4:41 a.m.
seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
page is painful.
with seamonkey, scrolling is
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
with firefox, it's
*scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
4:51 a.m.
Weren't you having video driver issues?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
page is painful.
with seamonkey, scrolling is
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
with firefox, it's
*scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
rday
5:08 a.m.
Christopher Beland wrote:
Weren't you having video driver issues?
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
> noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
> page is painful.
>
> with seamonkey, scrolling is
>
> *scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
>
> with firefox, it's
>
> *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
>
> i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
> who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> thoughts?
>
> rday
>
Well if it works with seamonkey, then it can't be video driver issue?
5:17 a.m.
On Friday 24 April 2009 11:08:15 Riku Seppälä wrote:
Christopher Beland wrote:
> Weren't you having video driver issues?
>
> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
>> noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
>> page is painful.
>>
>> with seamonkey, scrolling is
>>
>> *scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
>>
>> with firefox, it's
>>
>> *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
>>
>> i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
>> who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
>> thoughts?
>>
>> rday
Well if it works with seamonkey, then it can't be video driver issue?
Yes, it can.
Program A uses feature X.
Program B uses feature Y.
Driver has a bug in feature Y.
5:22 a.m.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Bill Crawford wrote:
On Friday 24 April 2009 11:08:15 Riku Seppälä wrote:
> Christopher Beland wrote:
> > Weren't you having video driver issues?
> >
> > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
> >> noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
> >> page is painful.
> >>
> >> with seamonkey, scrolling is
> >>
> >> *scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
> >>
> >> with firefox, it's
> >>
> >> *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
> >>
> >> i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only
person
> >> who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> >> thoughts?
> >>
> >> rday
>
> Well if it works with seamonkey, then it can't be video driver issue?
Yes, it can.
Program A uses feature X.
Program B uses feature Y.
Driver has a bug in feature Y.
i'm willing to entertain suggestions for tests. just now, i had one
invocation of firefox and one invocation of seamonkey running. i
terminated seamonkey, and it went away. i terminated firefox and it's
still sitting there, in limbo, with the "quit firefox" dialog only
partially displayed on the screen, after 30 seconds, utterly
unresponsive.
as i said, i'm open to suggestions but, at this point, firefox seems
to be totally unusable on this system.
rday
--
p.s oh, the "quit firefox" dialog finally finished drawing on the
display -- more than 60 seconds after i asked it to quit. that
strikes me as moderately poor response time.
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
7:06 a.m.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> Program A uses feature X.
> Program B uses feature Y.
> Driver has a bug in feature Y.
i'm willing to entertain suggestions for tests. just now, i had one
invocation of firefox and one invocation of seamonkey running. i
terminated seamonkey, and it went away. i terminated firefox and it's
still sitting there, in limbo, with the "quit firefox" dialog only
partially displayed on the screen, after 30 seconds, utterly
unresponsive.
as i said, i'm open to suggestions but, at this point, firefox seems
to be totally unusable on this system.
This is strange, but it could be driver issue. Firstly the scrolling
problem happen when someone had a compiz enabled on HW without
GLX_PIXMAPsomething support, also you could try to switch off the smooth
scrolling. But anyway, the drawing of gui itself.. strange. You could
maybe get a precompiled Firefox package from mozilla pages, and check with
it.
I really do have a bunch or problems with radeon driver on 9200 card with
OS driver right now, but firefox is not among them.
rday
Adam Pribyl
1:27 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 06:22:49AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Bill Crawford wrote:
i'm willing to entertain suggestions for tests. just now, i had one
invocation of firefox and one invocation of seamonkey running. i
terminated seamonkey, and it went away. i terminated firefox and it's
still sitting there, in limbo, with the "quit firefox" dialog only
partially displayed on the screen, after 30 seconds, utterly
unresponsive.
Is this reproducible? Is it accompanied by high CPU usage? If so,
I'd
definitely stick a profiler on it (OProfile or sysprof). If not, I'd
attach a debugger to it and break while it's paused. At this point, you
can figure out where (and hopefully why) it's waiting.
- Ben
10:30 a.m.
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
page is painful.
with seamonkey, scrolling is
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
with firefox, it's
*scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
Disable smooth scrolling and see if it changes anything, maybe?
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the
only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
Not happening here, Firefox is fine.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:42 a.m.
On 04/24/2009 05:11 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the
only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
The usual: try running with no add-ons ("firefox -safe-mode") and check
if it's still crawling. If not, you get to do a binary chop search to
find out which add-on is causing the problem.
BTW, I'm not seeing this problem (FF 3.0.9, x86_64).
You could also try the FF 3.1b3 download directly from Mozilla. It works
very well here but is only 32-bit for the moment so I'm not using it.
poc
1:39 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added the
noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
page is painful.
with seamonkey, scrolling is
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
with firefox, it's
*scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
rday
--
I will say that even with +130 tabs open on my old over loaded machine,
FF works well. Much better with NoScript thought. I say over loaded
because the loads are usually in the 1.7 to 2.5 range.
I suspect that you have a configuration file corruption issue.
Try creating a new account and see how it works.
Try running FF from the command line and see if there are any messages.
--
Robin Laing
9:32 p.m.
I'm using Firefox 3.1B3 on Fedora 11, x86_64 and love it. I travel quite
a lot and bring my Fedora 11 laptop with me everywhere and so far I've
not had a single Firefox issue regardless of where I connect to the net.
My only problem (and perhaps I'm not doing something right) is that I
can't get Flash to work on x86_64 and this is more and more of a thorn
in my side as my friends ask me to look at this or that posting on YouTube.
Thunderbird on x86_64 is a little more quirky when composing HTML
emails, but it is still handling my 2+ Gb of mail folders like a champ.
Bob
On 04/24/2009 05:41 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
seriously, firefox is still entirely unusable. i've added
the
noscript plugin to filter out junk and yet, even scrolling on a web
page is painful.
with seamonkey, scrolling is
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* ...
with firefox, it's
*scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* wait wait wait *scroll* ...
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
9:56 p.m.
On 25/04/2009 12:32 PM, Robert L Cochran wrote:
I'm using Firefox 3.1B3 on Fedora 11, x86_64 and love it. I
travel
quite a lot and bring my Fedora 11 laptop with me everywhere and so
far I've not had a single Firefox issue regardless of where I connect
to the net. My only problem (and perhaps I'm not doing something
right) is that I can't get Flash to work on x86_64 and this is more
and more of a thorn in my side as my friends ask me to look at this or
that posting on YouTube.
Thunderbird on x86_64 is a little more quirky when composing HTML
emails, but it is still handling my 2+ Gb of mail folders like a champ.
Bob
what flash are you using? 32bit one or 64bit one?
4:49 a.m.
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 22:32 -0400, Robert L Cochran wrote:
I'm using Firefox 3.1B3 on Fedora 11, x86_64 and love it. I
travel quite
a lot and bring my Fedora 11 laptop with me everywhere and so far I've
not had a single Firefox issue regardless of where I connect to the net.
My only problem (and perhaps I'm not doing something right) is that I
can't get Flash to work on x86_64 and this is more and more of a thorn
in my side as my friends ask me to look at this or that posting on YouTube.
For 64bit flash (it's still beta but works pretty good)..
1 - http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
2- Scroll to the very bottom and look for the link with "Download 64-bit
Plugin for Linux" and click on it to download the .so
3 - untar it, and copy the libflash.so (not sure of correct name) to
your /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ dir.
4- Start firefox and should be all set.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
Fedora Project - Bugzapper, Tester, User, etc..
miketc302(a)fedoraproject.org
9:30 p.m.
Thanks to you all Mike, Greg, Pat and Chuck. I've been on the road. I'll
follow up on your suggestions tomorrow night sometime and report back.
Bob
On 04/25/2009 05:49 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 22:32 -0400, Robert L Cochran wrote:
> I'm using Firefox 3.1B3 on Fedora 11, x86_64 and love it. I travel quite
> a lot and bring my Fedora 11 laptop with me everywhere and so far I've
> not had a single Firefox issue regardless of where I connect to the net.
> My only problem (and perhaps I'm not doing something right) is that I
> can't get Flash to work on x86_64 and this is more and more of a thorn
> in my side as my friends ask me to look at this or that posting on YouTube.
>
For 64bit flash (it's still beta but works pretty good)..
1 - http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
2- Scroll to the very bottom and look for the link with "Download 64-bit
Plugin for Linux" and click on it to download the .so
3 - untar it, and copy the libflash.so (not sure of correct name) to
your /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ dir.
4- Start firefox and should be all set.
8:45 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:32:50PM -0400, Robert L Cochran wrote:
I'm using Firefox 3.1B3 on Fedora 11, x86_64 and love it. I
travel quite
a lot and bring my Fedora 11 laptop with me everywhere and so far I've
not had a single Firefox issue regardless of where I connect to the net.
My only problem (and perhaps I'm not doing something right) is that I
can't get Flash to work on x86_64 and this is more and more of a thorn
in my side as my friends ask me to look at this or that posting on
YouTube.
YouTube for the most part works w/open source swfdec +
gstreamer-ffmpeg from that other repo.
10:18 a.m.
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the
only person
who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
thoughts?
Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can be.
Also: sysprof.
- ajax
11:16 a.m.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
> who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> thoughts?
Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can be.
Also: sysprof.
sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment. i'm getting
increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox performance
issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11 beta. it's
not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure configurations
-- this was happening before i messed around at all.
i'll give it some more thought. sorry for the peevishness.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
11:33 a.m.
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
From: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca>
Subject: Re: any thoughts on why firefox is still nad-grindingly slow?
To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases"
<fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com>
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:16 AM
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day
wrote:
>
> > i can't be the only person seeing this, and i
can't be the only person
> > who's pretty much given up on this dog of a
piece of software.
> > thoughts?
>
> Never say "I can't be the only person",
because you can be.
>
> Also: sysprof.
sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment.
i'm getting
increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox
performance
issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11
beta. it's
not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure
configurations
-- this was happening before i messed around at all.
i'll give it some more thought. sorry for the
peevishness.
rday
--
Robert,
I have two or three machines (x86_64) have some problems with firefox. On some of them it
froze the machine and nothing but a hard reboot got them back (ATI integrated graphics, I
to complained too, check the list as well). On those mchines, I use either konqueror or
Opera to avoid the freezes and all is well. On the regular i686/i586 firefox works well.
The nvidia x86_64 firefox works ok, but I have not run it continously to say how well it
works). I only have gecko-mediaplayer and flash plugins (x86_64 beta). I was not
complaining that it was slow, I complainted because it froze my machines. You are not the
only one that is having problems or has problems with firefox, but we can only do so much.
Regards,
Antonio
12:09 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 12:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only person
> > who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> > thoughts?
>
> Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can be.
>
> Also: sysprof.
sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment. i'm getting
increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox performance
issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11 beta. it's
not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure configurations
-- this was happening before i messed around at all.
There wasn't any emotion behind my statement, it's just true. There are
plenty of ways in which you (or any other observer) can run into unique
behaviour.
The way to figure it out is not "does anyone else see this" but
"what's
causing this".
- ajax
2:49 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 12:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > > i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the only
person
> > > who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> > > thoughts?
> >
> > Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can be.
> >
> > Also: sysprof.
>
> sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment. i'm getting
> increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox performance
> issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11 beta.
> it's not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure
> configurations -- this was happening before i messed around at
> all.
There wasn't any emotion behind my statement, it's just true.
There are plenty of ways in which you (or any other observer) can
run into unique behaviour.
The way to figure it out is not "does anyone else see this" but
"what's causing this".
quite so. compounding the problem is that i'm still having
occasional video lockups on this system, the last one caused simply by
moving a firefox window. even after the lockup, i can still "ssh"
into the system but there's nothing in any of the log files that gives
me a hint as to what's going on.
just not my day today.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
3:18 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:49:58 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 12:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > > i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be the
only person
> > > > who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of software.
> > > > thoughts?
> > >
> > > Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can be.
> > >
> > > Also: sysprof.
> >
> > sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment. i'm getting
> > increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox performance
> > issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11 beta.
> > it's not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure
> > configurations -- this was happening before i messed around at
> > all.
>
> There wasn't any emotion behind my statement, it's just true.
> There are plenty of ways in which you (or any other observer) can
> run into unique behaviour.
>
> The way to figure it out is not "does anyone else see this" but
> "what's causing this".
quite so. compounding the problem is that i'm still having
occasional video lockups on this system, the last one caused simply by
moving a firefox window. even after the lockup, i can still "ssh"
into the system but there's nothing in any of the log files that gives
me a hint as to what's going on.
If you're on EXA on that RS690, please switch back to XAA until we know
more about the problem - IIRC XAA ran fine on your hardware.
F
3:32 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, François Cami wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:49:58 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 12:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 05:41 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > i can't be the only person seeing this, and i can't be
the only person
> > > > > who's pretty much given up on this dog of a piece of
software.
> > > > > thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Never say "I can't be the only person", because you can
be.
> > > >
> > > > Also: sysprof.
> > >
> > > sorry, that was spoken in the heat of the moment. i'm getting
> > > increasingly frustrated because i was having firefox performance
> > > issues right from the get-go, with a fresh install of f11 beta.
> > > it's not as if i'm trying all sorts of esoteric and obscure
> > > configurations -- this was happening before i messed around at
> > > all.
> >
> > There wasn't any emotion behind my statement, it's just true.
> > There are plenty of ways in which you (or any other observer) can
> > run into unique behaviour.
> >
> > The way to figure it out is not "does anyone else see this" but
> > "what's causing this".
>
> quite so. compounding the problem is that i'm still having
> occasional video lockups on this system, the last one caused simply by
> moving a firefox window. even after the lockup, i can still "ssh"
> into the system but there's nothing in any of the log files that gives
> me a hint as to what's going on.
If you're on EXA on that RS690, please switch back to XAA until we know
more about the problem - IIRC XAA ran fine on your hardware.
not anymore -- i've been on XAA for the last couple days, and i'm
now having occasional lockup problems. i'm using "nomodeset" as a
boot parameter and things are *exceedingly* stable, but not perfect.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
8:52 a.m.
On 2009-04-27, 20:18 GMT, François Cami wrote:
If you're on EXA on that RS690, please switch back to XAA until
we know
more about the problem - IIRC XAA ran fine on your hardware.
Just adding my "me too" on this hardware and no xorg.conf:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380
[Radeon X600 (PCIE)]
01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380 [Radeon X600]
Will try nomodeset. François, do we have a bug for this (was
wandering in other lands than -ati for the last couple of days)?
Matěj
9:45 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:52:54PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2009-04-27, 20:18 GMT, François Cami wrote:
> If you're on EXA on that RS690, please switch back to XAA until
> we know
> more about the problem - IIRC XAA ran fine on your hardware.
Just adding my "me too" on this hardware and no xorg.conf:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380
[Radeon X600 (PCIE)]
01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380 [Radeon X600]
Will try nomodeset. François, do we have a bug for this (was
wandering in other lands than -ati for the last couple of days)?
I was seeing this problem, but it stopped shortly after changing
/etc/nsswitch.conf. My hosts line was like this:
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns
and I changed it to this:
hosts: files dns
Can others try this, reboot, and see if it makes any difference, or am
I just confusing a different bug?
I'm using:
kernel-2.6.29.1-111.fc11.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.2-7.fc11.x86_64
10:28 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 10:45 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
I was seeing this problem, but it stopped shortly after changing
/etc/nsswitch.conf. My hosts line was like this:
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns
and I changed it to this:
hosts: files dns
Can others try this, reboot, and see if it makes any difference, or am
I just confusing a different bug?
That's probably a different bug - check to see if you had nss-mdns.i586
(only) installed on an x86_64 system. See this mail thread for
background info:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/msg01471.html
-w
11:58 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:28:44AM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 10:45 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I was seeing this problem, but it stopped shortly after changing
> /etc/nsswitch.conf. My hosts line was like this:
>
> hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns
>
> and I changed it to this:
>
> hosts: files dns
>
> Can others try this, reboot, and see if it makes any difference, or am
> I just confusing a different bug?
That's probably a different bug - check to see if you had nss-mdns.i586
(only) installed on an x86_64 system. See this mail thread for
background info:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-April/msg01471.html
I did not have nss-mdns.i586 installed, but I did have the
"mdns4_minimal" line in my nsswitch.conf. I'm going to test putting
back the nsswitch.conf changes I made...
10:41 a.m.
On 2009-04-28, 13:52 GMT, Matej Cepl wrote:
Will try nomodeset. François, do we have a bug for this (was
wandering in other lands than -ati for the last couple of
days)?
And yes, nomodeset makes HUGE difference. Now, computer
(including fully occuppied firefox) works like a charm.
Matěj
10:43 a.m.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2009-04-27, 20:18 GMT, François Cami wrote:
> If you're on EXA on that RS690, please switch back to XAA until
> we know
> more about the problem - IIRC XAA ran fine on your hardware.
Just adding my "me too" on this hardware and no xorg.conf:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380
[Radeon X600 (PCIE)]
01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV380 [Radeon X600]
Will try nomodeset. François, do we have a bug for this (was
wandering in other lands than -ati for the last couple of days)?
the "me too" -- that means you're seeing the same thing on EXA? or
XAA? or what?
in addition, i'm downloading the f11 x86_64 preview as we speak, and
i'm willing to take another shot at testing *if* someone in the know
thinks there might have been a solution checked into the preview that
wasn't in f11 beta.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
5498
days inactive
5502
days old
27 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
Adam Jackson -
Adam Pribyl -
Adam Williamson -
Antonio Olivares -
Ben Gamari -
Bill Crawford -
Christopher Beland -
Chuck Anderson -
François Cami -
Greg -
Matej Cepl -
Mike Chambers -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Riku Seppälä -
Robert L Cochran -
Robert P. J. Day -
Robin Laing -
Will Woods