thinstation-developer Mailing List for Thinstation (Page 427)
Brought to you by:
doncuppjr
You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(97) |
Jun
(96) |
Jul
(108) |
Aug
(95) |
Sep
(147) |
Oct
(154) |
Nov
(150) |
Dec
(78) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004 |
Jan
(89) |
Feb
(230) |
Mar
(183) |
Apr
(203) |
May
(158) |
Jun
(116) |
Jul
(154) |
Aug
(256) |
Sep
(318) |
Oct
(196) |
Nov
(203) |
Dec
(156) |
2005 |
Jan
(242) |
Feb
(226) |
Mar
(238) |
Apr
(153) |
May
(120) |
Jun
(208) |
Jul
(120) |
Aug
(262) |
Sep
(97) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(110) |
Dec
(108) |
2006 |
Jan
(123) |
Feb
(177) |
Mar
(88) |
Apr
(212) |
May
(223) |
Jun
(145) |
Jul
(217) |
Aug
(177) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(78) |
Nov
(121) |
Dec
(60) |
2007 |
Jan
(55) |
Feb
(88) |
Mar
(109) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(234) |
Jun
(61) |
Jul
(103) |
Aug
(79) |
Sep
(84) |
Oct
(89) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
(70) |
2008 |
Jan
(46) |
Feb
(18) |
Mar
(123) |
Apr
(48) |
May
(22) |
Jun
(48) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(32) |
Sep
(14) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(25) |
2009 |
Jan
(69) |
Feb
(23) |
Mar
(86) |
Apr
(78) |
May
(59) |
Jun
(45) |
Jul
(84) |
Aug
(46) |
Sep
(59) |
Oct
(35) |
Nov
(27) |
Dec
(28) |
2010 |
Jan
(44) |
Feb
(47) |
Mar
(92) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(60) |
Jun
(22) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(23) |
Sep
(75) |
Oct
(183) |
Nov
(44) |
Dec
(7) |
2011 |
Jan
(64) |
Feb
(113) |
Mar
(60) |
Apr
(44) |
May
(65) |
Jun
(69) |
Jul
(76) |
Aug
(55) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(85) |
Nov
(44) |
Dec
(51) |
2012 |
Jan
(29) |
Feb
(33) |
Mar
(29) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(23) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(17) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(3) |
2013 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(6) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2014 |
Jan
(25) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(12) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(28) |
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
2019 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2020 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Kim M. E. <km...@ke...> - 2003-05-12 22:36:55
|
Hi guys I'm collecting info for the thinstation FAQ... The "tsize" option for TFTPD is needed for PXE boot. It isn't supported by the default Red Hat 7.3 daemon. Anybody knows anything about RH 8.0 and 9.0? Or any other recent distros? Mike |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-12 21:26:57
|
its ok, wanted to do it anyhow as I can't get something else to work = :o) no how-to on it, but are gradually improving the build environment, we really need a rsync server or something, espeically if we have = multiple developers. cvs isn't so hot handling binary files apparently. -----Original Message----- From: Jannic S. Jensen [mailto:js...@ja...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 07:16 p.m. To: Miles Roper; 'Alke' Cc: 'Juan Antonio Mar=EDn Beltr=E1n'; 'Kim Michael Eriksen'; 'Paul Whittaker'; Thinstation-developer Subject: Re: Web site Hi Miles, >I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks If you have any "how-to"s on this I can recompile. I'm jused to = recompile kernels, applications and so on. But I have to admit I never have tried Xfree and Glibc. Regards /Jannic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Roper" <mr...@we...> To: "'Alke'" <al...@io...> Cc: "'Juan Antonio Mar=EDn Beltr=E1n'" <to...@uc...>; "'Kim Michael = Eriksen'" <km...@ke...>; "'Jannic S. Jensen'" <js...@ja...>; "'Paul = Whittaker'" <pa...@hy...>; "Thinstation-developer" <thi...@li...> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:26 AM Subject: RE: Web site Asked back a while ago about this, didn't here any complaints, although = I might have just mentioned it in the changelog not sure. :o) It is actually a problem to change, takes a rebuild of glibc, xfree and kernel + perhaps some other packages through this open to the floor, what do people think, is it worth while compiling with i586 optimization? is the performance boost worth while? I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks Out of curiosity, have people actually tried thinstation on a 486? = does it work? I remember I compiled the kernel optimised for 586 a long time = ago, and I tried it on a 486 and it still seemed fine. I know 586 optimisation reduces the file size of most binary files. I assume there is a performance increase also. comments? -----Original Message----- From: Alke [mailto:al...@io...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 10:18 a.m. To: Miles Roper Cc: 'Juan Antonio Mar=EDn Beltr=E1n'; 'Kim Michael Eriksen'; 'Jannic S. Jensen'; 'Paul Whittaker'; Thinstation-developer Subject: Re: Web site Hi Miles! Tomorrow a better answer, only a note: > Requirements > 486 is not support as i've enabled 586 optimization on most of the = builds ^^^ don't really agree with this. 486 are not optimal but still usable for thinstation; for example my company have some 486 100/133Mhz 16Mb, and they are surely usable... at least for testing purposes! So I think they should still be supported, if it isn't a problem... Bye! Paolo |
From: Alke <al...@io...> - 2003-05-12 07:55:39
|
Hi Miles! > -O2 -march=i386 -mcpu=i586 I think this is the way to go: optimize for pentium, but let it work on 386 also.... ...perhaps someone 'd like to use thinstation for "text mode telnet only" on a 386 ;-) ...or only to share a printer.... Bye! Paolo |
From: Jannic S. J. <js...@ja...> - 2003-05-12 07:19:13
|
Hi Miles, >I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks If you have any "how-to"s on this I can recompile. I'm jused to recompile kernels, applications and so on. But I have to admit I never have tried Xfree and Glibc. Regards /Jannic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Roper" <mr...@we...> To: "'Alke'" <al...@io...> Cc: "'Juan Antonio Marín Beltrán'" <to...@uc...>; "'Kim Michael Eriksen'" <km...@ke...>; "'Jannic S. Jensen'" <js...@ja...>; "'Paul Whittaker'" <pa...@hy...>; "Thinstation-developer" <thi...@li...> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:26 AM Subject: RE: Web site Asked back a while ago about this, didn't here any complaints, although I might have just mentioned it in the changelog not sure. :o) It is actually a problem to change, takes a rebuild of glibc, xfree and kernel + perhaps some other packages through this open to the floor, what do people think, is it worth while compiling with i586 optimization? is the performance boost worth while? I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks Out of curiosity, have people actually tried thinstation on a 486? does it work? I remember I compiled the kernel optimised for 586 a long time ago, and I tried it on a 486 and it still seemed fine. I know 586 optimisation reduces the file size of most binary files. I assume there is a performance increase also. comments? -----Original Message----- From: Alke [mailto:al...@io...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 10:18 a.m. To: Miles Roper Cc: 'Juan Antonio Marín Beltrán'; 'Kim Michael Eriksen'; 'Jannic S. Jensen'; 'Paul Whittaker'; Thinstation-developer Subject: Re: Web site Hi Miles! Tomorrow a better answer, only a note: > Requirements > 486 is not support as i've enabled 586 optimization on most of the builds ^^^ don't really agree with this. 486 are not optimal but still usable for thinstation; for example my company have some 486 100/133Mhz 16Mb, and they are surely usable... at least for testing purposes! So I think they should still be supported, if it isn't a problem... Bye! Paolo |
From: Paul W. <pa...@hy...> - 2003-05-12 01:50:59
|
Miles Roper wrote: > Hi All, > > If you have read the latest emails about optimization let me know your > thoughts. I actually have to recompile thinstatation anyhow as I want to > move to gcc 2.95 as gcc 2.96 which comes with mandrake is so buggy its not > funny. I've found open office won't compile using gcc 2.96. I've read as > well that 2.96 is pretty buggy end of story. So I'm moving back to 2.95. > I'll include it as part of the thinstation source. Yes, 2.96 is generally considered pretty dodgy. 2.95.3 is probably your best bet. Note, however, that some recent source releases now *require* gcc 3.x (eg. glibc 2.3.x). I find that 3.2.2 optimises better. It can cause problems with a lot of C++ complilations, though, and dynamic-libgcc-by-default is rather annoying (I'll build gcc more sensibly next time!). You can also run into some binary-compatibility problems; you can't compile a kernel with 3.x and kernel modules with 2.x, for example. |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-12 01:24:20
|
Hi All, If you have read the latest emails about optimization let me know your thoughts. I actually have to recompile thinstatation anyhow as I want to move to gcc 2.95 as gcc 2.96 which comes with mandrake is so buggy its not funny. I've found open office won't compile using gcc 2.96. I've read as well that 2.96 is pretty buggy end of story. So I'm moving back to 2.95. I'll include it as part of the thinstation source. So, since I'm recompiling I want to make sure I'm using the correct optimizations. I'm currently using -O2 -mcpu=i586 -march=i586 Paul is using for dietPC -O2 -march=i386 -mcpu=i586 If we use that it would make thinstation compatible for 386+ support. or what about -O2 -march=i486 -mcpu=i586 Thoughts comments? Cheers Miles |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-11 23:23:45
|
P.S. On the subject of building glibc: don't use --enable-omit-fp, it actually creates *bigger* libraries, and causes libpthread.so to core dump. I do actually use that, otherwise it created very big libraries. that was before I knew you could strip them :o) i'll try it without them again, this time stripping them. libpthread didn't core dump though, I did have to use gcc 2.9x though Cheers Miles -----Original Message----- From: Paul Whittaker [mailto:pa...@si...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 11:13 a.m. To: Thinstation-developer Subject: Re: [Thinstation-developer] RE: Web site Miles Roper wrote: > Asked back a while ago about this, didn't here any complaints, although I > might have just mentioned it in the changelog not sure. :o) > > It is actually a problem to change, takes a rebuild of glibc, xfree and > kernel + perhaps some other packages > > through this open to the floor, what do people think, is it worth while > compiling with i586 optimization? is the performance boost worth while? > > I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks > > Out of curiosity, have people actually tried thinstation on a 486? does it > work? I remember I compiled the kernel optimised for 586 a long time ago, > and I tried it on a 486 and it still seemed fine. > > I know 586 optimisation reduces the file size of most binary files. I > assume there is a performance increase also. > > comments? I don't see the harm. For DIET-PC, I i586-optimise pretty much everything, although I can't say I've noticed any substantial difference in performance. Note that there is a big difference between optimisation (-mcpu=yyy) and architecture baselining (-march=xxx). You can use both if you wish. The latter dictates the minimum set of CPU features *required* to run the code. The former indicates the set of CPU features that will be used if present, such that you can run on xxx and up but will get suboptimal performance if you run on anything less than (and to a lesser extent greater than) yyy. -march will give you substantially better performance and smaller code for higher values of xxx, but will also limit your options. -mcpu will also give you better performance but - I suspect - may in some cases even increase the size of your object code. I use '-march=i386 -mcpu=i586' for DIET-PC. However, it is sometimes difficult to persuade a source code distribution to build with optimisation other than that which it autoconfigures according to detected build host capabilities. P.S. On the subject of building glibc: don't use --enable-omit-fp, it actually creates *bigger* libraries, and causes libpthread.so to core dump. ------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com _______________________________________________ Thinstation-developer mailing list Thi...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/thinstation-developer |
From: Paul W. <pa...@si...> - 2003-05-11 23:13:17
|
Miles Roper wrote: > Asked back a while ago about this, didn't here any complaints, although I > might have just mentioned it in the changelog not sure. :o) > > It is actually a problem to change, takes a rebuild of glibc, xfree and > kernel + perhaps some other packages > > through this open to the floor, what do people think, is it worth while > compiling with i586 optimization? is the performance boost worth while? > > I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks > > Out of curiosity, have people actually tried thinstation on a 486? does it > work? I remember I compiled the kernel optimised for 586 a long time ago, > and I tried it on a 486 and it still seemed fine. > > I know 586 optimisation reduces the file size of most binary files. I > assume there is a performance increase also. > > comments? I don't see the harm. For DIET-PC, I i586-optimise pretty much everything, although I can't say I've noticed any substantial difference in performance. Note that there is a big difference between optimisation (-mcpu=yyy) and architecture baselining (-march=xxx). You can use both if you wish. The latter dictates the minimum set of CPU features *required* to run the code. The former indicates the set of CPU features that will be used if present, such that you can run on xxx and up but will get suboptimal performance if you run on anything less than (and to a lesser extent greater than) yyy. -march will give you substantially better performance and smaller code for higher values of xxx, but will also limit your options. -mcpu will also give you better performance but - I suspect - may in some cases even increase the size of your object code. I use '-march=i386 -mcpu=i586' for DIET-PC. However, it is sometimes difficult to persuade a source code distribution to build with optimisation other than that which it autoconfigures according to detected build host capabilities. P.S. On the subject of building glibc: don't use --enable-omit-fp, it actually creates *bigger* libraries, and causes libpthread.so to core dump. |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-11 23:05:22
|
the telnet is so you can telnet in, check logs in /var/logs and if necessary reboot the PC remotely. Is very useful for debuging. The logs contain great info on XFree and kernel problems. Memory problems can show up here too. You can check free memory on PC by going "free" or check which processes are running etc... Kill X, kill ICA etc... Debug package stops the inittab entry from working so you start in a console mode regardless what packages you choose, adds strace which is useful for seeing where a program fails. there is a few other commands which are quite useful also (locale to see if locale is set up ok). when in debug mode, you can start the session manually by going start-session 0 -----Original Message----- From: Kim Michael Eriksen [mailto:km...@ke...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 10:55 a.m. To: Miles Roper Subject: Re: [Thinstation-developer] doc Hi again > forgot a couple of extra things thinstation does now :o) in the features > list > > Remote access through telnetd support What the point of this? Why would you like console access to the client? > Remote Control through xf4vnc This one makes more sense: you can take over the users terminal. Very useful for educational purpose! Is the telnetd similar except for console mode only? > Enchances Internatilisation support with 23 locales Yes. > Debug package ??? > Enchanced Shell with command line editing and history Yes! Great feature! > ps, like the disclamer at the top of the doc :o) He, he - mostly stolen from somewhere, but ok :-) Mike |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-11 22:26:49
|
forgot a couple of extra things thinstation does now :o) in the features list Remote access through telnetd support Remote Control through xf4vnc Enchances Internatilisation support with 23 locales Development Support with packages Syslog Debug package Enchanced Shell with command line editing and history Tidy up the wording if you want :o) ps, like the disclamer at the top of the doc :o) |
From: Miles R. <mr...@we...> - 2003-05-11 22:26:30
|
Asked back a while ago about this, didn't here any complaints, although = I might have just mentioned it in the changelog not sure. :o) It is actually a problem to change, takes a rebuild of glibc, xfree and kernel + perhaps some other packages through this open to the floor, what do people think, is it worth while compiling with i586 optimization? is the performance boost worth while? I can recompile, but won't be for a wee while, give me a few weeks Out of curiosity, have people actually tried thinstation on a 486? = does it work? I remember I compiled the kernel optimised for 586 a long time = ago, and I tried it on a 486 and it still seemed fine. I know 586 optimisation reduces the file size of most binary files. I assume there is a performance increase also. comments? -----Original Message----- From: Alke [mailto:al...@io...] Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 10:18 a.m. To: Miles Roper Cc: 'Juan Antonio Mar=EDn Beltr=E1n'; 'Kim Michael Eriksen'; 'Jannic S. Jensen'; 'Paul Whittaker'; Thinstation-developer Subject: Re: Web site Hi Miles! Tomorrow a better answer, only a note: > Requirements > 486 is not support as i've enabled 586 optimization on most of the = builds ^^^ don't really agree with this. 486 are not optimal but still usable for thinstation; for example my company have some 486 100/133Mhz 16Mb, and they are surely usable... at least for testing purposes! So I think they should still be supported, if it isn't a problem... Bye! Paolo |
From: Alke <al...@io...> - 2003-05-11 22:18:51
|
Hi Miles! Tomorrow a better answer, only a note: > Requirements > 486 is not support as i've enabled 586 optimization on most of the builds ^^^ don't really agree with this. 486 are not optimal but still usable for thinstation; for example my company have some 486 100/133Mhz 16Mb, and they are surely usable... at least for testing purposes! So I think they should still be supported, if it isn't a problem... Bye! Paolo |
From: Alke <al...@io...> - 2003-05-10 10:57:18
|
Hi all! ...The new web site is online! Please give it a check at thinstation.sf.net ...and say me if you like it, typos, contents to change, dead link etc etc... ...Some new link to add? ...Some more docs? ...Should I add a "news" section in the main page? Well, there are still a lot of works to do... Mike, send me the faqs when they are ready... The graphic layout is the work of a friend of mine... he asked me to put a little "web desing by..." link to his company; I hope it isn't a problem... Bye! Paolo |