Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:50:55 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Manolis Kiagias <sonicy@otenet.gr>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Trivial questions about CNTL-ALT-DEL and CNTL-ALT-BACKSPACE Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911152027400.88741@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20091116010630.0b8f498a.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <42052.1258327169@tristatelogic.com> <4B009370.1040002@otenet.gr> <20091116010630.0b8f498a.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:49:04 +0200, Manolis Kiagias <sonicy@otenet.gr> wrote: >> By the way Xorg configuration becomes more and more elusive. Initially, >> DontZap was enough. Then it had no effect at all and the fdi file was >> needed. Now seems both are needed. What's next? > > If this continues, I'll run my 5.4-p8 workstation with "old > fashioned" X (already X.org) until I die. :-) > > No, honestly: X is going to be more and more annoying. Have > you noticed the long startup time? Nearly a half minute (!!!) > on a 1.5 GHz system! That's way too long for just X. Bloated desktop environment? Disk contention? > I know that there is lots of work done to make life easier for X > developers, especially getting rid of many OS specific stuff, but... > > Finally, sliding more off-topic: Not only X gets slower with each > release, the same applies for almost all X applications, except the > "old fashioned" ones. It sounds like we have very different experiences. While I wouldn't say the current xorg is a lot faster (not counting DRM), it's certainly not slower on any of the systems I have to test. But I don't know what video board you're using either. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0911152027400.88741>