How stable 12.1 really is? - Slackware

This is a discussion on How stable 12.1 really is? - Slackware ; Dave Uhring schreef: > I don't think that I'm any kind of n00b yet Slackware-12.1 does have some > serious problems. > > 1. Choosing Arial fonts in firefox or pan, Slackware now decides that I > really want Liberation ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: How stable 12.1 really is?

  1. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Dave Uhring schreef:

    > I don't think that I'm any kind of n00b yet Slackware-12.1 does have some
    > serious problems.
    >
    > 1. Choosing Arial fonts in firefox or pan, Slackware now decides that I
    > really want Liberation Sans. Thank you Slackware but I really want the
    > Arial font.


    This is by design. Lots of web sites are tuned for the Arial font and
    advertise this in the HTML. Having Liberation Fonts as a drop-in
    replacement for Arial makes these web sites (but office documents as
    well) look like the designer intended. If you insist on using the
    Microsoft Arial font (which is non-free! you must own a Windows
    license to use Arial legally!) then just uninstall the (free!)
    Liberation Fonts.

    > Build new freetype2 library and I can get truetype fonts in firefox but
    > not pan.


    I already have truetype font support in Pan even without rebuilding
    freetype (why would you want that?)

    > 2. OK, I'll compile a new pan binary to solve the problem. But the
    > compile fails, something I have never had happen. Is gcc-4.2.3 broken? I
    > don't know but I do know that building pan from the slackbuild downloaded
    > from slackware.mirrors.tds.net fails as does the usual ./configure, make,
    > make install routine.


    Pan compiles fine here on a stock Slackware 12.1 using the
    pan.SlackBuild provided in /source/xap/pan/ ...
    My guess is, you've broken your system and should not blame Slackware
    for your problems.

    Eric

  2. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:52:14 +0200, Eric Hameleers wrote:

    > Dave Uhring schreef:
    >
    >> I don't think that I'm any kind of n00b yet Slackware-12.1 does have some
    >> serious problems.
    >>
    >> 1. Choosing Arial fonts in firefox or pan, Slackware now decides that I
    >> really want Liberation Sans. Thank you Slackware but I really want the
    >> Arial font.

    >
    > This is by design. Lots of web sites are tuned for the Arial font and
    > advertise this in the HTML. Having Liberation Fonts as a drop-in
    > replacement for Arial makes these web sites (but office documents as
    > well) look like the designer intended. If you insist on using the
    > Microsoft Arial font (which is non-free! you must own a Windows
    > license to use Arial legally!) then just uninstall the (free!)
    > Liberation Fonts.


    There are Microsoft truetype fonts available without license. Debian
    includes them in its msttcorefonts package. The actual fonts are
    available at prdownloads.sourceforge.net.

    duhring@maxwell:/usr/share/fonts/truetype$ ls msttcorefonts
    Andale_Mono.ttf
    Arial.ttf
    Arial_Black.ttf
    Arial_Bold.ttf
    Arial_Bold_Italic.ttf
    Arial_Italic.ttf
    Comic_Sans_MS.ttf
    Comic_Sans_MS_Bold.ttf
    ....

    On a previous installation of Slackware-12.1 I did in fact remove the
    Liberation Fonts. Your font library then substituted Sans-Bold for Arial.

    >> Build new freetype2 library and I can get truetype fonts in firefox but
    >> not pan.

    >
    > I already have truetype font support in Pan even without rebuilding
    > freetype (why would you want that?)


    Because your truetype font support does not support truetype fonts.

    >> 2. OK, I'll compile a new pan binary to solve the problem. But the
    >> compile fails, something I have never had happen. Is gcc-4.2.3 broken?
    >> I don't know but I do know that building pan from the slackbuild
    >> downloaded from slackware.mirrors.tds.net fails as does the usual
    >> ./configure, make, make install routine.

    >
    > Pan compiles fine here on a stock Slackware 12.1 using the
    > pan.SlackBuild provided in /source/xap/pan/ ... My guess is, you've
    > broken your system and should not blame Slackware for your problems.


    Until I built freetype2 libs from source the installation was unmodified
    from the installation - save for a few Slackware patches.

    Your guess is wrong.


  3. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:52:14 +0200, Eric Hameleers wrote:

    > This is by design. Lots of web sites are tuned for the Arial font and
    > advertise this in the HTML. Having Liberation Fonts as a drop-in
    > replacement for Arial makes these web sites (but office documents as
    > well) look like the designer intended. If you insist on using the
    > Microsoft Arial font (which is non-free! you must own a Windows
    > license to use Arial legally!) then just uninstall the (free!)
    > Liberation Fonts.


    Since you feel so strongly about Microsoft's so-called IPR, why do you
    infringe on Apple's?

    duhring@maxwell:~/freetype$ grep BYTECODE *
    freetype.bytecode.interpreter.diff:-/* #define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_BYTECODE_INTERPRETER */
    freetype.bytecode.interpreter.diff:+#define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_BYTECODE_INTERPRETER


  4. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Dave Uhring wrote:

    > 2. OK, I'll compile a new pan binary to solve the problem. But the
    > compile fails, something I have never had happen. Is gcc-4.2.3
    > broken? I don't know but I do know that building pan from the
    > slackbuild downloaded from slackware.mirrors.tds.net fails as does
    > the usual ./configure, make, make install routine.


    It's always a safe bet to blame those weird GCC honchos. In fact,
    hit 'em with a broomstick. Repeatedly. Then Again. And ... you'll get
    the feeling for it.

    You can have mine, if you want - it's proven to be ineffective, sadly,
    but second-to-none when it comes to classic-style ranting.

    -- Simon


  5. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:20:29 GMT
    notbob wrote:

    > On 2008-06-24, Mikhail Zotov wrote:
    >
    > > During my first three weeks running Slackware I have yet to find a single
    > > bug. That is something I've never been able to write in a review of a
    > > Linux distribution before and it is truly impressive.
    > > "

    >
    > Yeah, we've flogged this one, before. The author brings up some valid
    > criticisms, but they aren't relevent to slackers. Slackers like Slackware
    > for what it is, not what it could be, a critical point which the author,
    > like most other reviewers, fails to acknowledge.


    Notbob, I do agree with your point absolutely. That's why the review
    isn't mentioned in the slack world :-) IMHO, the writer pretends to
    be objective but instead reveals her complete misunderstanding of the
    `Slackware way'.

    Cheers,
    Mikhail


  6. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On 2008-06-24, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:52:14 +0200, Eric Hameleers wrote:
    >
    >> This is by design. Lots of web sites are tuned for the Arial font and
    >> advertise this in the HTML. Having Liberation Fonts as a drop-in
    >> replacement for Arial makes these web sites (but office documents as
    >> well) look like the designer intended. If you insist on using the
    >> Microsoft Arial font (which is non-free! you must own a Windows
    >> license to use Arial legally!) then just uninstall the (free!)
    >> Liberation Fonts.

    >
    > Since you feel so strongly about Microsoft's so-called IPR, why do you
    > infringe on Apple's?
    >
    > duhring@maxwell:~/freetype$ grep BYTECODE *
    > freetype.bytecode.interpreter.diff:-/* #define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_BYTECODE_INTERPRETER */
    > freetype.bytecode.interpreter.diff:+#define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_BYTECODE_INTERPRETER



    If you're talking about Slackware, you're wrong.
    From freetype.SlackBuild in the sources:

    # The line below enables code patented by Apple, so don't uncomment it
    # unless you have a license to use the code and take all legal responsibility
    # for doing so.
    # Please see this web site for more details:
    # http://www.freetype.org/patents.html
    #zcat $CWD/freetype.bytecode.interpreter.diff.gz | patch -p1 --verbose || exit 1

    # The line below enables code patented by Microsoft, so don't uncomment it
    # unless you have a license to use the code and take all legal responsibility
    # for doing so.
    # Please see this web site for more details:
    # http://www.freetype.org/patents.html
    #zcat $CWD/freetype.subpixel.rendering.diff.gz | patch -p1 --verbose || exit 1

    Note that the patches are NOT applied.

    -RW

  7. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:34:27 -0500, Dave Uhring wrote:

    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:52:14 +0200, Eric Hameleers wrote:
    >
    >> Dave Uhring schreef:
    >>
    >>> I don't think that I'm any kind of n00b yet Slackware-12.1 does have some
    >>> serious problems.
    >>>
    >>> 1. Choosing Arial fonts in firefox or pan, Slackware now decides that I
    >>> really want Liberation Sans. Thank you Slackware but I really want the
    >>> Arial font.

    >>
    >> This is by design. Lots of web sites are tuned for the Arial font and
    >> advertise this in the HTML. Having Liberation Fonts as a drop-in
    >> replacement for Arial makes these web sites (but office documents as
    >> well) look like the designer intended. If you insist on using the
    >> Microsoft Arial font (which is non-free! you must own a Windows
    >> license to use Arial legally!) then just uninstall the (free!)
    >> Liberation Fonts.

    >
    > There are Microsoft truetype fonts available without license. Debian
    > includes them in its msttcorefonts package. The actual fonts are
    > available at prdownloads.sourceforge.net.
    >
    > duhring@maxwell:/usr/share/fonts/truetype$ ls msttcorefonts
    > Andale_Mono.ttf
    > Arial.ttf
    > Arial_Black.ttf
    > Arial_Bold.ttf
    > Arial_Bold_Italic.ttf
    > Arial_Italic.ttf
    > Comic_Sans_MS.ttf
    > Comic_Sans_MS_Bold.ttf
    > ...


    If you would check the EULA (end user license agreement) for these fonts
    you'd see that the EULA allows redistribution if the packages are
    kept in their original format and filenames and not used to add value to
    commercial products. This prevents for instance Slackware and any other
    Linux distro from legally adding the fonts to the distro. Downloading the
    ..exe's and unpacking/installing them yourself is completely legal.

    > On a previous installation of Slackware-12.1 I did in fact remove the
    > Liberation Fonts. Your font library then substituted Sans-Bold for Arial.
    >
    >>> Build new freetype2 library and I can get truetype fonts in firefox but
    >>> not pan.

    >>
    >> I already have truetype font support in Pan even without rebuilding
    >> freetype (why would you want that?)

    >
    > Because your truetype font support does not support truetype fonts.


    That sentence makes no sense at all. Please re-read what you jsut wrote.
    Do you mean "your truetype font support does not support cleartype"? Well
    yes, that would be correct, because Cleartype, like the bytecode
    interpreter, has patent and license issues, and therefore these
    featurea are not enabled in Slackware (but the patch needed to enable
    these is included with the SlackBuild). Like I said, Pan on a fresh
    Slackware 12.1 install lets me select _any_ truetype font for _any_ of the
    text that is being displayed. So what is your problem?

    >>> 2. OK, I'll compile a new pan binary to solve the problem. But the
    >>> compile fails, something I have never had happen. Is gcc-4.2.3 broken?
    >>> I don't know but I do know that building pan from the slackbuild
    >>> downloaded from slackware.mirrors.tds.net fails as does the usual
    >>> ./configure, make, make install routine.

    >>
    >> Pan compiles fine here on a stock Slackware 12.1 using the
    >> pan.SlackBuild provided in /source/xap/pan/ ... My guess is, you've
    >> broken your system and should not blame Slackware for your problems.

    >
    > Until I built freetype2 libs from source the installation was unmodified
    > from the installation - save for a few Slackware patches.
    >
    > Your guess is wrong.


    Maybe, but you'd have to explain better what you were unable to achieve
    before rebuilding freetype (and why rebuild freetype? To enable the
    bytecode interpreter? That is not needed for any of the fonts that come
    with Slackware - only Microsoft fonts may profit but generally all other
    onts will have a deteriorated look.

    Eric

    --
    Eric Hameleers


  8. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:35:41 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    >> Yeah, we've flogged this one, before. The author brings up some valid
    >> criticisms, but they aren't relevent to slackers. Slackers like Slackware
    >> for what it is, not what it could be, a critical point which the author,
    >> like most other reviewers, fails to acknowledge.


    > Notbob, I do agree with your point absolutely. That's why the review
    > isn't mentioned in the slack world :-) IMHO, the writer pretends to
    > be objective but instead reveals her complete misunderstanding of the
    > `Slackware way'.


    I think the dumb bitch may actually be ANC's wife, or it could be ANC
    himself writing under a pen name. Ignorant review, with many factual
    errors, and just another piece of "fluff" writing garbage.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet stepped on the land mine.


  9. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:51:52 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote:

    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:15:42 +0000, J. Sommers wrote:
    >
    >> I keep coming across reports (here and elsewhere in the net) telling
    >> about instances in which 12.1 is breaking things that worked fine in
    >> previous releases. I was thinking to upgrade from 12 to 12.1, but I am
    >> now having second thoughts. What is the opinion of contributors to this
    >> forum? Is 12.1 living up to expectations, or is it a bit of a dud?

    >
    > You've had a lot of replies stating that it's working for those posters.
    >
    > Now if you want anything more useful than a survey, it would be helpful
    > for you to describe which things 12.1 has allegedly broken. Examples,
    > please?


    Nothing that I can mention first hand (I am sticking with 12.0
    for the time being) or that I can give a pointer to. It's simply that,
    reading this newsgroup and other forums, I had the impression that there
    were more reports than usual in the sense "I had this (whatever) that
    worked fine under 12.0 and now doesn't under 12.1."

  10. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, J. Sommers wrote:

    > Nothing that I can mention first hand (I am sticking with 12.0
    > for the time being) or that I can give a pointer to. It's simply that,
    > reading this newsgroup and other forums, I had the impression that there
    > were more reports than usual in the sense "I had this (whatever) that
    > worked fine under 12.0 and now doesn't under 12.1."
    >

    That paragraph sounds familiar, so I'm going to say that's what was
    said the last time there was a release.

    Realistically, people don't follow the instructions for upgrading,
    and have problems. And they may forget to configure things they
    configured the last time. A new release may also bring in new people,
    those who like to surf distributions. They may gripe because their
    favorite application is no longer included, so they have to adjust
    to something else.

    Unless someone actually analyzes the posts on an ongoing basis,
    any trend derived from such posts is subjective. There are lots
    of people who move to the latest release and never post, their
    numbers are bound to be far higher than those who do post. Admittedly,
    they/we may benefit from those who do post, but it also may reflect
    people who'd have problems anyway.

    Michael


  11. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > Notbob, I do agree with your point absolutely. That's why the review
    > isn't mentioned in the slack world :-) IMHO, the writer pretends to
    > be objective but instead reveals her complete misunderstanding of the
    > `Slackware way'.


    I disagree. There is certainly room for a bit more automation in the
    process - a tool to automagically set up X and sound if needed, with the
    OPTION to install the non-FOSS drivers if wished, would be a big benefit if
    incorporated into 'setup'.

    Also rather appreciate the ease of use of slapt-get. An installer which got
    a minimal X system up with drivers and slapt-get which would leave the user
    to build the rest - with dependency checking - would be great.

    This would still go with the slackware way of not making alterations to
    packages - but take some of the pain out of installing the base system.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  12. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:00:38 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

    > Mikhail Zotov wrote:
    >
    >> Notbob, I do agree with your point absolutely. That's why the review
    >> isn't mentioned in the slack world IMHO, the writer pretends to be
    >> objective but instead reveals her complete misunderstanding of the
    >> `Slackware way'.

    >
    > I disagree. There is certainly room for a bit more automation in the
    > process - a tool to automagically set up X


    In fact, such a tool is rapidly becoming superfluous, since recent Xorg
    releases configure themselves on the fly if there is no xorg.conf at
    all. A lot of X problems can now be cured by renaming or removing
    xorg.conf instead of hacking it.

  13. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Michael Black wrote:


    > Realistically, people don't follow the instructions for upgrading,
    > and have problems. And they may forget to configure things they
    > configured the last time. A new release may also bring in new people,
    > those who like to surf distributions. They may gripe because their
    > favorite application is no longer included, so they have to adjust
    > to something else.


    Similarly, my problems with /proc where probally the result of a
    non-standard install. When playing with distributions I ususally end up
    with problems revolving around boot - I'm always multibooting and that
    takes more effort to set up if you don't want to nuke an existing config,
    especially the bootloader.

    Incidentally, I'm wondering, would work with slack, if I just get various
    distros to put their bootloaders in the first block of their partitions and
    have a master lilo in the MBR that just chainloads? That's assuming the
    distro's play nicely but I think ubuntu just defaults the MBR of the first
    disk.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  14. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > In fact, such a tool is rapidly becoming superfluous, since recent Xorg
    > releases configure themselves on the fly if there is no xorg.conf at
    > all. A lot of X problems can now be cured by renaming or removing
    > xorg.conf instead of hacking it.


    But does that install an accelerated x server? With all the toys and
    effects in KDE my machine was noticalby slower in 2d.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  15. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Mark Madsen wrote:


    > In fact, such a tool is rapidly becoming superfluous, since recent Xorg
    > releases configure themselves on the fly if there is no xorg.conf at
    > all. A lot of X problems can now be cured by renaming or removing
    > xorg.conf instead of hacking it.


    New one on me! Moved xorg.conf and system started up quite sprightly with
    the NV driver. Only difference was no GLX so no openGL (bit galling having
    to use the non-open driver to get openGL) - not that I have much practical
    use for it. NV driver much much faster than the default VESA one. Suppose
    the VESA one is always the safe bet.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  16. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:18:14 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

    > I'm wondering, would work with slack, if I just get various distros to
    > put their bootloaders in the first block of their partitions and have a
    > master lilo in the MBR that just chainloads?


    Slackware includes Smart Boot Manager, mainly as a way of creating a boot
    floppy to boot from CD on systems that won't boot from CD by themselves.

    But you can install it to the MBR of your hard disk as well.

    Advantage is that with ^I it will scan for boot records, so you don't
    need to change its setup even when you repartition the disk.

    > That's assuming the
    > distro's play nicely but I think ubuntu just defaults the MBR of the
    > first disk.


    It *defaults* to that, yes, but if you click the "advanced" button on the
    last of the installation screens you can change the device to which Grub
    gets installed.

  17. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Mark Madsen wrote:


    > Slackware includes Smart Boot Manager, mainly as a way of creating a boot
    > floppy to boot from CD on systems that won't boot from CD by themselves.
    >


    Can't seem to find it on 12.1!

    > But you can install it to the MBR of your hard disk as well.
    >
    > Advantage is that with ^I it will scan for boot records, so you don't
    > need to change its setup even when you repartition the disk.
    >


    I'll have to look into this. Actually less of an issue with this machine as
    its my main linux machine and runs only slack. However, for the other
    machine which has XP and about five linux distros on it it may be the route
    to sanity!

    >> That's assuming the
    >> distro's play nicely but I think ubuntu just defaults the MBR of the
    >> first disk.

    >
    > It *defaults* to that, yes, but if you click the "advanced" button on the
    > last of the installation screens you can change the device to which Grub
    > gets installed.


    To be fair latest install seemed to automagically guess the correct config
    for multiple systems - not sure how it did it but it looked good.

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  18. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Hallo, Peter,

    Du meintest am 25.06.08:

    >> Slackware includes Smart Boot Manager, mainly as a way of creating a
    >> boot floppy to boot from CD on systems that won't boot from CD by
    >> themselves.


    > Can't seem to find it on 12.1!


    isolinux/sbootmgr

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  19. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Helmut Hullen wrote:

    >> Can't seem to find it on 12.1!

    >
    > isolinux/sbootmgr
    >


    Ah ha - in extra!

    Thanks,

    Pete

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  20. Re: How stable 12.1 really is?

    Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    > In fact, such a tool is rapidly becoming superfluous, since recent Xorg
    > releases configure themselves on the fly if there is no xorg.conf at
    > all. A lot of X problems can now be cured by renaming or removing
    > xorg.conf instead of hacking it.


    To some extent, I believe that applies to a DVI interface. But, I'm
    not sure you can expect X to automagically support OpenGL stuff.

    - Kurt

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast