Linux-Setup Digest #511, Volume #19 Tue, 29 Aug 00 19:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: white screen ("Ren� Vanhaverbeke")
Re: How to get latest GNOME distibution (Black Dragon)
Re: Calling Linux Gurus familiar with Partition Magic (brian)
Re: tape drives (David C.)
Re: Playing music CDs, No sound (Andrew Overholt)
Re: How to get latest GNOME distibution (brian)
Re: SSSLLLOOOWWW sound? (Peter Bayne)
Re: Restaurant Booking System (Ian Briggs)
sendmail is acting like a snail (Rune Elvemo)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Bob Hauck)
Question about Red Hat Linux 6.2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: triple boot (Carl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ren� Vanhaverbeke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: white screen
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:06:22 GMT
i can't even see that, my screen turns white from the moment i start up the
computer, I can hear everything start up, but only whote I see
thanks anyway
Isn't there any way to reset the entire computersystem?
"The Contact" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ren� Vanhaverbeke" wrote:
> >
> > please help me, i installed corel linux second edition on my medion
laptop,
> > but the configuration for my monitor was wrong. I managed to get through
the
> > installtion, but when the logon-screen should appear, i got nothing but
a
> > blinking coloured screen. I read somewhere that ctrl+alt+ min or plus
could
> > help to change the resolution, and it helped the first time, but the
second
> > time, the screen turned white and i can't change it anymore. From the
moment
> > my computer is turned on, the screen becomes wite and remains like that.
I
> > can hear everything start up, but i can't see a bloddy thing.
> > Did i fuck up my screen, or is there a solution?
> > thanks in advance
>
> I suppose you would normally log in in a graphical way (gdm). Try
> [Ctrl]+[Alt]+[F2]. This will give you a normal (i.e. console) shell (no
> X). From there on, you can run (as root ofcource) Xconfigurator or
> xf86config te set things right.
>
> Note, [Ctrl]+[Alt]+[Backspace] would not help (= killing X-server)
> because gdm will automatically restart X.
>
> --
> The Contact
> "Ones and zeros represent more than just the binary count.
> They represent the mass knowledge we know as Internet."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Subject: Re: How to get latest GNOME distibution
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:05:08 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:18:12 -0800 in comp.os.linux.setup,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Michael Perry' said:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon) wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:52:21 -0400 in comp.os.linux.setup,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Robert Morelli' said:
>>
>>>I'm really shocked that I need to ask this, but I've been to the GNOME
>>>web site and I simply can't find the page with the main gnome package.
>>>The links at the site seem to lead in circles.
>>>(It kind of worries me when the people who are
>>>supposed to be giving Linux usability can't even design a web site.)
>>>
>>>The best I can do is find a page that has several dozen individual
>>>packages. If downloading and separately installing several dozen
>>>packages is what's needed, I'll do that, but I was under the
>>>impression that GNOME had some kind of painless installer.
>>>
>>>If there is some one package I can download, would someone here be kind
>>>enough to tell me the precise URL at which it can be found? (I'm using
>>>Calder OpenLinux).
>>
>> I was a little surprised myself that I had to download and install all
>> the GNOME packages separately when I upgraded it, but I just endured it
>> instead of complaining. ;-) After doing some research on the order of
>> installation, and unpacking all the downloaded tar-balls into
>> /usr/src/gnome, I wrote the following script to help automate the
>> process, which works flawlessly on Red Hat 6.0 and will need to be
>> modified to suite your GNOME version and system.
>>
>>
>> gnome-install.sh
>>
>Can't one just install helixcode gnome? They have a graphical installer and
>updater for all the most recent packages for all the distributions? This
>seems a bit easier than installing all the packages by hand.
Well color me informed! I was not aware that helixcode offered a simple way
to install all the packages.
http://www.helixcode.com/desktop/download.php3
--
Black Dragon
"Resist militant `normality' -- A mind is a terrible thing to erase."
------------------------------
From: brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calling Linux Gurus familiar with Partition Magic
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:09:54 -0500
Go ahead and try the installation after you determine the size of linux
operating system, swap file, and data needs.
Simpliest method that works: Use Partition Magic 5.0 to leave empty space
that will be needed for the linux ext2 partition and swap partition (2gig
to 4gig is plenty), then use the installation of RedHat Linux to partition
what it needs. You will have to answer some basic questions (where you
want to "mount" the partition, size and type of each partition, etc). You
might want to see the owners manual or see the Official RedHat Linux
Installation Guide section on "Installing Red Hat Linux 6.2" for what the
installation step will look like:
http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/install-guide/
The prompting by the installation disk (as well as the above guide) will
help you through the task.
Brian
PlzBeMine wrote:
> Hello Linux Gurus,
>
> Planning to Install Redhat Linux on my PC. Currently I have partitioned
> my HDD via Partition Magic 5.0 My current partition is 1 primary and 1
> extended with 2 logical drives. I am intending to partition another one
> for my Linux OS.
>
> Creating a partition will ask me to choose if I intend to use it for an
> OS installation (primary) or use it as a data (logical) drive only. As
> far as I know Linux can be installed on a logical drive as well. Which
> one will you advise me to use? Will I need to create 2 partitions, 1
> for Linux Ext2 and 1 for Linux Swap... or just create one partition and
> leave the swap partition during Linux installation?
>
> Umm... do you by the way understand what I am trying to explain here???
> Duh.. sorry... I am one of those stupid linux (trying to be) beginner.
> Teeheeheee... Anyone interested in email chatting one-on-one with me???
> Come on.. pleaseeee =)
>
> Best regards,
> PlzBeMine
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: tape drives
Date: 29 Aug 2000 17:23:13 -0400
dave frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> can anyone suggest a good quality tape drive that will work well under
> linux - in particular suse linux.
Anything that's SCSI-2 (or SCSI-3) compliant should work, even with no
special drivers. (Although you may want a driver if your drive has a
feature that the generic SCSI-tape drivers don't support.)
I realize that SCSI tape drives cost more than ATAPI drives. That's
unfortunate. I can't say how well an ATAPI tape drive may or may not
work, since I've never used one. I have used several different SCSI
tape drives, and all have worked fine with the generic SCSI-tape drive
that Linux comes with.
Don't worry about the price of a SCSI card. If you get an inexpensive
drive, it will use the older 10M/s SCSI standard. You can get 10M SCSI
cards for pretty cheap these days.
If you get a high-performance drive, it will probably use Ultra-, Ultra2
or Ultra160 SCSI. In order to take advantage of the speed, you'll need
a high-performance SCSI card. They will probably cost between $100 and
$300.
-- David
------------------------------
From: Andrew Overholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Playing music CDs, No sound
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:30:50 GMT
My CD player in Linux only plays to my main speaker output and in Windows
I currently can't use it (go figure!) so I have to use the rear
output....this means MP3s play fine in Linux but no CD...maybe this is
your problem?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8nroqu$rji$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would check all the necessary links in the chain.
> >
> > Can you read a data cd?
>
> Yes, I can read a data cd. I'm also able to read the music
> cd with cdparanoia, i.e. I can retrieve tracks from the
> music CD with cdparanoia and write them to the hard disk
> as wav files. I can then play the wav files with XMMS,
> but it would be nice to play the music tracks directly
> from the CD.
>
> >
> > Can your sound card make any noise?
>
> I don't have a separate sound card. I have the Intel i810e
> chipset which has integrated sound and video, but the sound
> chip does make a noise. I'm able to play e.g. mpeg3
> files or wav files on the hard disk.
>
> >
> > I believe there are two ways that data can get to the card: from a
> > direct wire from CD to sound card, and as data through the
> > motherboard. Perhapse Win98 and Linux are using different methods.
> >
> > In article <8nq934$5g2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm not getting any sound when I use XMMS or Gnome's
> > > CD player to play a CD in my CDROM drive (ATAPI IDE).
> > > I think they are reading the tracks because the timer
> > > showing time elapsed is running but there's no sound.
> > > There is sound when reading files from the harddisk,
> > > e.g. playing mpeg3 files. I've tried using cdparanoia to
> > > retrieve tracks from the CD to wav files on the hard disk,
> > > and then playing the wav files with XMMS and this works.
> > > But how can I play tracks directly from the CD?
> > >
> > > For info, I'm using the ALSA driver. I've also checked the
> > > mixer, and the CD sound is maximum and not muted. I have a dual
> > > boot system, and the CD player in WIN98 does work.
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > T.
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to get latest GNOME distibution
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:44:03 -0500
I tried it. It works slick. However, it does give itself special permissions.
You will find this in the /etc/security/console.apps directory of RedHat. The
file is /etc/security/console.apps/helix-update and it will contain the
following:
USER=root
PROGRAM=/usr/sbin/helix-update
SESSION=true
FALLBACK=true
I believe that all this does is limit the installation and update to the user
"root".
Any thoughts on the security risks?
Brian
Black Dragon wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:18:12 -0800 in comp.os.linux.setup,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Michael Perry' said:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon) wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:52:21 -0400 in comp.os.linux.setup,
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Robert Morelli' said:
> >>
> >>>I'm really shocked that I need to ask this, but I've been to the GNOME
> >>>web site and I simply can't find the page with the main gnome package.
> >>>The links at the site seem to lead in circles.
> >>>(It kind of worries me when the people who are
> >>>supposed to be giving Linux usability can't even design a web site.)
> >>>
> >>>The best I can do is find a page that has several dozen individual
> >>>packages. If downloading and separately installing several dozen
> >>>packages is what's needed, I'll do that, but I was under the
> >>>impression that GNOME had some kind of painless installer.
> >>>
> >>>If there is some one package I can download, would someone here be kind
> >>>enough to tell me the precise URL at which it can be found? (I'm using
> >>>Calder OpenLinux).
> >>
> >> I was a little surprised myself that I had to download and install all
> >> the GNOME packages separately when I upgraded it, but I just endured it
> >> instead of complaining. ;-) After doing some research on the order of
> >> installation, and unpacking all the downloaded tar-balls into
> >> /usr/src/gnome, I wrote the following script to help automate the
> >> process, which works flawlessly on Red Hat 6.0 and will need to be
> >> modified to suite your GNOME version and system.
> >>
> >>
> >> gnome-install.sh
> >>
> >Can't one just install helixcode gnome? They have a graphical installer and
> >updater for all the most recent packages for all the distributions? This
> >seems a bit easier than installing all the packages by hand.
>
> Well color me informed! I was not aware that helixcode offered a simple way
> to install all the packages.
>
> http://www.helixcode.com/desktop/download.php3
>
> --
> Black Dragon
>
> "Resist militant `normality' -- A mind is a terrible thing to erase."
------------------------------
From: Peter Bayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSSLLLOOOWWW sound?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:01:44 +1200
Great! Thanks the '-1' did the trick.
E J wrote:
>
> $ su -
> # cp /etc/conf.modules /etc/conf.modules.bak
> # vi /etc/conf.modules
>
> # # Edit the conf.modules
>
> alias sound sb
> pre-install sound /sbin/insmod sound dmabuf=1
> alias midi opl3
> options opl3 io=0x388
> # add esstype=-1 or try esstype=1869 in the next line
> options sb io=0x220 mpu_io=0x330 irq=5 dma=1 esstype=-1
>
> # reboot
> Hopefully your sound will be normal
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
> > X-Original-Trace: 23 Aug 2000 14:28:30 +1200, proxy-dmz.forestresearch.co.nz
> > X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> > X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> >
> > I set up my machine and everything runs great (I think) except the sound is
> > played too slowly (in pitch). However, if I force 'play' to increase the
> > rate it works fine.
> > play sound.wav -r2000 -----works OK
> > play sound.wav -----plays sloooooowly
> >
> > Is it a setting I need to change somewhere?
> >
> > CONFIG:
> > Pentium II dual boot
> > Mandrake Linux 5 with kde WM
> > matrox millenium g200agp video / ES1869 audio
> >
> > PS. CD music is fine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Briggs)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.suse,comp.os.linux.misc,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Restaurant Booking System
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:43:07 +0100
Darren Paxton wrote:
:I work for a restaurant chain based in Glasgow, Scotland, and we would like
:to introduce some form of online restaurant booking system to our website.
I have vague memories of seeing some kind of pizza-shop software -- I
think at Linuxberg or somewhere like that. I've no idea what it does.
Ian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rune Elvemo)
Subject: sendmail is acting like a snail
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:20:04 +0200
Yeah, that's right. Right now sendmail is running REALLY slow here
at my system.
Fetching mail takes forever, even on my connection (6.9 mbit), sending
mail isn't fast either, pine/mutt sits around waiting for a confirm from
sendmail for several minutes....
APART from that everything is like it should...
BUT this is kinda annoying, so I was wondering if ANYONE out there would happen
to know what might be causing this ?? (starting up sendmail on bootup takes
several minutes aswell, btw)
I *have* been using sendmail before.. but on another box, that is a PowerPC 603e
200 Mhz based on....
and the box I'm using now is for sure not slower.. (K7 Athlon 650 Mhz)
I hope there is a very simple explanation for this, and that someone knows
what is wrong!
THANKS!
--
---
Rune Elvemo --- Octagon / Digital Minds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.c2i.net/elvemo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:43:44 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:09:06 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:28:10 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
>> >> on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS.
>>
>> >No, you have it backwards. Where is the OS when your computer is off?
>>
>> In a pile of bits on the hard disk.
>
>So, your OS is in storage. And Obviously that storage can be changed, so
>long as the reasonable set of changes possible are documented.
Sure, certainly. And being able to do this correctly is tantamount to
re-implementing the filesystem layer of your OS.
>All that about how you would have to stop the OS to manage it. Give
>that up too. Surely you can figure out at least one way around that.
>I can think of several, depending on the OS.
Given the agressive caching done by modern operating systems, it is not
a trivial problem to change the filesystem out from under them without
causing inconsistencies between what the operating system's idea of the
filesystem is and what it really is. And if that happens, your system
is toast. This sort of thing can probably be done, but not trivially
and yes the method would depend on the OS. I thought we were trying to
get away from that.
>Suppose the hard disk crashes. I can buy another, and assuming I can
>lay my hands on all my CDs, I can rebuild my machine yet again (losing
>only my unqiue work, if I failed to transfer it too to some external
>storage). And I supply all the answers to all the decision points yet
>one more time.
I've had hard disk crashes and not ever had to reinstall using the
standard installers that make you answer questions. Boot up from
floppy, partition and format the disk, restore from the most recent
backup. Reboot. Done. But then, I don't use Windows.
>Are you really saying no standard form, with a single separate install
>facility for a given computer system can be reasonably define that is
>equivilant to running a bunch of installs off a set of CDs?
I don't think I said it was impossible. I think I said that it was
much more difficult that you seem to think it is. You are describing
abstractions and just ignoring the nitty-gritty implementation details
that make it complicated to actually do. If you think it is worth what
might be years of effort, well, then you are free to start work. If
you come back in six months with a prototype that does a subset of what
you want and it shows promise, then some folks might actually want to
help you. That's how it works.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Question about Red Hat Linux 6.2
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:43:26 GMT
I have a Red Hat Linux 6.2 CD.When I am trying to install by bootable
CD-ROM then the installation start in text mode rather than in graphics
mode.I visit www.redhat.com/hardware then i know that my Video adapter
or video card and mouse is not supported by Red Hat Linux 6.2.Then i
start installation in expert mode then the installation say that please
insert the drivers disk.
My questions are this :
How can i make drivers disk?
is there any other way to start the installation in graphics mode?
If you want any further information about my hardware please tell me,I
will give you that.
I hope you relize my problem and give an early reply.
Sorry for spellings and grammer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:59:59 -0700
From: Carl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: triple boot
Edward wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From my earlier post (taking the plunge) it seems that Mandrake is the
> easiest to install for a newbie like me. When I get my new comp, I plan to
> reformat and install Windows Me (for those games), Win2k, and Linux. What
> order should I install (i'm pretty sure it would matter). I'm guessing Me,
> 2k, linux?
>
> From Me-->2k I know that 2k automatically makes a dual boot. Would the
> mandrake installation autodetect those and make it's own bootloader?
>
> Also, if should I buy a boxed version of Mandrake, or should I download it
> somewhere (have cable) and buy a separate linux book?
>
> Thanks,
> Edward
Edward,
When installing multiple OS's, ALWAYS install Linux last as linux is the only
os to install a boot loader and if you install Windows last, the bootloader
will be overwritten not allowing you to boot linux.
Regards,
Carl
------------------------------
** 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.setup) 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-Setup Digest
******************************
