[gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.

I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not
help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.

Grrrrrr.

-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 497 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[András Csányi]

On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.
>
> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
> AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
> sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not
> help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
> Grrrrrr.

Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  "Bízzál Istenben és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!".-- Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András 
Csányi did opine thusly:

> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> > stable.
> > 
> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
> > sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
> > Grrrrrr.
> 
> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S


If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?

If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
It's all in the build elogs.




-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[András Csányi]

On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András
> Csányi did opine thusly:
>
>> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>> > stable.
>> >
>> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
>> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
>> > sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
>> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
>> > Grrrrrr.
>>
>> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
>> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S
>
>
> If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?
>
> If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
> It's all in the build elogs.

Hi Alan,

I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to
run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version
but the result was the same.
After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped
with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem
because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here
everything is working fine according firefox.

I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired
emotionally. :(

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  "Bízzál Istenben és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!".-- Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2929 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:02 AM, András Csányi <sayusi.ando@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András
> > Csányi did opine thusly:
> >
> >> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> >> > stable.
> >> >
> >> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
> (xmarks,
> >> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
> >> > sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
> >> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
> >> > Grrrrrr.
> >>
> >> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
> >> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S
> >
> >
> > If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?
> >
> > If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
> > It's all in the build elogs.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to
> run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version
> but the result was the same.
> After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped
> with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem
> because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here
> everything is working fine according firefox.
>
>  I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired
> emotionally. :(
>

Yeah, me too.  I teach at a university and classes start tomorrow. I've had
the fox not starting as someone else did, then on upgrade it was sort of
working, then not.  The last bug I submitted led to the instruction to start
with a clean profile.  Sounds sensible, but that means none of my bookmarks,
ad blocks, noscript, cookies or anything.  I tried it anyway with 3.6.9 and
Xmarks only (really need those bookmarks).  It died before I could get near
to the original problem.  That's when I started this thread.  I've got other
more urgent things to do with my time.

Like my laptop's Ubuntu which suddenly decided it didn't know anything about
its network adapters, and I could not figure out the config tools that seem
to want me to know the MAC address of all that stuff.  No clue, don't know
how to find out, but at least I can back up my home directories.  But I need
this thing for class _tomorrow_ and I've got a lot of stuff to print and get
on the web -- these things have cost me about a week.

I'm writing this on Opera.  I'll try chrome if it's easy to figure out.  I
don't expect to see the fox on gentoo again any time soon.  I'm sad because
I used to like it.  Good luck.

++ kevin

-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3649 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 18:32 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin 
O'Gorman did opine thusly:

> Yeah, me too.  I teach at a university and classes start tomorrow. I've had
> the fox not starting as someone else did, then on upgrade it was sort of
> working, then not.  The last bug I submitted led to the instruction to
> start with a clean profile.  Sounds sensible, but that means none of my
> bookmarks, ad blocks, noscript, cookies or anything.  I tried it anyway
> with 3.6.9 and Xmarks only (really need those bookmarks).  It died before
> I could get near to the original problem.  That's when I started this
> thread.  I've got other more urgent things to do with my time.
> 
> 
> Like my laptop's Ubuntu which suddenly decided it didn't know anything
> about its network adapters, and I could not figure out the config tools
> that seem to want me to know the MAC address of all that stuff.  No clue,
> don't know how to find out, but at least I can back up my home
> directories.  But I need this thing for class _tomorrow_ and I've got a
> lot of stuff to print and get on the web -- these things have cost me
> about a week.
> 
> I'm writing this on Opera.  I'll try chrome if it's easy to figure out.  I
> don't expect to see the fox on gentoo again any time soon.  I'm sad
> because I used to like it.  Good luck.


Firefox seems to suffer badly with upgrades here too. But revdep-rebuild 
usually fixes it. If not revdep-rebuild then a good dose of common sense 
usually helps me find the thing that needs rebuilding.

The most recent change needed nss to be rebuilt, then firefox again.

It's a similar situation to xorg-server and it's drivers. Portage can't 
trigger a rebuild of the drivers as their version didn't change.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Beau Henderson]

On 09/19/10 20:02, András Csányi wrote:
> On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon<alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András
>> Csányi did opine thusly:
>>
>>> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman<kogorman@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>>>> stable.
>>>>
>>>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks,
>>>> AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
>>>> sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
>>>> not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
>>>> Grrrrrr.
>>>
>>> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
>>> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S
>>
>>
>> If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?
>>
>> If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
>> It's all in the build elogs.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to
> run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version
> but the result was the same.
> After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped
> with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem
> because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here
> everything is working fine according firefox.
>
> I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired
> emotionally. :(
>

I had this same problem and decided I had bad RAM. Before I could order any, I rebuild my system and 
it happens that I did so with an image that had GCC 4.3* rather than 4.4. Funny enough, firefox 
worked just fine. I did some searching and apparently nspr has issues with a certain function 
enabled in -O2 @ gcc 4.4.

 From the following: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487844

Apparently if you rebuild nspr @ gcc 4.4 with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing

I haven't confirmed this, as I haven't had time to jump back to 4.4 but if someone can confirm this 
fixes the issue, I'd certainly be greatful!

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 927 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com>wrote:

>  I had this same problem and decided I had bad RAM. Before I could order
> any, I rebuild my system and it happens that I did so with an image that had
> GCC 4.3* rather than 4.4. Funny enough, firefox worked just fine. I did some
> searching and apparently nspr has issues with a certain function enabled in
> -O2 @ gcc 4.4.
>
> From the following: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487844
>
> Apparently if you rebuild nspr @ gcc 4.4 with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
>
> I haven't confirmed this, as I haven't had time to jump back to 4.4 but if
> someone can confirm this fixes the issue, I'd certainly be greatful!
>

I'm still at 4.3.4, and having these problems.  I wouldn't be holding my
breath for a silver bullet.  I'm writing this on chormium, having just given
up on Opera for being slow as FF.  Sigh.


-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1348 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Beau Henderson]

On 09/21/10 12:41, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com
> <mailto:beau@thehenderson.com>> wrote:
>
>     I had this same problem and decided I had bad RAM. Before I could order any, I rebuild my system
>     and it happens that I did so with an image that had GCC 4.3* rather than 4.4. Funny enough,
>     firefox worked just fine. I did some searching and apparently nspr has issues with a certain
>     function enabled in -O2 @ gcc 4.4.
>
>      From the following: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487844
>
>     Apparently if you rebuild nspr @ gcc 4.4 with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
>
>     I haven't confirmed this, as I haven't had time to jump back to 4.4 but if someone can confirm
>     this fixes the issue, I'd certainly be greatful!
>
>
> I'm still at 4.3.4, and having these problems.  I wouldn't be holding my breath for a silver bullet.
>   I'm writing this on chormium, having just given up on Opera for being slow as FF.  Sigh.
>
>
> --
> Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
>

Are you compiling nspr with -O3 by any chance ? The flag that is responsible was apparently moved 
from -O3 in gcc 4.3* to -O2 in 4.4*.

Are you getting the seg fault when you strace firefox ?

--
Beau Henderson

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[András Csányi]

On 21 September 2010 00:23, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com> wrote:
> On 09/19/10 20:02, András Csányi wrote:
>>
>> On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon<alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András
>>> Csányi did opine thusly:
>>>
>>>> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman<kogorman@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>>>>> stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
>>>>> (xmarks,
>>>>> AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault
>>>>> sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does
>>>>> not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.
>>>>> Grrrrrr.
>>>>
>>>> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't
>>>> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S
>>>
>>>
>>> If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom?
>>>
>>> If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss.
>>> It's all in the build elogs.
>>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to
>> run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version
>> but the result was the same.
>> After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped
>> with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem
>> because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here
>> everything is working fine according firefox.
>>
>> I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired
>> emotionally. :(
>>
>
> I had this same problem and decided I had bad RAM. Before I could order any,
> I rebuild my system and it happens that I did so with an image that had GCC
> 4.3* rather than 4.4. Funny enough, firefox worked just fine. I did some
> searching and apparently nspr has issues with a certain function enabled in
> -O2 @ gcc 4.4.
>
> From the following: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487844
>
> Apparently if you rebuild nspr @ gcc 4.4 with -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
>
> I haven't confirmed this, as I haven't had time to jump back to 4.4 but if
> someone can confirm this fixes the issue, I'd certainly be greatful!

Hmmm... My former system was compiled with -O3 and gcc version was the
highest because I always use unstable system.

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell

[gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[walt]

On 09/18/2010 03:14 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.
>
> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.  Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename
> ~/.mozilla)  and re-emerge.

Seems to me to be getting slower.  The crashes shouldn't happen, though.
Are you seeing the crash-reporter window after your crashes?  I'm not
sure if the firefox ebuilds include the crash reporter or not.  Anyone
know?  (I think maybe the firefox-bin package includes it.)

If all else fails, I would download a binary version from mozilla to make
sure that you can submit crash reports.  They really do get looked at by
the mozilla devs, and bug reports that reference crash reports get serious
attention quickly.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Hilco Wijbenga]

On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.

Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Thomas Yao]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hilco Wijbenga
<hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.

Looking forward to Firefox 4, Firefox 3 really sucks sometimes

-- 
@ghosTM55
Mechanism, not policy

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[yanglh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]

2010/9/19 Thomas Yao <t.yao426@gmail.com>

> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hilco Wijbenga
> <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> > was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> > some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> > least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
>
> Looking forward to Firefox 4, Firefox 3 really sucks sometimes
>
> --
> @ghosTM55
> Mechanism, not policy
>
> Using chromium-bin instead fo firefox

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 949 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Lie Ryan]

On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.
> 
> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.

Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.

While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.

I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
speed up the computer?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan 
did opine thusly:

> On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
> > On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> >> stable.
> > 
> > Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
> > was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
> > some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
> > least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
> 
> Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
> probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
> maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
> before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
> with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.
> 
> While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
> problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
> 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
> becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.
> 
> I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
> anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
> speed up the computer?

No it will not.

It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the 
firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data 
structures firefox creates to do it's job.

Think of it this way:

You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a 
500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You 
somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that 
have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever.

And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have 
1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M, 
together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared.

top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access"
top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that 
nothing else can access"

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan
> did opine thusly:
>
>    
>> On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
>>      
>>> On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman<kogorman@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>>>> stable.
>>>>          
>>> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
>>> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
>>> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
>>> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
>>>        
>> Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
>> probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
>> maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
>> before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
>> with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.
>>
>> While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
>> problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
>> 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
>> becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.
>>
>> I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
>> anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
>> speed up the computer?
>>      
> No it will not.
>
> It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the
> firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data
> structures firefox creates to do it's job.
>
> Think of it this way:
>
> You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a
> 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You
> somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that
> have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever.
>
> And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have
> 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M,
> together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared.
>
> top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access"
> top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that
> nothing else can access"
>
>    

Yep.  I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one.  It doesn't 
use much when I first start it up.  The amount it accumulates as time 
goes on depends on the websites I go to.  If I go to sites that have a 
lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more 
memory.  If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it 
doesn't change much.

Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is 
using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory.  I 
have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest 
memory hogs.  One is flash and the other is video, both of which need a 
good bit of memory.  Changing the compile flags isn't going to stop you 
from going to certain sites so it won't help on memory usage.

This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a 
couple forums sites:

  7493 dale      20   0  253m 133m  28m S  0.7  6.6   1:59.65 seamonkey-bin

This is the same after going to the weather radar and one youtube music 
clip:

  7493 dale      20   0  331m 177m  33m S  8.6  8.8   3:18.65 seamonkey-bin

If I were to visit other sites, it would go up a lot more.  If you want 
to decrease memory usage, don't go to sites that use flash, have a lot 
of pics and gifs and other things that use a lot of memory.  You could 
do like I do, if it is using a good bit of memory, just close it, wait a 
few seconds and open it back up again.  Nice clean fresh start and 
unlike windoze, no reboot needed.  ;-)

I have Firefox 3.6 on here as well.  It does about the same as 
Seamonkey.  Starts out not using a lot but builds up as I visit other 
sites and things start to load up.  I can't tell any difference in speed 
tho.  I don't use it a whole lot tho so I may not have noticed it.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Lie Ryan]

On 09/19/10 19:04, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie
>> Ryan
>> did opine thusly:
>>
>>   
>>> On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman<kogorman@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>>>>> stable.
>>>>>          
>>>> Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that
>>>> was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because
>>>> some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At
>>>> least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones.
>>>>        
>>> Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
>>> probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
>>> maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
>>> before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
>>> with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.
>>>
>>> While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
>>> problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
>>> 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
>>> becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
>>> anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
>>> speed up the computer?
>>>      
>> No it will not.
>>
>> It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find
>> that the
>> firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for
>> the data
>> structures firefox creates to do it's job.
>>
>> Think of it this way:
>>
>> You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to
>> access a
>> 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You
>> somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does
>> that
>> have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever.
>>
>> And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says
>> you have
>> 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and
>> Firefox 180M,
>> together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared.
>>
>> top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access"
>> top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that
>> nothing else can access"
>>
>>    
> 
> Yep.  I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one.  It doesn't
> use much when I first start it up.  The amount it accumulates as time
> goes on depends on the websites I go to.  If I go to sites that have a
> lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more
> memory.  If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it
> doesn't change much.

When I'm doing emerge or other things, I usually switches to Epiphany,
dillo, or links; depending on how unbearable things becomes.

> Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is
> using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory.  I
> have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest
> memory hogs.  

I'm opening mostly standard HTML pages (gmail, static pages, etc) and
the memory usage is still quite bad.

> This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a
> couple forums sites:
> 
>  7493 dale      20   0  253m 133m  28m S  0.7  6.6   1:59.65 seamonkey-bin

Incidentally, I've found that browsing using Thunderbrowse extension in
Thunderbird is much more memory friendly than using Firefox itself
(Thunderbird still uses around 15-20% memory, compared to 20-30% that
Firefox uses). If only Thunderbrowse's interface is not so buggy...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Dale]

Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 09/19/10 19:04, Dale wrote:
>    
>> Yep.  I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one.  It doesn't
>> use much when I first start it up.  The amount it accumulates as time
>> goes on depends on the websites I go to.  If I go to sites that have a
>> lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more
>> memory.  If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it
>> doesn't change much.
>>      
> When I'm doing emerge or other things, I usually switches to Epiphany,
> dillo, or links; depending on how unbearable things becomes.
>    

If you set the "nice" value in make.conf then it shouldn't affect 
anything else you are doing.  I set mine to this:

PORTAGE_NICENESS=5
PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND="ionice -c 3 -p \${PID}"

That works very well.  Note, I think you have to have something compiled 
in the kernel for the IONICE part to work.

>    
>> Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is
>> using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory.  I
>> have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest
>> memory hogs.
>>      
> I'm opening mostly standard HTML pages (gmail, static pages, etc) and
> the memory usage is still quite bad.
>    

Do they have ads?  Those ads can be any number of things.  Even if they 
are just gifs, they still add up.  Keep in mind, most browsers cache 
things until they are closed.  If you close your program and the memory 
returns to normal when open it again, then that could be the reason.  
Also, Linux doesn't manage memory the same way windoze does.  The OS 
itself caches as much as it can.

>    
>> This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a
>> couple forums sites:
>>
>>   7493 dale      20   0  253m 133m  28m S  0.7  6.6   1:59.65 seamonkey-bin
>>      
> Incidentally, I've found that browsing using Thunderbrowse extension in
> Thunderbird is much more memory friendly than using Firefox itself
> (Thunderbird still uses around 15-20% memory, compared to 20-30% that
> Firefox uses). If only Thunderbrowse's interface is not so buggy...
>
>    

I use Seamonkey for my email so I don't even have Thunderbird installed 
here.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Lie Ryan]

On 09/19/10 18:08, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations,
>> probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but
>> maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than
>> before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's
>> with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%.
>>
>> While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main
>> problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another
>> 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is
>> becoming unbearably slow when memory starved.
>>
>> I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does
>> anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and
>> speed up the computer?
> 
> No it will not.
> 
> It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the 
> firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data 
> structures firefox creates to do it's job.

Makes sense, I just realized how stupid a thought it was...

[gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Francesco Talamona]

On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> stable.
> 
> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. 
> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
> re-emerge.
> 
> Grrrrrr.

Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the 
X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.

Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.

greets
	FT

-- 
Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 
21:01:33 CEST 2010
Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
aemaeth

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Daniel da Veiga]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
<francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>> stable.
>>
>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
>> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
>> re-emerge.
>>
>> Grrrrrr.
>
> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.
>
> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
>
> greets
>        FT
>
> --
> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
> aemaeth
>
>

Well, guess I'm lucky then.
I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
still, I don't see it in a near future.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[me]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga
<danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
> <francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>>> stable.
>>>
>>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
>>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
>>> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
>>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
>>> re-emerge.
>>>
>>> Grrrrrr.
>>
>> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
>> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.
>>
>> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
>>
>> greets
>>        FT
>>
>> --
>> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
>> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
>> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
>> aemaeth
>>
>>
>
> Well, guess I'm lucky then.
> I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
> browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
> personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
> stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
> noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
> still, I don't see it in a near future.
>
> --
> Daniel da Veiga

Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least
contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but
covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll
not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from
giving it a real try...

Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job:
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en

Flashblock:
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en

Adblock:
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en

The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it
seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything
else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long
time.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2997 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga
> 
> <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
> > 
> > <francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> >>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> >>> stable.
> >>> 
> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
> >>> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
> >>> re-emerge.
> >>> 
> >>> Grrrrrr.
> >> 
> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
> >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.
> >> 
> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
> >> 
> >> greets
> >>        FT
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
> >> aemaeth
> > 
> > Well, guess I'm lucky then.
> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
> > still, I don't see it in a near future.
> > 
> > --
> > Daniel da Veiga
> 
> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least
> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but
> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll
> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from
> giving it a real try...
> 
> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf
> n?hl=en
> 
> Flashblock:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn
> l?hl=en
> 
> Adblock:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido
> m?hl=en
> 
> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it
> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything
> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long
> time.

Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86.  I tried Chrome 
once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster.  I gave up on it 
because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits 
and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address.  In other 
words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[András Csányi]

On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86.  I tried Chrome
> once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster.  I gave up on it
> because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits
> and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address.  In other
> words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys.

Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which
contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I
think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language.
Everywhere are strange symbols... :)

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[alex]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1616 bytes --]

 On 09/19/10 19:26, András Csányi wrote:
> On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried
Chrome
>> once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up
on it
>> because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my
browsing habits
>> and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address.
In other
>> words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet
journeys.
>
> Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which
> contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I
> think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language.
> Everywhere are strange symbols... :)
>
I think Opera is mutch slower as FF, also i don't like the GUI. Also
you can speed up by  using Jaegermonkey
(http://blog.mozilla.com/dmandelin/2010/02/26/starting-jagermonkey/).
But yeahr FF has lost lots of stability.
But this is often becoures of problem in addon or flash (most flash),
simply that every site got to mutch stuff to put in, also ad becomes
flash ....i so annoyed abot this...
What i think it's even worest the use of memory by Firefox. This grow
by every release....

i'm not sure about Chrome, wasn't there some problems with sending
data to google?

Greeting Alex


--
Sourcegarden GmbH HR: B-104357
Steuernummer: 37/167/21214 USt-ID: DE814784953
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto
Bank: Deutsche Bank, BLZ: 10070024, KTO: 0810929
Schoenhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2661 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:26:56 András Csányi wrote:
> On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86.  I tried
> > Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster.  I
> > gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home
> > with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my
> > machine/IP address.  In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google
> > was recording my Internet journeys.
> 
> Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which
> contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I
> think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language.
> Everywhere are strange symbols... :)

Hmm, it should have inherited your default language setting.

Try Tools/General - at the bottom there is a drop down option to change the 
language.

Alternatively, type opera:config and go down to User Prefs on the page that 
opens.  Then scroll down to find "Language File", "Language Files Directory", 
etc.  My "Language Files Directory" points to /usr/share/opera/locale/en-GB/

HTH
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[me]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga
>>
>> <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
>> >
>> > <francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
>> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>> >>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
>> >>> stable.
>> >>>
>> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
>> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
>> >>> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
>> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
>> >>> re-emerge.
>> >>>
>> >>> Grrrrrr.
>> >>
>> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the
>> >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses.
>> >>
>> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
>> >>
>> >> greets
>> >>        FT
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
>> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
>> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
>> >> aemaeth
>> >
>> > Well, guess I'm lucky then.
>> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
>> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
>> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
>> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
>> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
>> > still, I don't see it in a near future.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel da Veiga
>>
>> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least
>> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but
>> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll
>> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from
>> giving it a real try...
>>
>> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job:
>> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf
>> n?hl=en
>>
>> Flashblock:
>> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn
>> l?hl=en
>>
>> Adblock:
>> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido
>> m?hl=en
>>
>> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it
>> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything
>> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long
>> time.
>
> Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86.  I tried Chrome
> once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster.  I gave up on it
> because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits
> and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address.  In other
> words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>

I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't
getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using
gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any
access to my browser history or the like gives.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3807 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:56:36 me wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga
> >> 
> >> <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona
> >> > 
> >> > <francesco.talamona@know.eu> wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> >> >>> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less
> >> >>> stable.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons
> >> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing.
> >> >>> Seg fault sometimes.  I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems,
> >> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla)  and
> >> >>> re-emerge.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Grrrrrr.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes
> >> >> the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as
> >> >> molasses.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux.
> >> >> 
> >> >> greets
> >> >>        FT
> >> >> 
> >> >> --
> >> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17
> >> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010
> >> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total
> >> >> aemaeth
> >> > 
> >> > Well, guess I'm lucky then.
> >> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other
> >> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my
> >> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't
> >> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock,
> >> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but
> >> > still, I don't see it in a near future.
> >> > 
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel da Veiga
> >> 
> >> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least
> >> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but
> >> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll
> >> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from
> >> giving it a real try...
> >> 
> >> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job:
> >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpk
> >> kcf n?hl=en
> >> 
> >> Flashblock:
> >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaign
> >> abn l?hl=en
> >> 
> >> Adblock:
> >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbigl
> >> ido m?hl=en
> >> 
> >> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it
> >> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything
> >> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long
> >> time.
> > 
> > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86.  I tried
> > Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster.  I
> > gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home
> > with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my
> > machine/IP address.  In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google
> > was recording my Internet journeys. --
> > Regards,
> > Mick
> 
> I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't
> getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using
> gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any
> access to my browser history or the like gives.

I use gmail too, but for sensitive information of commercial or private nature 
I use encryption and for very sensitive information I do not use gmail.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.

[Thomas Yao]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:07 AM, me <poisonbl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least
> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but
> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll
> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from
> giving it a real try...
>
> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en
>
> Flashblock:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en
>
> Adblock:
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en
>
> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it
> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything
> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long
> time.

thx 4 sharing

-- 
@ghosTM55
Mechanism, not policy

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Paul Hartman]

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it just me?  Or does Firefox get slower every release?  And less stable.

I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
(constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.

At work I use Firefox in Windows XP all day long on a much slower
computer, and it is faster (UI responsiveness feeling, not benchmarks)
and has none of the problems I have always experienced on my home
Gentoo box. It's been a long-standing mystery.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:

> I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.

That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really 
severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands 
smartly.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Beau Henderson]

On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>
>> I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
>> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
>> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
>> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
>> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
>> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>
> That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really
> severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands
> smartly.
>

Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently improves performance quite a bit. 
I believe there are issues when firefox is compiled with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no 
support for PGO building of Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had the time and knowledge to whip up 
an ebuild that could do the magic to test it out tho.

Any takers ? :P

-- 
Kind Regards,
Beau Henderson

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[alex]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

 On 09/22/2010 12:23 AM, Beau Henderson wrote:
> On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
>>> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
>>> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
>>> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
>>> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
>>> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>>
>> That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really
>> severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands
>> smartly.
>>
>
> Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently
> improves performance quite a bit. I believe there are issues when
> firefox is compiled with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no
> support for PGO building of Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had the
> time and knowledge to whip up an ebuild that could do the magic to
> test it out tho.
>
> Any takers ? :P
>
You really think that wood change the unstable problem?




--
Sourcegarden GmbH HR: B-104357
Steuernummer: 37/167/21214 USt-ID: DE814784953
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto
Bank: Deutsche Bank, BLZ: 10070024, KTO: 0810929
Schoenhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2330 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Beau Henderson]

On 09/24/10 08:11, alex@sourcegarden.de wrote:
>   On 09/22/2010 12:23 AM, Beau Henderson wrote:
>>  On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> > On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>> >
>> >> I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
>> >> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
>> >> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
>> >> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
>> >> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
>> >> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>> >
>> > That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really
>> > severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands
>> > smartly.
>> >
>>
>>  Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently
>>  improves performance quite a bit. I believe there are issues when
>>  firefox is compiled with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no
>>  support for PGO building of Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had the
>>  time and knowledge to whip up an ebuild that could do the magic to
>>  test it out tho.
>>
>>  Any takers ? :P
>>
> You really think that wood change the unstable problem?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Sourcegarden GmbH*
> *HR:* B-104357 *Steuernummer:* 37/167/21214*USt-ID* DE814784953
> *Geschäftsführer:* Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto
> *Bank:* Deutsche Bank, *BLZ:* 10070024, *KTO:* 0810929
> *Adresse:* Schönhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin
>

Stability, probably not. Performance, probably so. I haven't had any stability issues aside from the 
NSPR troubles.


-- 
Kind Regards,
Beau Henderson

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1380 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com>wrote:

> On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>>  I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
>>> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
>>> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
>>> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
>>> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
>>> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>>>
>>
>> That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really
>> severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands
>> smartly.
>>
>>
> Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently improves
> performance quite a bit. I believe there are issues when firefox is compiled
> with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no support for PGO building of
> Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had the time and knowledge to whip up an
> ebuild that could do the magic to test it out tho.
>
> Any takers ? :P
>
> Uh, what are PGO and ICC??

I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on Ubuntu let
alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about build parameters
seriously.

++ kevin


-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2069 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Bill Longman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1712 bytes --]

 On 09/24/10 09:48, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com
> <mailto:beau@thehenderson.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>         On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>
>             I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but
>             Firefox in Linux
>             has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI,
>             unusable in NX
>             (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same
>             thing), network
>             stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other
>             browsers on
>             the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I
>             don't use
>             Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>
>
>         That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering
>         really
>         severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my
>         commands
>         smartly.
>
>
>     Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently
>     improves performance quite a bit. I believe there are issues when
>     firefox is compiled with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no
>     support for PGO building of Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had
>     the time and knowledge to whip up an ebuild that could do the
>     magic to test it out tho.
>
>     Any takers ? :P
>
> Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>
> I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on Ubuntu
> let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about build
> parameters seriously.
>
> ++ kevin
>
>
> -- 
> Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
>
ICC is the Intel C compiler.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3287 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1682 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com>wrote:

>  On 09/24/10 09:48, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson <beau@thehenderson.com>wrote:
>
>>  On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>>  I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but Firefox in Linux
>>>> has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow UI, unusable in NX
>>>> (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same thing), network
>>>> stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc. Other browsers on
>>>> the same machine don't suffer any of these problems. I don't use
>>>> Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is suffering really
>>> severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to my commands
>>> smartly.
>>>
>>>
>>  Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which apparently
>> improves performance quite a bit. I believe there are issues when firefox is
>> compiled with GCC via PGO and in any case, there is no support for PGO
>> building of Firefox @ gentoo afaik. I wish I had the time and knowledge to
>> whip up an ebuild that could do the magic to test it out tho.
>>
>> Any takers ? :P
>>
>>  Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>
> I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on Ubuntu let
> alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about build parameters
> seriously.
>
> ICC is the Intel C compiler.
>

Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression it is
not free (as in beer).  Is that true?

-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3413 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Yohan Pereira]

On Friday 24 September 2010 10:26:54 pm Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression it is
> not free (as in beer).  Is that true?

true.

-- 
- Yohan Pereira.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Bill Longman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2190 bytes --]

 On 09/24/10 09:56, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com
> <mailto:bill.longman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/24/10 09:48, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>>     On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Beau Henderson
>>     <beau@thehenderson.com <mailto:beau@thehenderson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 09/22/10 07:31, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>
>>             On Monday 20 September 2010 16:38:05 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>>                 I haven't had any crashing or failing to start, but
>>                 Firefox in Linux
>>                 has always been pretty bad in general for me. Slow
>>                 UI, unusable in NX
>>                 (constant screen redraws; Thunderbird does the same
>>                 thing), network
>>                 stalling for MINUTES at a time, slow to load, etc.
>>                 Other browsers on
>>                 the same machine don't suffer any of these problems.
>>                 I don't use
>>                 Firefox as my primary browser because it is so flaky.
>>
>>
>>             That's odd, because on this newish i5 box, which is
>>             suffering really
>>             severe responsiveness problems otherwise, FF responds to
>>             my commands
>>             smartly.
>>
>>
>>         Firefox for windows is compiled with PGO via ICC which
>>         apparently improves performance quite a bit. I believe there
>>         are issues when firefox is compiled with GCC via PGO and in
>>         any case, there is no support for PGO building of Firefox @
>>         gentoo afaik. I wish I had the time and knowledge to whip up
>>         an ebuild that could do the magic to test it out tho.
>>
>>         Any takers ? :P
>>
>>     Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>>
>>     I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on
>>     Ubuntu let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about
>>     build parameters seriously.
>     ICC is the Intel C compiler.
>
>
> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression
> it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
>
> -- 
> Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
>
I don't know but I can emerge -q icc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5115 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Stroller]

On 24 Sep 2010, at 20:15, Bill Longman wrote:
>>> ...
>> 
>>>>    Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>>>> 
>>>>    I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on
>>>>    Ubuntu let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about
>>>>    build parameters seriously.
>>>    ICC is the Intel C compiler.
>> 
>> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression
>> it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
>> 
> I don't know but I can emerge -q icc

There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.

Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 - I believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.

I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be using it.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Stroller
<stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24 Sep 2010, at 20:15, Bill Longman wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>    Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>>>>>
>>>>>    I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on
>>>>>    Ubuntu let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about
>>>>>    build parameters seriously.
>>>>    ICC is the Intel C compiler.
>>>
>>> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression
>>> it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
>>>
>> I don't know but I can emerge -q icc
>
> There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.
>
> Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 - I believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.
>
> I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be using it.

According to the Gentoo Wiki, a free non-commercial license is
available, ICC is not fully compatible with GCC, and the list of
packages that "work well with" ICC is rather short (though that in
itself doesn't mean anything other than whoever made the wiki typed a
short list).

I have not personally tried it.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/24/2010 06:16 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Stroller
> <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2010, at 20:15, Bill Longman wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>    Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on
>>>>>>    Ubuntu let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about
>>>>>>    build parameters seriously.
>>>>>    ICC is the Intel C compiler.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression
>>>> it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
>>>>
>>> I don't know but I can emerge -q icc
>>
>> There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.
>>
>> Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 - I believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.
>>
>> I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be using it.
> 
> According to the Gentoo Wiki, a free non-commercial license is
> available, ICC is not fully compatible with GCC, and the list of
> packages that "work well with" ICC is rather short (though that in
> itself doesn't mean anything other than whoever made the wiki typed a
> short list).
> 
> I have not personally tried it.
> 

AMD users may wish to confirm that ICC no longer cripples its output for
non-Intel chips:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Criticism

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>wrote:

>
> On 24 Sep 2010, at 20:15, Bill Longman wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>>    Uh, what are PGO and ICC??
> >>>>
> >>>>    I also must add that I get decent performance from the fox on
> >>>>    Ubuntu let alone Vista, which makes me take your suggestion about
> >>>>    build parameters seriously.
> >>>    ICC is the Intel C compiler.
> >>
> >> Ahh..   I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression
> >> it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
> >>
> > I don't know but I can emerge -q icc
>
> There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.
>
> Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 - I
> believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.
>
> I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an
> activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be using
> it.
>
> Stroller.
>
>
Wouldn't that be kind of senseless since the source code is distributed?
 Knowing it would not be hard to bypass the activation key, if they wanted
money for it they wouldn't let the source code out, license or no license.

Just my $.02

++ kevin

-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1859 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Stroller]

On 25 Sep 2010, at 03:17, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>  I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression it is not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
>>> I don't know but I can emerge -q icc
>> 
>> There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.
>> 
>> Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 - I
>> believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.
>> 
>> I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an
>> activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be using
>> it.
>> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be kind of senseless since the source code is distributed?
> Knowing it would not be hard to bypass the activation key, if they wanted
> money for it they wouldn't let the source code out, license or no license.

Just because you can emerge a package doesn't mean the full source is distributed. It could be a binary package, it could contain a small binary blob for activation.

Paul Hartman provides more info in his post of 24 September 2010 23:16:30 GMT+01:00, but I was specifically replying to the assumption or implication "if it can be emerged it must be free".

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1398 bytes --]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk>wrote:

>
> On 25 Sep 2010, at 03:17, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>>  I've heard good things about it, but I'm under the impression it is
> not free (as in beer).  Is that true?
> >>> I don't know but I can emerge -q icc
> >>
> >> There is other non-Free software you can install with Portage.
> >>
> >> Just yesterday I was looking at games-fps/ut2003 and games-fps/ut2004 -
> I
> >> believe these require the game's installer CDs to work.
> >>
> >> I would imagine that if you were to emerge ICC it would require an
> >> activation key before it would compile anything, otherwise we'd all be
> using
> >> it.
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't that be kind of senseless since the source code is distributed?
> > Knowing it would not be hard to bypass the activation key, if they wanted
> > money for it they wouldn't let the source code out, license or no
> license.
>
> Just because you can emerge a package doesn't mean the full source is
> distributed. It could be a binary package, it could contain a small binary
> blob for activation.
>
> Paul Hartman provides more info in his post of 24 September 2010 23:16:30
> GMT+01:00, but I was specifically replying to the assumption or implication
> "if it can be emerged it must be free".
>
> You are right.  Thanks for the clarification.

++ kevin



-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1958 bytes --]