Linux-Hardware Digest #571, Volume #10 Thu, 24 Jun 99 00:13:39 EDT
Contents:
Re: SoundBlaster PCI128 problems (Charles Wilkins)
Re: soundblaster PCI128 on Redhat 5.9 problem (Charles Wilkins)
UDF CDs (Jim Shaffer, Jr.)
Re: PnP modem (joe)
Re: Quantum Fireball+ KA ("Gene Heskett")
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Re: Hardware Questions... (Frank Hahn)
SCSI problems (HP ScanJet 4p) ("Sanya")
Compaq presario (Steve Newton)
Re: PnP modem (Gregg Hughes)
Re: OPL3-SAx PnP: the saga goes on... (Mircea)
Remote fsck possible for Linux? (Abe Lin)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Re: HELP! RedHat 6.0 won't recognize cdrom ("relay")
memory and hard drive question (Scott Knight)
need for Redhat6.0 Iomega ext Parallel 250M zip set up tips (bono)
Azt3000 / Packard Bell Sound III (Chirok Han)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Wilkins)
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.sound,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: SoundBlaster PCI128 problems
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:55:25 GMT
On 03 May 1999 14:02:53 +0200, Paul Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Salman Ahmed pleaded from the end of his rope:
>> Sim wrote:
>> > On Sat, 01 May 1999 14:11:48 -0400, Salman Ahmed
>> > >I am running RedHat 5.2 w/ kernel 2.0.36. sndconfig gives an error message
>> > >"Unable to play audio: sox: Can't open output file /dev/dsp : operation not
>> > >supported by device".
>
>> Do I have to do anything special for the card becuz its PnP ?
>> I am totally stumped.
>
>There have been oodles of messages from people with problems with this
>card. I must have been terrible lucky:
>
>in /usr/src/ i installed the packages
>
>alsa-driver-0.3.0-pre3/
>alsa-lib-0.3.0pre3/
>alsa-utils-0.3.0-pre3/
>
>then compiled and installed as per the instructions.
>added the following to /etc/conf.modules
>
># sound tests
>alias char-major-14 snd
>alias snd-minor-oss-0 snd-mixer
>alias snd-minor-oss-3 snd-pcm1-oss
>alias snd-minor-oss-4 snd-pcm1-oss
>alias snd-minor-oss-5 snd-pcm1-oss
>alias snd-minor-oss-12 snd-pcm1-oss
>alias snd-card-0 snd-audiopci
>
>and in rc.local i run the following:
>
>/sbin/modprobe snd-audiopci
>/usr/sbin/alsactl restore
>
>everything works like a charm then (provided i'm plugged into the
>right outlet and the speakers are on that is...)
how about midi ?
Charles Wilkins CNE / MCP / A+
Network Design Consultant
Practical Computer Solutions
http://www.pcscs.com
609-321-1530
609-321-0840 - fax
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Wilkins)
Subject: Re: soundblaster PCI128 on Redhat 5.9 problem
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:52:57 GMT
On 29 Apr 1999 17:45:52 -0700, Arrigo Benedetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have installed a soundblaster PCI128 sound card on a Dell PC
>running Redhat 5.9. I used the ensonic driver, as suggested in several
>postings, and I got x11amp working when it is started by root. As a
>normal user though, I get an error message (Can't open audio device)
>every time I try to play a file. I tried to changed the permissions of
>the audio devices and I still have the same problem.
>
>Any idea?
>
>thanks in advance,
>
>-Arrigo
It sounds like you were playing with the plugin settings.
Assuming your sound works with other apps.
Put your X11 amp settings back to default.
It should work then. If not remove it and re-install X11 Amp.
Charles Wilkins CNE / MCP / A+
Network Design Consultant
Practical Computer Solutions
http://www.pcscs.com
609-321-1530
609-321-0840 - fax
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shaffer, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: UDF CDs
Date: 23 Jun 1999 21:51:15 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I noticed that there is now a UDF filesystem available on the web. Is this all
that is necessary to read CDs produced with a packet-writing program (assuming a
compatible drive), or is some sort of modification to the device driver
necessary? Also, is anyone working on a way to *do* packet-writing?
--
Secretary, Williamsport Area Computer Club <http://www.sunlink.net/wacc>
Member, Susquehanna Valley Amateur Astronomers
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2999/svaa.html>
Personal Home Page: http://woodstock.csrlink.net/~jshaffer
------------------------------
From: joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PnP modem
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:44:38 -0500
Daniel Solmirano wrote:
> There's no way to make a PnP Win Modem (Zoltrix 33.6) work in Linux? I
> have RedHat 6.0. I'm surfing in W98 but is not the same.
> Daniel Solmirano
Anything called "WinModem" will not work in Linux as it depends on
software to control the hardware. That's why WinModems are so small and
cheap. PnP is not something to be afraid of. You can change IRQ's for
modems with a simple command. In Win98, my PnP was set to com 3 IRQ 5.
I issued this command after logging in to Unix and all went well:
setserial -b /dev/ttyS2 IRQ 5 => this set the modem to com3 IRQ 5!
Remember S0 is com1 so S2 is com3. The "S" MUST be in CAPS!
Good luck. BTW, ISA modems seem to be best. Some use PCI, but if you
can get a cheap ISA go for it as it will save you more headaches.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 99 21:56:05 -0500
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quantum Fireball+ KA
Reply to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gene Heskett sends Greetings to Andrew Comech;
Yes, but that doesn't display the speeds you got, and there are several
places to stub ones toe in getting that dma to work right. So what were
your speeds? And did you have 'experimental' checked in the config used
to make those kernels? Without that, you don't get any dma even if
selected.
[...]
>> Not quite what I'd call 'hot air' here David. PIO=3.5 m/s.
>> cpu=50-85%, UDMA-33=12.9+ m/s cpu=2.7% Thats from hdparm and top on
>> a 400 mhz AMD on a TYAN S1590S. By any stretch, thats a 3x
>> speedup.
>>
>> The drive is a recent but commodity 4.3 gig WD, comes as a 66, and
>> you have to run the dos util to slow it down, which I did.
AC> Hi Gene --
AC> I ran kernel compiles with DMA on/off; there speed difference is
AC> only a few percent (with DMA it is _usually_ a few percent faster
AC> ;-). Assuming that you do not swap a lot, disk speed does not
AC> seem to matter much. So, it _is_ a hot air.
AC> I even tried to compile kernel using a virtual file system for
AC> the kernel source (64MB out of 128MB memory), and there was only
AC> about
AC> 1% speed increase vs. compiling with 64MB of RAM disabled. (Disk
AC> speed does not matter?..)
AC> Things are better with a faster CPU: K6-2 at 350MHz is
AC> almost exactly 7/6 faster than at 300MHz (takes ~300s vs. ~350s).
AC> I do not pretend to have conducted careful tests, but I guess
AC> this is appoximately the way the things are.
AC> It seems to be more reasonable to get a larger UDMA/33 drive..
AC> Best,
AC> a.
AC> --
AC> Looking for a Linux-compatible V.90 modem? See
AC> http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~comech/tools/CheapBox.html#modems
Cheers, Gene
--
Gene Heskett, CET, UHK |Amiga A2k Zeus040 50 megs fast/2 megs chip
Ch. Eng. @ WDTV-5 |A2091,GuruRom,1g Seagate,CDROM,Multiface III
|Buddha + 4 gig WDC drive, 525 meg tape
|Stylus Pro, EnPrint, Picasso-II, 17" vga
RC5-Moo! 690kkeys/sec isn't much, but it all helps
email gene underscore heskett at iolinc dot net
--
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:08:07 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:12:11 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:08:07 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:56:06 -0700, Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[deletia]
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> GOD DAMN! Are you telling us you have to be a bloody
> >> >> MCSE to deal with Windows problems. Arguement's done
> >> >> right there...
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows cabal conceeds.
> >> >>
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> [deletia]
> >> > If you look at sales, Windows outsells Linux by a wide margin. (I think we
> >> >can all concede that.) The fact that a specific company that sells Unix boxes
> >> >was mentioned lends credence to the point that you have to look pretty hard to
> >> >find an off the shelf Unix box. In most situations, if a user is going to be
> >>
> >> No. One must merely exercise some care when one is selecting
> >> hardware. This is much like the burden to avoid the like of
> >> ATI and their 'poor drivers'. The net effect is still the same.
> >> The so called Windows advantage can evaporate at any time if
> >> you're unlucky.
> >
> >In the first place, you need to be a *lot* more unlucky to find a company with a bad
> >Windows driver. And for the record, I didn't claim that ATI made "poor drivers" in
>
> Someone likes making that excuse for ATI.
>
> [deletia]
>
> 'Luck' simply isn't good enough. It doesn't matter if the
> odds are better. The potential for disaster is still there.
> The consumer can, and should demand better than that and
> allow to flourish those vendors that can actually deliver.
>
I agree with you there. If I had been the person with the bad ATI drivers, I probably
would have taken the card back and gotten another one.
>
> For 'ease', consumer-I-wanna-plug-it-in-like-a-toaster
> kinda ease, a kludge clone just won't do. They're built
> to be cheap and flexible, not reliable and easy.
>
Well, if you buy an off-the-shelf computer (say a Dell or a Compaq or such, you
definitely
get a lot more ease of use than something you patch together yourself. That's for
sure.
Hey, we're two for two in agreement so far. :)
>
> The ease of Windows is more myth and lots of conditioning
> than reality. It's time to dump both MS OSes and PC Clones.
>
I can agree with you so far as day-to-day operation of the PC goes. One of the
reasons I
started the Linux migration was all the headaches dealing with Windows crashes,
sluggish
performance, etc. I still say that for just installing, if you put a neophyte in
front of
both a Linux and an NT box, they'll be a lot less confused and hassled going through
an NT
install. (The same goes for 95, but I've never installed 98, so I can't speak to it
directly.) Of course, part of the simplicity lies in the fact that a lot of
decisions are
taken away from the user. That can be a bad thing, and lead to other hassles, so it's
not
necessarily good, just simpler. The best system would provide simple explanations for
complex things that are going on. (I would have appreciated Help menus along with the
installation of Red Hat, for example.)
>
> --
>
> It helps the car, in terms of end user complexity and engineering,
> that a car is not expected to suddenly become wood chipper at some |||
> arbitrary point as it's rolling down the road. / | \
>
> Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:19:06 -0400
Alex Lam wrote:
> Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> >
> > Brian Hartman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > : In the first place, you need to be a *lot* more unlucky to find a company with a
>bad
> > : Windows driver.
> >
> > Oh yeah! And a mail client which can wrap lines like it should!
> >
> > I have to be one of those "unlucky" people which run into problems
> > with Windows all the time. Karma - I guess.
> >
> > I remember quite vividly how my "Windows wizzard" friend spent quite
> > long evening rescuing my 'doze installation because we had to switch
> > a graphics card for one reason or another and this was not a pretty
> > sight to watch. On Linux side I had to replace one server with another
> > one and switch one or two links. I was up and running with a full
> > graphics under five minutes.
> >
> > The same friend had also tons of fun after my son was installing some
> > game from Microsoft, not some third party manufacturer, (this what these
> > Windows are nearly exclusively for) and hit "OK" after confronted with
> > a dialog "Should I update this or that .dll for you?". He confirmed,
> > naive and innocent, and all the hell broke loose; booting doze was
> > quite a challenge after that.
> >
This sounds more like an app problem than a Windows problem. (Of course, Windows
probably
shouldn't let you switch DLL's willy-nilly in the first place, but the software
shouldn't
have asked to. :)
>
> Heck. You should consider yourself lucky... on my Win98 box, it decided
> that I have added new hardware, and decided to update all the things for
> me without having me to click "OK", then, it went into its own freeze
> and rebooted, after that, my LAN was as dead as the chicken I had for
> dinner the night before, and when I click on shut down, it'll just hangs
> there for hours... the only way to shut off was to turn the power
> off.....
>
This is one reason I won't run 95/98 on my machine. The more complex the tasks, the
more
likely you are to experience problems. '98 is really just an updated 95, and was never
designed (although you'd never know it from the ads) as a real workhorse. MS wants
you to
buy NT for that.
>
> > From the more recent stories - after waisting tons of time an effort we
> > had to replace in a customer laptop a good ethernet card, Cardbus type,
> > with a less capable one because '98 had a disconcerting habit of locking
> > up totally after more that 1 MB was transferred through this interface.
> > This after applying some non-obvious registry tweaks suggested by
> > this card manufacturer; without these the card simply did not work
> > at all. '98 had also a nice habit of forgetting that this card is
> > there and "installing" it multiple times; after that things could not
> > be uninstalled leading to tons of Registry fun. The same card, after
> > initial installation challanges (pcmcia-cs package had to be updated to
> > the latest version) did work like a clockwork under Linux (this is a dual
> > boot laptop) but the customer insisted, for inscrutable reasons, that
> > he wants something which works under '98 as well even if it is slower.
> > Oh, well....
> >
> Try to use Windoze 98 for some really cpu and memory intensive stuff.
> It'll sure freezes up.
>
Again, Win98 isn't really designed for really intensive stuff. It's simply not robust
enough. The guy who bought the laptop obiviously didn't see the folly of installing
98 on
the same machine he had Linux on. It's just not built to handle the same kind of
tasks.
>
> Alex Lam.
>
> > Most people do not see such horror stories because they buy machines
> > preinstalled. Than the installation is really easy. You want the same
> > ease for Linux - do the same. Buy preinstalled and with warranties.
> > Simple.
> >
> > Michal
>
> --
> *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
> Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
> **************************************************
> *If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
> I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
> domain has been forged many times.
> **************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Hahn)
Subject: Re: Hardware Questions...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:22:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:36:40 -0400, Steve Kowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I am kinda new to the Linux thing... I am enjoying it and have learned a lot
>just by reading the News Groups, so I figured i would ask away in here. I
>am running RH 6 and I am having a modem problem. I have an old USR
>Sportster 33,6 that has jumpers for Com and IRQ's. I have it set to IRQ5
>(which is unused on computer) and Com1. Linux doesn't find it. I read
>somewhere that some of the Sportster series isn't supported, mostly the ones
>that have Voice, which mine does not. Any suggestions on getting this one to
>work or can someone reccomend a inexpensive modem that is known to work with
>Linux.
>
I don't know about Redhat but on Slackware, I set up my serial ports
through the /etc/rc.d/rc.serial file. For example, I have the following
towards the end of this file:
# These are the standard COM1 through COM4 devices
#
${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua0 uart 16450 port 0x3F8 irq 4
${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua1 uart 16450 port 0x2F8 irq 3
${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua2 uart 16550A port 0x3E8 irq 4 spd_vhi
# ${SETSERIAL} /dev/cua3 uart 16450 port 0x2E8 irq 3
In your case, since you are using a non-standard IRQ, I think you are
going to have to tell Linux about. I would doubly make sure that
two devices are not trying to use that same IRQ.
The only other suggestion that I have is that if this is a plug-N-play
modem, there are a set of utilities that you may need to get it to
work. Right now, I can't think what they are called.
--
Frank Hahn
"What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?"
-- Dr. Who
------------------------------
From: "Sanya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SCSI problems (HP ScanJet 4p)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:53:45 +0100
Hi!
Here is my config:
1.HP Scanjet 4p scanner
2.An SCSI card with a Symbios 53c400a chip
3.Redhat 5.1 with kernel 2.2.9
4.AMD 5x86 PR133 with 40M EDO RAM, Ali Mainboard (4 ISA, 3 PCI slots).
I tried these modules:
1. NCR53c406a : no answer
2. g_NCR5380: modprobe g_NCR5380 ncr_irq=3 ncr_addr=0x350 ncr_53c400=1
It throw an kernel oops no. 002. lsmod says: unitialized module and I
cannot remove with rmmod either.
3. sym53c416: Seems like the best, but it is'nt work too.
Says always scsi host: 0, but if I load g_NCR5380 before it, says scsi host:
1.
Just not works ! It can't find any card the given adressess and irqs.
I tried many.
Here is my kernel config
#
# SCSI support
#
CONFIG_SCSI=y
CONFIG_CHR_DEV_SG=y
# SCSI low-level drivers
CONFIG_SCSI_G_NCR5380_ MEM=y
CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C406A=m
CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C416=m
If anybody has got a config or any idea or something please mail me to my
box too.
Best regards, Sanya
------------------------------
From: Steve Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Compaq presario
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:02:27 -0700
Can anyone tell me if linux works on a Compaq Presario Computer.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Gregg Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PnP modem
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:43:48 -0500
I have a Zoltrix FMVSP56i that works fine in RH6.0. Basically, any
external modem should work, and any internal hardware (not driver based)
modem should also work in Linux...
Also, be sure you have the v.90 firmware update from Zoltrix, if your
particular modem will take a flash
Hope this helps
Daniel Solmirano wrote:
> There's no way to make a PnP Win Modem (Zoltrix 33.6) work in Linux? I
> have RedHat 6.0. I'm surfing in W98 but is not the same.
> Daniel Solmirano
------------------------------
From: Mircea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OPL3-SAx PnP: the saga goes on...
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:19:50 -0400
I have configured one of these beasts a while ago, but unfortunately I
cannot access that system right now, so I cannot check any specifics. I
know the output of pnpdump shows there are 3 possible hardware
configurations for the card, the first and the last being very similar.
I have had no luck with either (and it looks like you're using the first
set of parameters), but it worked like a charm with the second
acceptable configuration set. There was no resource conflict, either,
and no error messages, but it simply refused to play anything at all.
MST
Illo de' Illis wrote:
>
> Hello folks.
>
> I've read all the postings about this darned audio chipset (OPL3-SAx): I've
> an eXtensa 390 (Acer/TI) with 48Mb RAM and Linux 2.2.10. I've tried every
> PnP configuration with every IRQ and DMA combination, and I'm working without
> IRQ-stealing devices (PCMCIA and other) in order to be sure I'm doing
> everything The Right Way... but I can't play samples.
> As usual, the mixer works, I can listen to audio CDs. But every time
> I try to play something (let's say a 5-seconds 16 bit stereo sample),
> the kernel hangs, leaving me in quiet desperation.
> (..)
------------------------------
From: md5�ϼs�[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Abe Lin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Remote fsck possible for Linux?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:02:22 GMT
Hi, guys.
For Solaris we can get a console remotely in this setup in the
*locked* machine room 20 kms away from us:
1.One NT box runs pcanywhere. Serial(s) go to two Solaris machine.
2.Using pcanywhere from home. Do whatever you like to save the machine
when it's done. Single user mode. fsck. Anything.
Do we have something for Linux? (With a Linux only solution...)
Cannot find a useful document on this. I'll keep on dejanews search,
but nothing yet showed up....
TIA a lot.
Shuo.
------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:35:01 -0400
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> Brian Hartman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : In the first place, you need to be a *lot* more unlucky to find a company with a
>bad
> : Windows driver.
>
> Oh yeah! And a mail client which can wrap lines like it should!
>
> I have to be one of those "unlucky" people which run into problems
> with Windows all the time. Karma - I guess.
>
> I remember quite vividly how my "Windows wizzard" friend spent quite
> long evening rescuing my 'doze installation because we had to switch
> a graphics card for one reason or another and this was not a pretty
> sight to watch. On Linux side I had to replace one server with another
> one and switch one or two links. I was up and running with a full
> graphics under five minutes.
>
It definitely depends on what graphics driver you buy, although I'm a little surprised
it
was that difficult, once you got the card in. Normally, you install the card, reboot
in
640x480 mode, and install the drivers from disk, then reboot. I've done it numerous
times when upgrading cards, always in less than 5 minutes on the software side. But
I'll
grant you that things get ugly when the graphics card doesn't work. There's always
Safe
Mode, though. You can usually pick a compatible vga resolution from there.
>
> The same friend had also tons of fun after my son was installing some
> game from Microsoft, not some third party manufacturer, (this what these
> Windows are nearly exclusively for) and hit "OK" after confronted with
> a dialog "Should I update this or that .dll for you?". He confirmed,
> naive and innocent, and all the hell broke loose; booting doze was
> quite a challenge after that.
>
Seems like bad software to me. (And coming from MS, I'm not surprised.)
>
> From the more recent stories - after waisting tons of time an effort we
> had to replace in a customer laptop a good ethernet card, Cardbus type,
> with a less capable one because '98 had a disconcerting habit of locking
> up totally after more that 1 MB was transferred through this interface.
> This after applying some non-obvious registry tweaks suggested by
> this card manufacturer; without these the card simply did not work
> at all. '98 had also a nice habit of forgetting that this card is
> there and "installing" it multiple times; after that things could not
> be uninstalled leading to tons of Registry fun. The same card, after
> initial installation challanges (pcmcia-cs package had to be updated to
> the latest version) did work like a clockwork under Linux (this is a dual
> boot laptop) but the customer insisted, for inscrutable reasons, that
> he wants something which works under '98 as well even if it is slower.
> Oh, well....
>
Win98 is not an OS for serious computer people doing intensive tasks. It's an OS for
novices and those who don't really understand the sofware side.
>
> Most people do not see such horror stories because they buy machines
> preinstalled. Than the installation is really easy. You want the same
> ease for Linux - do the same. Buy preinstalled and with warranties.
> Simple.
>
If you're buying a pre-installed OS, you're no longer talking about ease of install.
The reason most people don't see such horror stories is that they aren't using Win98
on a
LAN or with Ethernet, etc. They don't do it, so they don't hear about it. Everywhere
I've heard of 98 used for serious work (other than with standard productivity apps)
it's
always been a disaster. I had to rescue my mother's laptop just a few months ago,
because an inexplicable "No operating system found" error message was coming up on
boot-up.
I've said repeatedly that post-install problems are much more common with Windows than
with Linux. Having installed both OS's, I would say that Linux is easier on you once
it's up, but it's more difficult to get up and running for a novice.
>
> Michal
------------------------------
From: "relay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: HELP! RedHat 6.0 won't recognize cdrom
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:50:19 -0400
I have this problem... when I watched the system msg.s at boot
it identify the the cdrom (on /dev/hdd) as an "IDE floppy device"
and would not let me mount it.
I found that having a CD in the drive at boot fixed this autodetect error,
perhaps it checked the file system on the disk, who knows... no REALLY
who knows?
the REAL <g> fix is to type this in at the lilo boot prompt:
linux hdX=cdrom
where X is the ide device (hda=primary master, hdb=primary slave,
hdc=secondary master, hdd=secondary slave)
I haven't tried to add this to the lilo config as "kernal boot paramiters",
but
I'm hoping that will work.
hope this helps!
Chris Blanos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm getting a an error on a clean RedHat 6.0 install. My cdrom works
> fine for the install, as it did on a earlier RedHat 5.2 install.
>
> However, everytime I try to mount the cdrom, I get the error:
>
> # mount -t iso9660 /dev/hdc /mnt/cdrom
> mount: the kernel does not recognize /dev/hdc as a block device
> (maybe `insmod driver'?)
>
> I believe the cdrom should be 'hdc' but it isn't even detected during
> boot up.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> - Chris
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Blanos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 3d Animator & Perl Hacker
> http://www.blanos.com/ | Need CGI? Got ya covered!
> -------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Scott Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: memory and hard drive question
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:37:29 -0400
My first question is about a hard drive. I recently got a free old
486 DX, not bad, easily upgradeabe for cheap, and i was interested on
running linnux on it. So i bought a seagte 2.1GB hard drive. But my bios
on the computer can only use drives that are 528MB large. Well seagte
instlall disk said it had driveers for windows so that i oculd use all
the 2.1GB rather than paritioning, but they didnt work, stupid windows.
Anyway, my question is, will i be able to use the hard drive under linux
relatively easy, with partitions bigger than 528MB? even though th bios
is old? I would think that it should be no problem, i mean i have to
partiton a couple ones for linux anyway,(swap root, usr) Am i safe?
My other question was about memory. I'm trying to find a good
reliable place on the web to buy cheap memory, specifically im looking
for 30-pin, parity 4MB SIMMS, looking for about 16 of them. Does anyone
know where i could get them. Ebay has sets of them for cheap, but its a
hassel. I figured id look at some web sites, but so far i havent seen
anything. Sholdnt i be able to find 16 4MB SIMMS for around 100 dollars?
I would think, at least i would hope. Thanks a lot.
Scott KNight
------------------------------
From: bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux
Subject: need for Redhat6.0 Iomega ext Parallel 250M zip set up tips
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:27:59 GMT
hi all:
If possible please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone knows how to set up the ext Parallel 250M (or 100M) zip drive?
I had do search and search and try many different things and still no
luck:
I already did the alias scsi_hostadaptor ppa
created the /mnt/zip
if I do a insmod ppa I will get
/lib/modules/2.25-15/scsi/ppa.o: unresolved symbol
parpoart_calim_Rcca15f23 *and all similar below. I use ~ to save the
typing*
~/parport_register_device_R04edecf
~/parport_register_device_R04edecf
~/parport_enumerate_R648d1e2
~/parport_release_R4430d136
same result if I type insmod imm
when I try to do a mount -t vfat /dev/sda4 /mnt/zip
I got error saying kernel does not recognize /dev/sda4 as a block
device...
What am I missing here? Can anyone who successfully get any parallel
zip drives in Redhat 5.2 or 6.0
please tell me what I need to do step by step in order to get my zip
drive to work? Sorry I am new to Linux
Many many thanks
Bono
------------------------------
From: Chirok Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Azt3000 / Packard Bell Sound III
Date: 24 Jun 1999 03:53:28 GMT
Anybody knows which driver to use?
Thanks.
--
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
