FC10 preview netinst took almost 8 hours

[ejket]

Just a remark, not a rant. It took an insanely long time to get FC10 preview installed from the netinst CD, but it wasn't all download time. The installation portion took hours as well. Of course there were 1295 packages to process, but my machine is new, custom built, and pretty fast. It seemed crazy, and if I didn't have something else to do on another box, I'd have been upset

I wonder why it took so long.

[scottro]

That is odd, even with so many packages, on a fast machine. I usually use NFS, and it goes relatively quickly. (That is, download the ISO to another machine and do it that way.)

Just for fun, if you have another 8 hours to kill, why not try that and see if it's just as bad?
Hopefully, downloading the ISO won't take all that long. Hrrm, of course, then there's the first update after installation--never mind, don't do it, you'd probably hunt me down and kill me afterwards.

It does seem odd to me as well. Have you tried an update since then, and did installation of downloaded packages go more quickly?

[ejket]

Originally Posted by scottro

That is odd, even with so many packages, on a fast machine. I usually use NFS, and it goes relatively quickly. (That is, download the ISO to another machine and do it that way.)

Just for fun, if you have another 8 hours to kill, why not try that and see if it's just as bad?

LOL, no thanks.

I don't like downloading big, fat ISOs when I can do a netinst and get fresh packages from the start.

It does seem odd to me as well. Have you tried an update since then, and did installation of downloaded packages go more quickly?

Everything seems normal now---nothing seems slow. I've had a small update session that seemed normal, and downloaded some packages... I can't live without my gvim and Openbox

I was thinking it might have been doing some redundant check for each package, like refreshing the repos each time and checking for updates, even though I'd just got each package fresh using the netinst. I have no evidence to back this up, though... it's just a theory.

FC10 preview seems very nice so far, though. The install was great and very smooth in every other respect... just ... really... slow. I had problems with FC9 and this seems much better.

[scottro]

Great. An openbox user.
I like OpenBox though in the end, I go back to fluxbox. Amusingly enough, one of the things I missed, using openbox, was the toolbar, which I always thought I didn't use.

(Yes, I know there are various alternatives for Obox, but a fluxbox vs. openbox debate should have its own thread, and then the pekwm folks can jump in too.)

[ejket]

Originally Posted by scottro

Great. An openbox user.
I like OpenBox though in the end, I go back to fluxbox. Amusingly enough, one of the things I missed, using openbox, was the toolbar, which I always thought I didn't use.

As it happens I'm just now trying to get PyPanel to work. If you've got any pull, see if you can get that in the repos

I know I got PyPanel to work on FC8, but now it's choking on imlib2 (which I have).

(Yes, I know there are various alternatives for Obox, but a fluxbox vs. openbox debate should have its own thread, and then the pekwm folks can jump in too.)

The *boxes are all good. I'm an old blackbox user (it was me, bb, and freeBSD for some years, long ago). So you'll get no argument from me... I might even end up with fluxbox on this install. I think my only preference for openbox is that it centers all the windows by default...

Anyway, the FC10 preview is working out very well. I did the dangermouse autoten thing and I'm pretty much all set up. Good job, guys, this looks like a nice release.

[scottro]

Ah, me too. (BB and FreeBSD). I was a BSD guy till a job change--as we use CentOS there, I went to Fedora. I still have a BSD box as my main workstation at home, but I find I don't have the time to keep up with it. (It's running a 6 month old version of CURRENT.)
As for pypanel, I haven't tried on F10, I don't think, (though that's what I used). I don't have pull to get it in the repos--I did whine at a friend enough to get him to add a little patch to it that enabled me to use left right and center and a percent for width. See
http://home.roadrunner.com/~computer.../fluxopen.html for my page with a link to Rod's version.

I *think* you can get flux to put the terminal in the center, but as I prefer the upper left it uses by default, I never looked into it. Aside from the toolbar (if I were a dedicated Obox user, I would have submitted a request to put it back, I think) the other thing that makes me prefer flux is that the keyboard shortcuts are so much easier.

However, one oddity I've found recently--I run NX server both on my workstation at work, with F9 and on a CentOS server-cum-workstation at home. I had both running fluxbox, but lately (I don't know when this began) I was no longer able to right click and get a menu in fluxbox when making an NX connection. However, openbox didn't give me that problem. It's not something I ever thoroughly investigated, since the keyboard shortcuts didn't work over NX, it didn't matter, I just wanted a low resource desktop, but a bit more than twm.

I should probably change this thread title since, so far, it's just you and I discussing real window managers instead of this girly man Gnome stuff, but unless one of the other mods complains, we'll leave it. (Ya never know, someone might actually have constructive advice about your original comment.) (And yeah, to anyone else, I know it could be trolling to call Gnome a girly man GUI, as well as sexist, but shucks, we're talking about *real* window managers here.)

I mean, it's just ejket, myself and anyone else of the 100,000 or so forum members, as well as anyone browsing, who will see it, so who's to know.

(I probably should be forbidden from posting after 11:00 PM.)

Whimsically yours,

[scottro]

Double checking my old page on Fluxbox and Openbox, I see that one also needs imlib2-devel installed. Do you have that? (re pypanel.)
From my page

You have to have python (which is usually installed by default, probably python-devel (which I always install, so I haven't tested this without it), python-xlib, imlib2 and imlib2-devel.

[ejket]

Originally Posted by scottro

I should probably change this thread title since, so far, it's just you and I discussing real window managers instead of this girly man Gnome stuff, but unless one of the other mods complains, we'll leave it. (Ya never know, someone might actually have constructive advice about your original comment.) (And yeah, to anyone else, I know it could be trolling to call Gnome a girly man GUI, as well as sexist, but shucks, we're talking about *real* window managers here.)

I mean, it's just ejket, myself and anyone else of the 100,000 or so forum members, as well as anyone browsing, who will see it, so who's to know.

(I probably should be forbidden from posting after 11:00 PM.)

LOL, well, maybe we'll inspire some folks to try something more interesting---maybe even as interesting as xmonad (I run that in archlinux, you got it in FC? I haven't looked yet). If I was younger I'd be a Haskell hacker...

I think the great thing about Linux is the range of choices. Yes, choices can be scary until you jump off a few cliffs and realize you will survive.

I see that one also needs imlib2-devel installed. Do you have that? (re pypanel.)

You are the man. I'd kiss you, but that wouldn't be, er, manly... that worked great

[scottro]

LOL. Sigh, if it weren't so late, I'd probably split the thread and move it, but the heck with it. We're running everything under F10, so it's in a fitting section.


Anyway, I'm glad that adding those other packages worked. I vaguely remember having a similar issue and just, having had and googled a similar issue with something else, giving a try at installing the devel package as well, so I tried it with pypanel.

Have you ever played with fluxpanel? It's almost like a mini DE in itself. (I use DE rather than WM deliberately.)

I took a look at xmonad. It seems interesting and the auto tiling of the windows is nice, but, perhaps because it's pretty late, it seemed complex. With fluxbox a couple of keystrokes moves windows to where I want them.

Although I like a minimalist window manager, I've found that I have my limits. For example, there is also weewm and evilwm (don't know if they're available in the repos). Both were lacking one or two features that fluxbox had, and flux did look a wee bit nicer. I know one of them, probably weewm, had a limit in the number of keybindings too.

What I mainly want in a WM is the ability to open programs with keystrokes and move the windows around the screen with keystrokes. As someone once said in a mutt vs. pine discussion, people pull out all sorts of technical reasons to justify what is in the end, an emotional decision, and I find that I always wind up coming back to fluxbox, even though it's added various features that I don't need or want. It's still pretty small, especially when compared to Gnome.

ArchLinux---probably my favorite Linux distro though I'm not using it these days. I just find I have less time to spend configuring and messing with systems. (And window managers.) That's one thing about CentOS. You install it, do a few tweaks to eliminate some of the RH bloat, and can then ignore it and concentrate on the applications for which you are using it. At work, especially, that's a blessing. I have enough to do with worrying about, say, Nagios, without keeping up with the latest tweaks.

However, if I were able to choose the flavor of Linux to run, I'd probably go with Arch. It's one of the very very few remaining distros that hasn't taken the approach, "You, user, are a complete moron who should probably be using Windows or Mac. Therefore, I will make all the decisions for you."

Yup, I definitely shouldn't post after 11:00. Not only am I overly whimsical, I'm also gradually becoming a curmudgeon.
For anyone else coming across this thread who finds my comments about Gnome or distros being overly user friendly to be offensive, please don't take it too seriously. It's meant in a light hearted vein, being written to someone else who shares similar taste in window managers.

He's a witch! burn 'im

Wayne

[ejket]

Originally Posted by scottro

LOL. Sigh, if it weren't so late, I'd probably split the thread and move it, but the heck with it. We're running everything under F10, so it's in a fitting section.

Meh, thread drift is a force of nature

Anyway, I'm glad that adding those other packages worked. I vaguely remember having a similar issue and just, having had and googled a similar issue with something else, giving a try at installing the devel package as well, so I tried it with pypanel.

Here's the thing: I did all this stuff before but I forgot it all. For example, I searched these forums for how to get gnome-settings-daemon working and found a post of my own that gave me the answer. You have to admit that's funny.

I took a look at xmonad. It seems interesting and the auto tiling of the windows is nice, but, perhaps because it's pretty late, it seemed complex. With fluxbox a couple of keystrokes moves windows to where I want them.

The virtue of xmonad is that when you want to focus on work, it helps you do that. You set up your windows and it's a pain to give way to diversions. There's really something elegant about that kind of focus and discipline, and you do get the work done that way. I think that's the appeal.

Although I like a minimalist window manager, I've found that I have my limits. For example, there is also weewm and evilwm (don't know if they're available in the repos). Both were lacking one or two features that fluxbox had, and flux did look a wee bit nicer. I know one of them, probably weewm, had a limit in the number of keybindings too.

What I mainly want in a WM is the ability to open programs with keystrokes and move the windows around the screen with keystrokes. As someone once said in a mutt vs. pine discussion, people pull out all sorts of technical reasons to justify what is in the end, an emotional decision, and I find that I always wind up coming back to fluxbox, even though it's added various features that I don't need or want. It's still pretty small, especially when compared to Gnome.

I like Gnome, but I don't use it. That sounds funny, but I always install Gnome first, then I put Openbox on top of it. I use Openbox, but with Gnome things running behind the scenes: gnome-settings-daemon in particular.

I like the quick response of the *box WMs, and I don't need most of the Gnome overhead.

ArchLinux---probably my favorite Linux distro though I'm not using it these days. I just find I have less time to spend configuring and messing with systems. (And window managers.) That's one thing about CentOS. You install it, do a few tweaks to eliminate some of the RH bloat, and can then ignore it and concentrate on the applications for which you are using it. At work, especially, that's a blessing. I have enough to do with worrying about, say, Nagios, without keeping up with the latest tweaks.

However, if I were able to choose the flavor of Linux to run, I'd probably go with Arch. It's one of the very very few remaining distros that hasn't taken the approach, "You, user, are a complete moron who should probably be using Windows or Mac. Therefore, I will make all the decisions for you."

Arch is great, and I also love Debian (though of course not unreservedly). It's funny, but I hated Redhat 4 so much that I thought I'd never give Fedora a chance, but FC8 was lovely, and I really do like FC10. That shows that if you loosen up and give things a chance, you can end up being pleasantly surprised

I know I said it before, but I'm really liking this FC10 preview. As I keep on tweaking and installing new stuff, it keeps on looking sweeter and sweeter. Except for sound, LOL. I have to solve that one, but I see threads on that already.

[scottro]

It's really late and I can't sleep because of a headache, so I'll try to keep this brief.
As for the witch comment--Ok, I turned him into a newt, but as you see, he got better.

Yes, with Fedora, I've found that it's almost essential to install Gnome, even if you don't use it. I don't think this is a good thing, but it's the way of the distribution. Such is life.

As for sound, I've found that (especially when you don't use Gnome) pulse-audio can still be a problem. I have a page, albeit dated, that, unfortunately, still seems to be applicable. It was first written back when they made the decision to tie sound to consolekit.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~computer...u/rhsound.html