• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I CAINT TAKE IT NO MO!!! (xf86 4.2)

B

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
last word on it from x strike force:


<< [16 February] XFree86 4.2.0 still in preparation. Sorry, folks. I need to continue to ask for patience on your part. I've had a major project going at work for the past few weeks, and my first hospital visit since my freshman year of college this past week. (And take my word for it, my freshman year was a while back. Now where did I put my dentures?) Hold tight and I'll have 4.2.0 ready when I can. >>



and now i see this: screenie

ANTIALIASED XTERMS I WANT TO MAKE LOVE TO YOU!!!!!!!

damn being too much of a n00b to compile X sucks.

you can be DAMN sure i will be getting 4.2 the SECOND the .deb's are up!
 
There's seriously not much to doing it from source. Just extract all the source from the .tgz's, switch to the directory and type:

make World && make install

then go catch a movie or take a vacation to Disney World (depending on how fast/slow your machine is 🙂).
 


<< There's seriously not much to doing it from source. Just extract all the source from the .tgz's, switch to the directory and type:

make World && make install

then go catch a movie or take a vacation to Disney World (depending on how fast/slow your machine is 🙂). >>


reading the docs, it seemed like there was alot you had to do. back up /usr/X11R6, back up /etc/X11, then copy some crap and then it just got so convoluted that i was too scared i'd mess something up so i stopped.

how come the docs didnt tell me what you just told me? 😛
 
how come the docs didnt tell me what you just told me?

The docs probably have you backup your old X setup incase something goes wrong.

I've compiled X from scratch on my machine (at the time a Athlon 900 which took ~20 minutes to compile) and it's not that hard, but you can't ever use Debian's package manager to update X until it gets to your version or you just reverted, and as such all programs requiring a certain build of X in Debian won't install.
 
I've been running XF86 4.2 on my SuSE workstation for two months now. Usually, I eschew unsupported* updates of major packages like this, but this time I figured it's worth a shot (I could always downgrade with RPM if necessary).

I don't see any difference, but then again I do run ugly GNOME 1.4 w/o any fancy theme.

* While SuSE kindly provides some updates of major software such as KDE, GNOME and XF86, they don't support any of it, and frequently, the mailing list reports users frustrated with the low quality of the release. Since SuSE's release cycle is so frequent (less than 6 months), they allocate their time to integration testing for full releases.
 


<< how come the docs didnt tell me what you just told me?

The docs probably have you backup your old X setup incase something goes wrong.

I've compiled X from scratch on my machine (at the time a Athlon 900 which took ~20 minutes to compile) and it's not that hard, but you can't ever use Debian's package manager to update X until it gets to your version or you just reverted, and as such all programs requiring a certain build of X in Debian won't install. >>


thats pretty much what i read over at debianplanet, i dont feel like interfering with dpkg/apt/etc so i'll just wait.

but it will be a PAINFUL wait. :|
 


<<

<< Ive had anti-aliased xterms on XF86 4.1. No big deal. >>


huh? i thought AA'd xterms were added in 4.2. do share. >>



I got it off of here
 


<<

<<

<< Ive had anti-aliased xterms on XF86 4.1. No big deal. >>


huh? i thought AA'd xterms were added in 4.2. do share. >>



I got it off of here >>


hm, that doesnt seem to be the same (or i'm missing something), that only works with truetype fonts (which i just got working by the way), and i zoomed in on a screenshot, and indeed the font was antialiased, but truetype fonts dont mix well with xterms, and neither do most fonts in general. i want ALL my fonts AA'd 😛

i dont use QT either :/ (except ksnapshot, big whoop, although testing it out, it did look pretty damn cool 😀)
 


<<

<<

<<

<< Ive had anti-aliased xterms on XF86 4.1. No big deal. >>


huh? i thought AA'd xterms were added in 4.2. do share. >>



I got it off of here >>


hm, that doesnt seem to be the same (or i'm missing something), that only works with truetype fonts (which i just got working by the way), and i zoomed in on a screenshot, and indeed the font was antialiased, but truetype fonts dont mix well with xterms, and neither do most fonts in general. i want ALL my fonts AA'd 😛

i dont use QT either :/ (except ksnapshot, big whoop, although testing it out, it did look pretty damn cool 😀) >>



Maybe I was thinking of the wrong thing. It doesnt matter to me, I dont bother with any of it most of the time (I dont prefer one over the other, bad eyes probably :/)
 
Unfortatenly, that's one of the major disadvantage of using Debain -- they take forever to update packages (for example, their Apache package is still at version 1.3.9, which was released well over two years ago).

If you want to keep up with the latest developments, you should consider alternaive operating systems or distribuctions -- such as FreeBSD, Mandrake, SuSe, RedHat, and others -- since they keep their packages reasonably up-to-date, unlike Debian.

- James
 


<< Unfortatenly, that's one of the major disadvantage of using Debain -- they take forever to update packages (for example, their Apache package is still at version 1.3.9, which was released well over two years ago).

If you want to keep up with the latest developments, you should consider alternaive operating systems or distribuctions -- such as FreeBSD, Mandrake, SuSe, RedHat, and others -- since they keep their packages reasonably up-to-date, unlike Debian.

- James >>



Last time I installed FreeBSD it was still using 3.3.6 and that was fairly recently.
 
Thta's cos it's the default one that comes with FreeBSD -- you can get XFree86 4.2.0 from it's ports/packages collection. I'm using 4.2.0 right now on FreeBSD.

- James
 
Unfortatenly, that's one of the major disadvantage of using Debain -- they take forever to update packages (for example, their Apache package is still at version 1.3.9, which was released well over two years ago).


Only if you run stable and even so that 1.3.9 has all the security fixes back ported into it by the maintainer, unstable and testing have much newer packages and contrary to their names are quite stable, more so than RedHat's official releases IMHO.

Debian unstable has Apache 1.3.23 in it.
 


<< Unfortatenly, that's one of the major disadvantage of using Debain -- they take forever to update packages (for example, their Apache package is still at version 1.3.9, which was released well over two years ago).


Only if you run stable and even so that 1.3.9 has all the security fixes back ported into it by the maintainer, unstable and testing have much newer packages and contrary to their names are quite stable, more so than RedHat's official releases IMHO.

Debian unstable has Apache 1.3.23 in it. >>



But who has 2.0.35?! 😛
 
I feel safer with Apache 1.3.24 which has all the security fixes than with Apache 1.3.9 with some of the security fixes backported from the latest Apache releases.

Anyway, the FreeBSD ports collection should have 2.0.35 in the www/apache2 port/package soon (if they havn't done so areadly) -- althought they still have the 1.3.x version since it is the most stable/secure version of Apache, and it's the only one which stuffs like mod_php, mod_gzip, mod_perl, etc works with.

- James
 
I feel safer with Apache 1.3.24 which has all the security fixes than with Apache 1.3.9 with some of the security fixes backported from the latest Apache releases.

Funny wording, which isn't the case at all. They backport all fixes which affect them, some may not affect Debian and won't be ported but anything relevant is. If you just like having higher version numbers, just say it.
 
I can't rely on a third-party to make sure it has all the relevalent fixes. I'ld rather get all the security fixes direct from the developers of Apache, and that can be achieved by getting the latest version of Apache -- as opposed to Debian's method of using a old version and then patching it using security fixes _they_ think are neccessary.

- James
 
I can't rely on a third-party to make sure it has all the relevalent fixes. I'ld rather get all the security fixes direct from the developers of Apache, and that can be achieved by getting the latest version of Apache -- as opposed to Debian's method of using a old version and then patching it using security fixes _they_ think are neccessary.

If you're that scared you might as well read all the source too, make sure the fixes the Apache group implemented didn't break anything else.

Debian has a strict policy of no new features in the 'stable' release, and because of that it normally means backporting fixes that are only available in releases of software with new features. They do this to ensure a stable product, if you don't like it, fine but don't spread misinformation on it.
 


<< I can't rely on a third-party to make sure it has all the relevalent fixes. I'ld rather get all the security fixes direct from the developers of Apache, and that can be achieved by getting the latest version of Apache -- as opposed to Debian's method of using a old version and then patching it using security fixes _they_ think are neccessary.

- James >>



Latest version? As in 2.0.35? 🙂
 
I keep getting sucked into this post must be the headline just catchy oh well had to post sorry! Now I wont come back!
 


<< Latest version? As in 2.0.35? 🙂 >>



FreeBSD has the latest version of both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x. Bascially: If you want to stick with a stable and secure release, go with the 1.3.x release (ports/www/apache13), while if you want performance and the latest releases you can go with 2.0.x (ports/www/apache2).

It's quite nice to have the choice of either versions rather than being locked-down to a two-years-old version.

- James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top