FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-05-2010, 04:37 PM
William Case
 
Default Using abrt for bugs that are non-crashes ?!?

Hi;

Is there a way to use abrt to report bugs that do not involve an actual
crash of an application?

For example:

I use both Firefox and Epiphany as web browsers. Epiphany I reserved as
my Linux stuff browser because in the past it was so fast. Firefox (in
F12 Linux) I use for most media stuff, play and general use.

I now find that Epiphany takes about 40 to 80 seconds to load a site
while Firefox is still almost instantaneous. Epiphany doesn't crash it
just slows right down and takes time to load the site.

If there is some small Epiphany configuration I have overlooked, I would
be happy to know and fix it. However, my main question is how to trace
a bug using abrt if there has not been an actual crash.

If there is not yet a way to do this, wouldn't it be a useful addition
to abrt. I suspect abrt could be programmed to get useful information
from a strace and a dump that would be more useful and more germane than
a non-developer (like me) could ascertain before reporting a bug.

--
Regards Bill
Fedora 12, Gnome 2.28
Evo.2.28, Emacs 23.1.1

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:44 AM
Tim
 
Default Using abrt for bugs that are non-crashes ?!?

On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:37 -0500, William Case wrote:
> I now find that Epiphany takes about 40 to 80 seconds to load a site
> while Firefox is still almost instantaneous.

If you mentioned the site, someone may be able to look at it and say why
that browser has problems. Otherwise, we're left with guessing at
things. Proxies, JavaScript, Java, Flash, DNS...

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
 
Old 02-06-2010, 05:35 PM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Using abrt for bugs that are non-crashes ?!?

On Saturday 06 February 2010 05:44:07 Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:37 -0500, William Case wrote:
> > I now find that Epiphany takes about 40 to 80 seconds to load a site
> > while Firefox is still almost instantaneous.
>
> If you mentioned the site, someone may be able to look at it and say why
> that browser has problems. Otherwise, we're left with guessing at
> things. Proxies, JavaScript, Java, Flash, DNS...

... history, local cache...


Best, :-)
Marko

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
 
Old 02-06-2010, 06:32 PM
William Case
 
Default Using abrt for bugs that are non-crashes ?!?

Hi;
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 16:14 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:37 -0500, William Case wrote:
> > I now find that Epiphany takes about 40 to 80 seconds to load a site
> > while Firefox is still almost instantaneous.
>
> If you mentioned the site, someone may be able to look at it and say why
> that browser has problems. Otherwise, we're left with guessing at
> things. Proxies, JavaScript, Java, Flash, DNS...


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ghostwriter-science-industry&page=2

Epiphany ≅ 40 sec. FF ≅ 10 sec. to load.

However, I have tried loading other sites that seemed to have slowed
down considerably in Epiphany this morning and they now seem to be
speeding right along. Even the SciAm site seemed faster.

If I can catch Epiphany slowing again, I'll let the list know. It is
not about ISP etc.; my issue is about the difference in speed between
Epiphany (which used to be the fastest) and Firefox.

My main question, however, was about the use of abrt for reporting
non-crash bugs.

--
Regards Bill
Fedora 12, Gnome 2.28
Evo.2.28, Emacs 23.1.1

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
 
Old 02-06-2010, 08:20 PM
Suvayu Ali
 
Default Using abrt for bugs that are non-crashes ?!?

On Saturday 06 February 2010 11:32 AM, William Case wrote:
> Hi;
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 16:14 +1030, Tim wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 12:37 -0500, William Case wrote:
>>> I now find that Epiphany takes about 40 to 80 seconds to load a site
>>> while Firefox is still almost instantaneous.
>>
>> If you mentioned the site, someone may be able to look at it and say why
>> that browser has problems. Otherwise, we're left with guessing at
>> things. Proxies, JavaScript, Java, Flash, DNS...
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ghostwriter-science-industry&page=2
>
> Epiphany ≅ 40 sec. FF ≅ 10 sec. to load.
>

It was equally fast for me on both the browsers. I am on F11 x86_64.

--
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org