search

gco / rubyripper

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/rubyripper
0 stars 0 forks source link

very slow ripping with Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit) #439

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hello!

Some days ago I changed to Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit). I installed all my additional 
needed software-packages (also rubyripper) again. I was glad to see, that there 
are some new features in 0.6.0, but some minutes later I was very disappointed, 
because ripping a cd now take about some hours ...
It was the first time i tried a 64 bit operating system so i wrote a litte 
setup-script to find out what's going wrong. Here is a link to the used script: 
http://www.frozenfox.at/linux/FFX-Scripts/rubyripper_setup.sh
The script is able to install/uninstall all versions of rubyripper since 0.5.0 
(my first used version). I tried all the versions and could get some 
informations about the problem:
0.5.0 -> no problems (but an old version)
0.5.1 -> no problems (but an old version)
0.5.2 -> message "Cdrom drive sr0 does not exist on your system! Please 
configure your cdrom drive first."
0.5.3 -> very slow ripping
0.5.4 -> very slow ripping
0.5.5 -> very slow ripping
0.5.6 -> very slow ripping
0.5.7 -> very slow ripping
0.6.0 -> very slow ripping

I got these results all while using the gtk-interface. I tried also the 
commandline-interface (only 0.6.0), the ripping-performance here is acceptable 
(like the older versions).

my system-requirements:
Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit)
Linux Kernel 2.6.32-24
GNOME 2.30.2
all used packages for rubyripper are listed in my setup-script

Here my questions:
Why is the gtk-interface so extremly slow now?
Is there any mistake in my setup-script?
Is there a problem with Ubuntu 10.04?
Is there a problem with 64bit?

Ripping on the commandline is ok, but not very comfortable ... :(

Regards,
FrozenFoX

Original issue reported on code.google.com by off...@frozenfox.at on 16 Aug 2010 at 10:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
please read issue 348
(the version of ruby used in 10.04 is the culprit

Original comment by mc3...@optonline.net on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by boukewou...@gmail.com on 29 Aug 2010 at 9:49