Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 15:18
by don570
Now works with Barry Kauler's Raring
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=87043
Chinese now shows in Raring Start menu.
I added the following code in pinstall.sh of icake's language pack
Code: Select all
#120924 DejaVu font no good for non-Latin languages...
#see also similar code in /usr/local/petget/hacks-postinstall.sh.
LANGPACKLANG=zh
case $LANGPACKLANG in
zh*|ja*|ko*) #chinese, japanese, korean
sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' ./etc/xdg/templates/_root_*
if [ -d ./root/.jwm ];then
sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' ./root/.jwm/themes/*-jwmrc
sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' ./root/.jwm/jwmrc-theme
fi
[ -d ./etc/xdg/openbox ] && sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' ./etc/xdg/openbox/*.xml
[ -d ./root/.config/openbox ] && sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' ./root/.config/openbox/*.xml
GTKRCFILE="$(find ./usr/share/themes -type f -name gtkrc | tr '\n' ' ')"
for ONEGTKRC in $GTKRCFILE
do
sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' $ONEGTKRC
done
if [ -d ./root/.mozilla ];then
MOZFILE="$(find ./root/.mozilla -type f -name prefs.js -o -name '*.css' | tr '\n' ' ')"
for ONEMOZ in $MOZFILE
do
sed -i -e 's%DejaVu Sans%Sans%' $ONEMOZ
done
fi
;;
esac
Posted: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 20:39
by anikin
Hi don570,
There might be another reason for Chinese fonts not being correctly displayed. Font configuration is seriously broken in Raring and in Woof I reckon. It misses a key ingredient: the "conf.avail" directory. See image below.
Someone on Ubuntu Forum posted an expanded set of etc/fonts directory, you might find it useful for your localization work. It has conf. files for many additional languages. I'm reposting it here.
Posted: Fri 05 Jul 2013, 00:01
by futwerk
a few backgrounds.
Posted: Sun 07 Jul 2013, 12:02
by anikin
mavrothal wrote:I was wondering if the perceived speed of Raring is hardware specific
And I'm wondering if we should even discuss puppy's speed without having any proof of it. I saw your response to aarf's comment on BK blog and have a convenient opportunity of running the test against freshly installed upup Raring-3.9.81. Running in pfix=ram mode, off of an 8GB SD card on an Intel atom n270/945GSE dual SSD eeepc. Done exactly the same way as you described it.
So here's my results:
Code: Select all
Puppy Raring 5.6.94 upup Raring-3.98.1
------------------- ------------------
# time seamonkey # time seamonkey
real 0m50.227s real 0m19.392s
user 0m3.567s user 0m6.250s
sys 0m0.427s sys 0m0.680s
# time geany # time geany
real 0m8.837s real 0m7.431s
user 0m0.890s user 0m1.940s
sys 0m0.090s sys 0m0.163s
# time abiword # time abiword
real 0m12.224s real 0m28.997s
user 0m2.450s user 0m6.447s
sys 0m3.637s sys 0m8.623s
# time ppm # time ppm
real 0m19.819s real 0m36.362s
user 0m8.103s user 0m16.053s
sys 0m2.580s sys 0m5.367s
# time gnumeric # time gnumeric
real 0m14.066s real 0m22.827s
user 0m3.787s user 0m9.300s
sys 0m1.117s sys 0m2.290s
# time gparted # time gparted
real 0m21.217s real 1m26.260s
user 0m4.050s user 0m7.147s
sys 0m3.517s sys 0m7.157s
====== ======
What you guys are seeing here?
Posted: Sun 07 Jul 2013, 15:22
by mavrothal
anikin wrote:
What you guys are seeing here?
Puppy Raring is faster than Upup Raring, but is it faster to Upup Precise (that's what I compared), or Racy or Slacko?
Posted: Mon 08 Jul 2013, 07:56
by simargl
.
Posted: Mon 08 Jul 2013, 10:43
by anikin
Here's a breakdown of real/user/sys time command:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28Unix%29
Posted: Mon 08 Jul 2013, 13:23
by mavrothal
One more thing is that 'time' really measures the CPU time that a process and its children consume. Does not account for I/O speed of GPU/X-rendering speed that may affect performance as perceived by the real life user.
I basically shows how well an app and the libraries it depends on perform CPU-wise.
Posted: Mon 08 Jul 2013, 16:17
by Sage
...at the end of the day, it all gets a bit subjective. Personally, I have perceived Precise's latest incarnation to outstrip many Pups, especially Rarin' on a wide range of HW, albeit without your detailed measurements and analyses. Notwithstanding, Rarin' presently has so many other issues for BK to struggle with. I am not prepared to waste time (and dosh) on the industries latest 999-core monstrosities pushed at us in the inexorable cycles to trouser even more of our cash for no apparent gain. It all started when Intel couldn't get the heat out of their processors, particularly as the feature sizes dropped to 45, then 32nm. Now they're all at it. Strange when one considers what Google's Android can achieve on a little ol' ARM v6 & co. with no HSF at all !
Posted: Tue 30 Jul 2013, 01:00
by futwerk
a few backgrounds.
Problem mounting ntfs partition read/write
Posted: Thu 01 Aug 2013, 23:21
by Jim1911
I get an improper error when mounting an ntfs partition that causes it to be unable to mount the partition read/write. I had the same problem with the latest precise. So rcrsn51 suggested that I replace the relevant ntfs-3g components with those from a pup that works. It worked, so I tried it with this distribution too. Deleted files ntfs-3g, libntfs-3g.so.84, and libntfs-3g.so84.0.0 and replaced them with slacko 5.5.70 files nfts-3g, libntfs-3g.so.83, and libntfs-3g.so.83.0.0 and it's mounting properly.