enjoy GNOME 2.24 before the x86_64 packages appear so we can say, "we got it first".
You may have that first but I have 32 more bits then you do! Thats 50% and 2x the number of bits you have! More bits ftw!
That's 200%, if you're looking at it from the angle of how many bits you have versus how many he does.

I think x64 is even better in other areas ... like thermal power loss

Martin

SomeGuyDude · 2008-10-13 23:28:47

sandstorm wrote:

I think x64 is even better in other areas ... like thermal power loss
Martin

I have a 64-bit proc but threw the i686 version of Arch on it for ease of use (I know, I know). Yer makin' me heavily consider redoing it, despite my having uninstalled and reinstalled between Arch and Ubuntu about five times over the weekend.

FLCLFan · 2008-10-13 23:44:00

SomeGuyDude wrote:

That's 200%, if you're looking at it from the angle of how many bits you have versus how many he does.

.....Your right . I failed myself

SomeGuyDude wrote:

Yer makin' me heavily consider redoing it, despite my having uninstalled and reinstalled between Arch and Ubuntu about five times over the weekend.

If you have a x64 cpu then why would you use want to use it? You people confuse me. Sacrificing an EXTREME speed boost for a so called 'ease of use'. tisk tisk....I'm estimating you would get an increase of Over 9000%.

But really, I would install Arch64. The only downside is you get gnome 2.24 after the x86 guys . And you have to use nspluginwrapper for flash (but flash should support x64 soon.....).

Last edited by FLCLFan (2008-10-13 23:47:09)

SomeGuyDude · 2008-10-14 00:13:35

I use LXDE, so that's not really an issue for me. Methinks I'll be going for Arch64 sometime soon though. Maybe in the next few days. It was the flash thing that got on my nerves initially because I (probably wrongly) assumed that it was just one of many similar compatibility issues.

Is it really that big of a boost, though? I'll admit, the heat thing is getting annoying.

cu3edweb · 2008-10-14 00:20:05

SomeGuyDude wrote:

I use LXDE, so that's not really an issue for me. Methinks I'll be going for Arch64 sometime soon though. Maybe in the next few days. It was the flash thing that got on my nerves initially because I (probably wrongly) assumed that it was just one of many similar compatibility issues.
Is it really that big of a boost, though? I'll admit, the heat thing is getting annoying.

I am enjoying my arch64 setup. The only two things that I use that aren't 64bit are flash and skype. I run those in a 32 bit chroot and it works great.

skottish · 2008-10-14 00:29:20

[amplify_thread_derailment]

64 bit? Where did you all find a 64 bit desktop chip to put Arch on?

[skottish@iasE ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep address
address sizes    : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
address sizes    : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual

[/amplify_thread_derailment]

Last edited by skottish (2008-10-14 00:29:34)

FLCLFan · 2008-10-14 00:32:39

No no no. Its the ones that say "64" you have to pay attention to..... Dont mind the other stuff...

[eli@archy ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 64
model name    : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment    : 64

Last edited by FLCLFan (2008-10-14 00:32:56)

skottish · 2008-10-14 03:02:03

FLCLFan wrote:

No no no. Its the ones that say "64" you have to pay attention to..... Dont mind the other stuff...
[eli@archy ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 64
model name    : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment    : 64

The wikipedia article on 64 bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit) is pretty good at this one. Most of the "64 bit" desktop chips are not true 64 bit processors; they happen to have some 64 bit capabilities. The article use to seem more clear on it. Every addition is making it much more blurry while trying to clarify things.

This is a really fun page to read about what clflush does:

http://www.jaist.ac.jp/iscenter-new/mpc … h/vc31.htm

eg4matze · 2008-10-14 10:08:03

I cant use this keys:

~   ^

How can I solve this?

isak · 2008-10-14 12:21:09

eg4matze wrote:

I cant use this keys:
~   ^
How can I solve this?

It's working a bit strange for me also with the swedish layout, I need to press the space bar after the alt gr+<key> or shift+<key> sequences for ~ and ^ to show up.

EDIT: I got the normal behavior back by selecting the option "Eliminate dead keys"

Last edited by isak (2008-10-14 18:24:19)

crom · 2008-10-19 10:25:26

I am using 2.24 from the day it was in testing on i686 and expirienced absoluteley no problems.

Maybe it's soon ready for extra.

smakked · 2008-10-19 11:18:49

Im using 2.24 from testing in the 64bit repo and no issues at all , all is well good job Devs

jpalan · 2008-10-20 14:55:23

I'm trying to use 2.24 from testing in the i686 repo and no success at all, i get background image and splash screen and there it hangs.:o

Maybe I should try removing the old confs?

killajoe · 2008-10-20 15:10:55

just installed gnome 2.24 from testing and got trouble with compiz and screenlets and xorg-server but removing the configs helps... no problems jet..:)

aneiser · 2008-10-20 15:30:13

killajoe wrote:

... but removing the configs helps... no problems jet..:)

What configs did you remove exactly? And what kind of information is lost with it? E.g. what applications do I have to reconfigure?
Thanks...

killajoe · 2008-10-20 16:32:02

Panels wouldn't work correctly
Sourced from this forum page
Solution: Clean out your gnome config with the command. THIS WILL REMOVE ALL YOUR GNOME CONFIGS.
rm -rf .gnome* .gconf*

from wiki

This remove all gnome specific desktop-config-files

there is also a xorg change if you got thisin your /etc/X11/xorg.conf:

RgbPath         "/usr/share/X11/rgb"

you have to comment it out...

i do also a reinstall of all compiz relevant packages and erase the startup skripts and config files for compiz...

rm -r /home/'yourusername'/.config/compiz

Last edited by killajoe (2008-10-20 16:33:05)

JGC · 2008-10-20 17:39:55

Make sure your gconfd processes are killed, the new libs can't connect to the old daemon because dbus is used instead of orbit now.
Removing all your personal settings shouldn't be needed, I'm running several systems and never had to do this. I've got profiles that have been upgraded since GNOME 2.20.

linfan · 2008-10-20 18:09:58

All works ok here, too on amd64 and gnome-2.24. The only thing that is not good is esd. There is no logout sound and esd seizes /dev/dsp and snack won't work.

The long awaited pulseaudio for gnome did not make it for this release either

libervisco · 2008-10-20 18:36:04

When do you estimate GNOME will be in the stable repo on Arch64?

Arch Linux

#76 2008-10-13 09:22:18

Re: Gnome 2.24

#77 2008-10-13 12:58:19

Re: Gnome 2.24

#78 2008-10-13 13:03:45

Re: Gnome 2.24

#79 2008-10-13 13:31:06

Re: Gnome 2.24

#80 2008-10-13 22:31:01

Re: Gnome 2.24

#81 2008-10-13 23:11:39

Re: Gnome 2.24

#82 2008-10-13 23:17:37

Re: Gnome 2.24

#83 2008-10-13 23:28:47

Re: Gnome 2.24

#84 2008-10-13 23:44:00

Re: Gnome 2.24

#85 2008-10-14 00:13:35

Re: Gnome 2.24

#86 2008-10-14 00:20:05

Re: Gnome 2.24

#87 2008-10-14 00:29:20

Re: Gnome 2.24

#88 2008-10-14 00:32:39

Re: Gnome 2.24

#89 2008-10-14 03:02:03

Re: Gnome 2.24

#90 2008-10-14 10:08:03

Re: Gnome 2.24

#91 2008-10-14 12:21:09

Re: Gnome 2.24

#92 2008-10-19 10:25:26

Re: Gnome 2.24

#93 2008-10-19 11:18:49

Re: Gnome 2.24

#94 2008-10-20 14:55:23

Re: Gnome 2.24

#95 2008-10-20 15:10:55

Re: Gnome 2.24

#96 2008-10-20 15:30:13

Re: Gnome 2.24

#97 2008-10-20 16:32:02

Re: Gnome 2.24

#98 2008-10-20 17:39:55

Re: Gnome 2.24

#99 2008-10-20 18:09:58

Re: Gnome 2.24

#100 2008-10-20 18:36:04

Re: Gnome 2.24

Board footer