Re: New user question
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:04:02AM -0500, detwy...@riseup.net wrote: ... clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution... Is this documented? Please provide a reference If you have Gnome installed and Online Accounts configured; usually Evolution will display calendar information from GMail automatically (in Gnome 3.14 and some prior versions). It also has WebDAV support. To the OP: Set up your online accounts via the online accounts settings in gnome-shell system settings. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213114002.GA29806@stephen-desktop
New user question
Hi. I'm pretty new to Debian. I just downloaded the 64-bit .iso and have just installed it. I have a question about the date display on the top panel. My understanding is that clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution, but it's not working. I have lots of appointments, but nothing shows up. Is there some other connection I should be making? Thanks.
Re: New user question
On Friday 12 December 2014 09:21:31 Jeffrey Needle wrote: Hi. I'm pretty new to Debian. I just downloaded the 64-bit .iso and have just installed it. I have a question about the date display on the top panel. My understanding is that clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution, but it's not working. I have lots of appointments, but nothing shows up. Is there some other connection I should be making? Thanks. Gnome 3?? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412121000.24788.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: New user question
Le 12.12.2014 11:00, Lisi Reisz a écrit : On Friday 12 December 2014 09:21:31 Jeffrey Needle wrote: Hi. I'm pretty new to Debian. I just downloaded the 64-bit .iso and have just installed it. I have a question about the date display on the top panel. My understanding is that clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution, but it's not working. I have lots of appointments, but nothing shows up. Is there some other connection I should be making? Thanks. Gnome 3?? Hum... if he is new, then he probably have downloaded the stable Debian, which defaults to Gnome 3.4 (according to https://wiki.debian.org/Gnome). @Jeffrey: I suppose you come from Windows, since you did not gave us any information. Considering that Windows does not offer choice in graphical environment, it makes sense that you would not have specified the one you use, and that you would not have noticed that there are others (considering that those environments are hidden into sub-menus before installation starts). The desktop environment (often abbreviated as DE) is, basically, what provides you the set of (usually graphical, I have never heard about a non-graphic desktop environment) tools you will use on a daily basis. Gnome 3 is the name of the default DE in current Debian, and it is in version 3.4 in current stable version of Debian. Other examples of DEs are KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment, and probably others I have not heard about. In all those DEs, the application names tends to change, same for the places where things are on your screen, this is why Lisi asked you if you where using Gnome 3. Also, be prepared to long discussions between people about if some DE is better or worse than another, or about the question about DEs being useful at all :) Welcome to choice. Now, I can't help you on your issue, except if you are ok to use terminals, command-line. If so, start a terminal (you should have some black icon with a symbol like a white _ in it, that's it. Otherwise, I have noticed that on several DEs, ALT+F2 starts a prompt, in which you simply can enter x-terminal-emulator). Then, you first write 'man man' in it, to understand what you will do. Then, 'man date', 'man su', and finally, 'su -c date SOMETHINGYOUWANT' with SOMETHINGYOUWANT being what you determined from 'man date'. Note that you do not have to write the ' around commands, and if you are not patient enough to read all the man (which stands for manual) I gave you, then you only have to read 'man date', because it details date's format to set time. Now, there is a very easier way with graphical things I guess. Easier for a newcomer, I mean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/371aae09aaa31809094ab968d1e90...@neutralite.org
Re: New user question
... clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution... Is this documented? Please provide a reference. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CtDiw.315023$zt5.246...@fx07.iad
Re: New user question
* Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 10:00 +]: On Friday 12 December 2014 09:21:31 Jeffrey Needle wrote: Hi. I'm pretty new to Debian. I just downloaded the 64-bit .iso and have just installed it. I have a question about the date display on the top panel. My understanding is that clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution, but it's not working. I have lots of appointments, but nothing shows up. Is there some other connection I should be making? Thanks. Gnome 3?? According to his mail headers: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Elimar -- Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212215412.ga15...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Re: New user question
On Friday 12 December 2014 21:54:12 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: * Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 10:00 +]: On Friday 12 December 2014 09:21:31 Jeffrey Needle wrote: Hi. I'm pretty new to Debian. I just downloaded the 64-bit .iso and have just installed it. I have a question about the date display on the top panel. My understanding is that clicking on the date on the top panel should display my appointments from Evolution, but it's not working. I have lots of appointments, but nothing shows up. Is there some other connection I should be making? Thanks. Gnome 3?? According to his mail headers: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 I run Evolution on Trinity DE. So I repeat: Gnome3 ??? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212.39264.lisi.re...@gmail.com
New User Question
I have Squeeze on an Intel box with CUPS installed and a PDF printer defined. What I cannot seen to make happen is to use a line command to cause a file to go to the printer and create a PDF document. I can open the file with gedit and print to PDF with no problem. What do I not understand about line commands? Thanks, ..Larry Larry D. Martin Mainframe Systems Support Office of Information Technology and Communications 301.883.7335
Re: New User Question
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:52:52 -0500, Martin, Larry D wrote: Welcome! But please, keep html format off :-) I have Squeeze on an Intel box with CUPS installed and a PDF printer defined. What I cannot seen to make happen is to use a line command to cause a file to go to the printer and create a PDF document. I can open the file with gedit and print to PDF with no problem. What do I not understand about line commands? man lp will tell you how, e.g.: lp -d PDF_printer_name /path/to/file.txt Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2012.01.03.18.49...@gmail.com
Re: New User Question
On 04/01/12 03:52, Martin, Larry D wrote: What I cannot seen to make happen is to use a line command to cause a file to go to the printer and create a PDF document. What command are you trying to use? And what type of file is that you're trying to print? -- Ashton Fagg (ash...@fagg.id.au) Web: http://www.fagg.id.au/~ashton/ Keep calm and call Batman. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f038cd9.8080...@fagg.id.au
Re: New User Question
On 01/03/2012 12:52 PM, Martin, Larry D wrote: I have Squeeze on an Intel box with CUPS installed and a PDF printer defined. What I cannot seen to make happen is to use a line command to cause a file to go to the printer and create a PDF document. Larry From a console or terminal you can see the answer to your question by doing apt-cache show cups-pdf. I can open the file with gedit and print to PDF with no problem. What do I not understand about line commands? That cups-pdf does not print to a printer, it creates a PDF file of the file you sent to cups-pdf and puts it into the /PDF folder in your /home/. You can print it from there with many apps. Thanks, ..Larry Larry D. Martin Mainframe Systems Support Office of Information Technology and Communications 301.883.7335 HTH WT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f039c58.7090...@gmail.com
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 28, 2008 5:05 PM, Geosand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy Wu wrote: Well, an update: I just ran the nvidia script today (169.09) and it worked. I told it to not look for a precompiled interface on nvidia.com, so it did some compiling on its own, I think, but anyways, after I updated xorg.conf and restarted X, I saw the great big nVidia splash screen. Thanks again to every who replied for your help. Good to know, Jimmy. Thanks. 'When I get the time', I'll follow suit. Regards, David Palmer. Another update: the nvidia installer works fine after it runs, but my X breaks on the next reboot, and consequently I have to rerun the installer on every reboot - a royal PITA. At first, I thought it may have been due to conflicts with the installed/half-installed nvidia-glx packages when I tried to use the debian method earlier, so I removed all of those packages I could think of, but that didn't fix the problem. Eventually, I got so fed up I reinstalled the system, upgraded to unstable, and used the debian nvidia-glx packages, which installed beautifully without a hitch (cursing nvidia and closed-source drivers all the while). I am now running compiz happily on my sid system, and all is well once again :-) Best, -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiz + xfce4 on stable (etch) [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 30, 2008 5:07 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Secondly, is there some sort of compiz settings gui in debian etch? I couldn't find one, and the only thing I have available is gconf-editor, which is usable but difficult. For example, I wanted to turn off the wobbly plugin but I have yet to find the gconf entry that will let me do that. Would it be worth it to set up a mixed stable/testing system to use the testing version of compizconfig-settings-manager? I am thinking of either doing that or sticking with gconf. -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compiz + xfce4 on stable (etch) [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 30, 2008 5:07 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sort of have this working, there's a few more things I have to take care of. First, how do I add an entry in gdm to run compiz instead of xfwm4? I tried to use the method of putting a .desktop file in /usr/share/xsessions, pointing to a script in which I run nvidia-settings -l compiz --replace gtk-window-decorator --replace This doesn't work however. I've attached my .xsession-errors file. Secondly, is there some sort of compiz settings gui in debian etch? I couldn't find one, and the only thing I have available is gconf-editor, which is usable but difficult. For example, I wanted to turn off the wobbly plugin but I have yet to find the gconf entry that will let me do that. I haven't gotten that many responses, but here's what I plan to do barring future suggestions. (1) About configuring compiz - I'll stick with gconf. It's not the easiest to use, but certainly easier than dealing with mixed systems. (BTW, I did find the gconf key that controls which plugins are loaded, eventually :-) ) (2) About having a gdm entry to start a compiz + xfce4 session on login. I haven't figured out how to do this yet (I think I will have to do more reading / looking around in my x startup scripts). In the meantime, I cheated and am getting about the same functionality with the xfce4-session manager. (3) A third thing I've noticed is a problem with autohidden panels. I have two - one on the left and one on the bottom. The bottom one works fine, but whenever I have compiz running, the one on the left ignores the mouse pointer and absolutely refuses to come out of hiding. -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compiz + xfce4 on stable (etch) [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
I sort of have this working, there's a few more things I have to take care of. First, how do I add an entry in gdm to run compiz instead of xfwm4? I tried to use the method of putting a .desktop file in /usr/share/xsessions, pointing to a script in which I run nvidia-settings -l compiz --replace gtk-window-decorator --replace This doesn't work however. I've attached my .xsession-errors file. Secondly, is there some sort of compiz settings gui in debian etch? I couldn't find one, and the only thing I have available is gconf-editor, which is usable but difficult. For example, I wanted to turn off the wobbly plugin but I have yet to find the gconf entry that will let me do that. Thanks for your help! -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 .xsession-errors Description: Binary data
Re: compiz + xfce4 on stable (etch) [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: I sort of have this working, there's a few more things I have to take care of. First, how do I add an entry in gdm to run compiz instead of xfwm4? I tried to use the method of putting a .desktop file in /usr/share/xsessions, pointing to a script in which I run nvidia-settings -l compiz --replace gtk-window-decorator --replace This doesn't work however. I've attached my .xsession-errors file. Secondly, is there some sort of compiz settings gui in debian etch? I couldn't find one, and the only thing I have available is gconf-editor, which is usable but difficult. For example, I wanted to turn off the wobbly plugin but I have yet to find the gconf entry that will let me do that. Thanks for your help! Do apt-cache search compiz, and you'll find compizconfig-settings-manager. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 25, 2008 9:26 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I will go with the nvidia installer. I'll post back with results of how that goes. Well, an update: I just ran the nvidia script today (169.09) and it worked. I told it to not look for a precompiled interface on nvidia.com, so it did some compiling on its own, I think, but anyways, after I updated xorg.conf and restarted X, I saw the great big nVidia splash screen. Thanks again to every who replied for your help. -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 25, 2008 9:26 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I will go with the nvidia installer. I'll post back with results of how that goes. Well, an update: I just ran the nvidia script today (169.09) and it worked. I told it to not look for a precompiled interface on nvidia.com, so it did some compiling on its own, I think, but anyways, after I updated xorg.conf and restarted X, I saw the great big nVidia splash screen. Thanks again to every who replied for your help. Good to know, Jimmy. Thanks. 'When I get the time', I'll follow suit. Regards, David Palmer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Friday 25 January 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, nv was what the installer picked by default and that didn't work for me (I was surprised by that, but maybe stable uses an older version of nv or something). Anyways, vesa worked, and it still does now, so that's what I'm using. It's nvidia that doesn't work. Question might be: What card do you have (or on-MB equivalent) in the Thinkpad? Nvidia's newer drivers (and Debian Sid equivalents) do NOT support older hardware. For example, I have a GEForce2 mx400 chipset card and must use the version 96.43.01 driver. I had mixed results in the past using the Debian versions. Once they did not work at all, once I got them working with half!! the frame rate in pengineracer or such. Installing correct versions from Nvidia (their site has dialogs to find which one) worked first time every time. (Caveat: unless you use arguments to their installer to set alternate folders, their libglx.so gets put in the same place as xorg's so when you upgrade xorg, well ... can always move xorg's out of the way and replace with the symlink to the Nvidia one each time this happens.)
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 24, 2008 8:54 PM, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] You could get the unstable nvidia-glx source package and build it using Stable tools. Might not work, though, because the latest nvidia drivers are built with modern tool versions. I'd suggest moving up to Lenny/testing. I'd rather stick with stable. I went and looked at the howtos for a mixed system, and it didn't seem too difficult. Unfortunately, the unstable nvidia-glx depends on unstable versions of a lot of important packages, like libx11, libc6, xserver-xorg-core, (and the unstable kernel version too? it could have been something else), so I decided I didn't want to upgrade that much. I think I will go with the nvidia installer. I'll post back with results of how that goes. Thanks -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/25/08 20:26, Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 8:54 PM, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] You could get the unstable nvidia-glx source package and build it using Stable tools. Might not work, though, because the latest nvidia drivers are built with modern tool versions. I'd suggest moving up to Lenny/testing. I'd rather stick with stable. I went and looked at the howtos for a mixed system, and it didn't seem too difficult. I'd run only a slightly mixed stable/test system, and only for a little while after a branch goes stable. And I'd *never* run a mixed stable/unstable system! Unfortunately, the unstable nvidia-glx depends on unstable versions of a lot of important packages, like libx11, libc6, xserver-xorg-core, (and the unstable kernel version too? it could have been something else), so I decided I didn't want to upgrade that much. I think I will go with the nvidia installer. I'll post back with results of how that goes. - From nvidia.com? That's what I do... - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHmr3CS9HxQb37XmcRAmm9AJ9ZglrsWVTjuHwj9A+si4OussoGeACfdmrH MjoDopZH3NeSA/I9iBSFvZM= =Lgud -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
I followed the instructions to install the nvidia drivers the Debian way from this site: http://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers Every command worked fine, with no error messages. However, when it came time to reboot, I get a black screen shortly after the message that says gdm is starting. After that, the system stops responding to any form of input (no tty's either) and the only way I can do anything is to force shutdown by holding down the powerbutton. From my xorg log, it seems like everything is working normally, or at least I can't make anything out of it. I've attached both the log and xorg.conf. Some possibly relevant system information: This is a very fresh install of Debian etch 4.0 r2 (stable). The only things that have been added since the system was installed are xfce4 along with a bunch of plugins, vim-full, and bash-doc. Graphics card is Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M, which is listed on the official Nvidia site as supported. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks! -- Jimmy Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: I followed the instructions to install the nvidia drivers the Debian way from this site: http://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers Every command worked fine, with no error messages. However, when it came time to reboot, I get a black screen shortly after the message that says gdm is starting. After that, the system stops responding to any form of input (no tty's either) and the only way I can do anything is to force shutdown by holding down the powerbutton. From my xorg log, it seems like everything is working normally, or at least I can't make anything out of it. I've attached both the log and xorg.conf. Some possibly relevant system information: This is a very fresh install of Debian etch 4.0 r2 (stable). The only things that have been added since the system was installed are xfce4 along with a bunch of plugins, vim-full, and bash-doc. Graphics card is Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M, which is listed on the official Nvidia site as supported. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks! Jimmy, I have not yet looked over your files, but try to boot into single user mode (grub screen, normaly the 2nd line) and as root, type startx and see if it starts. This will rule in or out gdm. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 24, 2008 4:46 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy, I have not yet looked over your files, but try to boot into single user mode (grub screen, normaly the 2nd line) and as root, type startx and see if it starts. This will rule in or out gdm. I tried that, and got the black unresponsive screen again. I guess that rules out gdm? Thanks, -- Jimmy Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 4:46 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy, I have not yet looked over your files, but try to boot into single user mode (grub screen, normaly the 2nd line) and as root, type startx and see if it starts. This will rule in or out gdm. I tried that, and got the black unresponsive screen again. I guess that rules out gdm? Thanks, Yes it does. Now in single user mode run dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg (or xfree-x86?? I use unstable and I don't know what stable uses, but I think it is xorg). Instead of driver nvidia, choose nv. If this does not re-write your config file, then manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and look for nvidia and replace it with nv. Test. This will tell us if you have an issue with nvidia or not. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 24, 2008 5:06 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried that, and got the black unresponsive screen again. I guess that rules out gdm? Thanks, Yes it does. Now in single user mode run dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg (or xfree-x86?? I use unstable and I don't know what stable uses, but I think it is xorg). Instead of driver nvidia, choose nv. If this does not re-write your config file, then manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and look for nvidia and replace it with nv. Test. This will tell us if you have an issue with nvidia or not. Etch uses xorg. Actually, nv was what the installer picked by default and that didn't work for me (I was surprised by that, but maybe stable uses an older version of nv or something). Anyways, vesa worked, and it still does now, so that's what I'm using. It's nvidia that doesn't work. -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/24/08 16:18, Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 5:06 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried that, and got the black unresponsive screen again. I guess that rules out gdm? Thanks, Yes it does. Now in single user mode run dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg (or xfree-x86?? I use unstable and I don't know what stable uses, but I think it is xorg). Instead of driver nvidia, choose nv. If this does not re-write your config file, then manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and look for nvidia and replace it with nv. Test. This will tell us if you have an issue with nvidia or not. Etch uses xorg. Actually, nv was what the installer picked by default and that didn't work for me (I was surprised by that, but maybe stable uses an older version of nv or something). Anyways, vesa worked, and it still does now, so that's what I'm using. It's nvidia that doesn't work. What does /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so look like? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHmRLjS9HxQb37XmcRAjfxAJ9bRXsY1JXxp0TJBvm9qKBcnrGtnwCeL5bA 1qI0WZIgtFNHpqaNbcq0Zj8= =xpw/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Thu January 24 2008, Jimmy Wu wrote: Etch uses xorg. Actually, nv was what the installer picked by default and that didn't work for me (I was surprised by that, but maybe stable uses an older version of nv or something). Anyways, vesa worked, and it still does now, so that's what I'm using. It's nvidia that doesn't work. try downloading the latest nvidia driver from nvidia.com and running the NVIDIA*.run file.. a new one just came out recently.. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 24, 2008 5:36 PM, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so look like? I haven't had a chance to check that yet (I put my laptop away and it's charging now). However I think I've figured out the problem (see below...) On Jan 24, 2008 6:23 PM, Paul Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: try downloading the latest nvidia driver from nvidia.com and running the NVIDIA*.run file.. a new one just came out recently.. Thanks for that lead. On Thinkwiki.org (http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/NVidia_Quadro_NVS_140m), I found that support for my chip began with the Nvidia 100.14.09 driver version (June 2007), while the etch stable package nvidia-glx uses the 1.0-8776 version (Oct 2006). Just to make sure, I looked at the README and sure enough, my graphics card isn't in there. This probably explains why it isn't working. On Jan 24, 2008 4:32 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graphics card is Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M, which is listed on the official Nvidia site as supported. Apparently I was looking at the list for the latest (and wrong) driver version (http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_18897.html). Now, on to a solution. The unstable nvidia-glx does support my card, but I want to run the stable distribution. I know there are ways to configure apt/aptitude/sources.lst to have a mixed system, but is going through that worth it for just one package from the unstable distribution? (I'm avoiding the Nvidia installation script because I want to do this the debian way - it seems cleaner and has the added advantage of being integrated into the package management system.) Thanks again, -- Jimmy Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/24/08 18:58, Jimmy Wu wrote: [snip] Now, on to a solution. The unstable nvidia-glx does support my card, but I want to run the stable distribution. I know there are ways to configure apt/aptitude/sources.lst to have a mixed system, but is going through that worth it for just one package from the unstable distribution? (I'm avoiding the Nvidia installation script because I want to do this the debian way - it seems cleaner and has the added advantage of being integrated into the package management system.) You could get the unstable nvidia-glx source package and build it using Stable tools. Might not work, though, because the latest nvidia drivers are built with modern tool versions. I'd suggest moving up to Lenny/testing. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHmUFzS9HxQb37XmcRAseLAKC9wmJkaGwRhFu9KX0JN+4aSfOqywCfS02S sxz4o9pBMoDuaq1DbHnQlU4= =rUkj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia driver problem [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: I followed the instructions to install the nvidia drivers the Debian way from this site: http://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers snip Just installed AMD64 Etch on a dual core 64, with a Leadtek Quadro FX540 on a work station. Getting similar reactions with the basic nv driver and looking to install the NVidia drivers. Got nothing from startx. But running a check on the monitor read outs (a Fujitsu 19 LCD, which was configured at 1280 by 1040 with 31.5-83kHz H and 56-75Hz V), I get 700 by 400, with refresh rates that far exceed the spectrum. I intend to upgrade to SID before I install drivers and configure X. I'll let you know how I go. -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
broken Xorg [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Updates on the situation I've shrunk Vista and left it as the first partition on the HD. After looking around, I think that my laptop does not have a recovery partition, which is rather strange. There is no Rescue and Recovery ThinkVantage tool, or anything that says create recovery media at all. I went ahead and installed Debian anyway, using the netinstall CD, and the install process went fine (no error messages that I could see). However, xorg fails to start upon reboot. The xorg.conf is currently using the nv driver. In the end of log are the following lines: (EE) No Devices detected. Fatal server error: no screens found My graphics card is an nVidia Quadro NVS 140M, but lspci shows it as: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation Unknown device 0429 Any ideas on how to fix this? Thanks in advance, Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: broken Xorg [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 22, 2008 12:02 PM, Jimmy Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Updates on the situation I've shrunk Vista and left it as the first partition on the HD. After looking around, I think that my laptop does not have a recovery partition, which is rather strange. There is no Rescue and Recovery ThinkVantage tool, or anything that says create recovery media at all. I went ahead and installed Debian anyway, using the netinstall CD, and the install process went fine (no error messages that I could see). However, xorg fails to start upon reboot. The xorg.conf is currently using the nv driver. In the end of log are the following lines: (EE) No Devices detected. Fatal server error: no screens found My graphics card is an nVidia Quadro NVS 140M, but lspci shows it as: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation Unknown device 0429 Sorry, found the answer shortly after posting the question. The nv driver doesn't support the nVidia Quadro NVS 140M video card I had. Switching to vesa solved the problem. Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:47:29 +0900 David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ext3 is best if you are dealing with a mixture of both and has the added security factor of defaulting to Ext2 if it fails. Although I have never had reason to find out. I'm in the habit of using buggy and crash-prone hardware D.on't know why; I guess I just don't like buying new hardware, am too lazy to haul faulty stuff back to the store, and don't mind the occasional cold reboot. Anyway, while I often had minor and rather harmless corruption on ext2 systems from these shutdowns, I've never had any issues after switching to ext3. Recovering journal... and that's it. Same for USB (and encrypted) disks that I often forget to properly unmount. Don't know anything about other systems, but also see no reason to try them out. --D. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:32:25PM -0500, Allan Wind wrote: On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote: (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? no to either /boot should not be a single partition by itself.. it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs even if /boot is fine, if your rootfs is corrupt, you can't boot so there is no point to separating /boot ... we'll leave network boot, boooting off cd, and booting off usb stick for another ballgame Your analysis is correct. The only reason for having /boot on a separate partition is as a work-around for the (historical) 1024 cylinders / 504 MB limits of IDE. isn't busybox part of the initrd, can't you get you booting linux box to boot into busybox, thus all you need is a working /boot and a working kernel image and initrd. From here could rebuild/fix/investigate your system /Allan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote: (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. I haven't found it to be flaky on system crashes. I have found it to be extremely unforgiving of disk corruption and IDE bus problems. I was able to recover the data with reiserfsck, but it took a very long time. When it was done I had to sort through a lot of files with no names. This can happen to other filesystems, too, but Reiser is the only filesystem I've used where it's happened to every file on the system. Also, ReiserFS4 is not backwards compatible with ReiserFS3, making 3 a bit of an orphan. I no longer use ReiserFS for new systems because I figure 3 will eventually not be maintained, and I don't want to be forced to change whole filesystems when I do future kernel upgrades. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 4:27 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: xfs sure does copy and delete really large files faster - I do use it for video at home. How big do files have to be before one starts to notice the advantages of XFS? In my experience, delete performance differences become noticeable when you get over 1 gigabyte. ext3 (and ext2) blocks *all* writes to the filesystem during deletes, and deleting multi-gigabyte files can take several seconds. This can be problematic in, for example, video recording applications; if a recording is in progress, you'll drop frames during the delete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance for your help Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 ext2. Never have used any other. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. Hello Jimmy, I have found: Xfs is best for large file sizes, if that's what you are dealing with - graphics, and the ilk; Reiserfs is best for smaller file sizes; Ext3 is best if you are dealing with a mixture of both and has the added security factor of defaulting to Ext2 if it fails. Although I have never had reason to find out. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On 2008-01-18T16:11:17-0500, Jimmy Wu wrote: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. I use ext3 on same hardware, and (clean) mounts do not take any significant time: [ 19.209034] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. [ 19.209039] VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly. [ 22.708260] EXT3 FS on sda1, internal journal [ 22.711688] usb 1-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice The entire boot process takes about a minute. (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? No. /Allan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. On Jan 18, 2008 4:27 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This question is very close to what is the best religion for me? Haha, I like that :-) [...] Use ext3 and be done with it. Tried, true good rescue tools if you need them (I never have). IF you need the other fs, you would know it. Your killer app would tell you to use fs $X. For a home user, ext3 just works. Given this and the general gist of the other responses, I am thinking I will just go with ext3 for everything. On Jan 18, 2008 4:31 PM, Brian McKee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me throw out a few more unsubstantiated statements. This is my opinion 'cause you asked for it I appreciate the input. Unless you have a real need for something special, just use ext3. It is the most widely used and supported, and has a good track record. None of the other file systems offer enough of an advantage for your kind of application to make them worth wandering off the main trail so to speak. As stated above, I guess I will stick with ext3. xfs sure does copy and delete really large files faster - I do use it for video at home. How big do files have to be before one starts to notice the advantages of XFS? I don't think, in the course of normal usage, that I will have any really huge files aside from a few isos, with the largest possible size being a 4GB DVD iso. Then again, isos are usually meant to be downloaded and burned, and possibly deleted later, not to be copied/shuffled around on an HD, so it probably won't be worth making an xfs partition for the isos, right? On Jan 18, 2008 6:10 PM, Александър Л. Димитров [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you need FS-performance for? You're not going to host a data base, are you? If it's a personal laptop then performance differences between modern file systems won't be noticable at all. Don't mind those benchmarks, that's all hogwash. Yeah Reiser performs well in some benchmarks, but I've never noticed _any_ difference, instead that takes an awful amount of time to mount it after an unclean unmount. Well, if fs performance isn't noticeable, then I'll drop that as a criterion for choosing fs and go with ext3, which seems to be the most reliable. Why would you want to modify your laptop's partition table? Your better off not to misuse and abuse that small disk anyways, they tend to have rather short life spans. If I want to reinstall stuff, I may want to resize partitions. I didn't mention before that I have Windows Vista sitting in a 30 GB partition at the beginning of the drive. It came with the laptop, and I shrank it down using the built-in partition editor to the smallest size it would let me, and I don't plan on touching it unless there is some hardware issue or I run across Windows only software at school/work. For such a relatively high-end laptop, Vista runs sluggishly at best. There is no instant, responsive feel, as opening anything involves a slight delay. The first time Vista starts to give me problems, I'm going to wipe it and either shrink its partition and replace it with XP or possibly give all the space to Debian, repartitioning/reinstalling as necessary. I hope my HD won't complain about that. Sure. But who the hell uses JFS on a laptop? :-) Some of the forums google turned up had people who did, and who claimed it worked well (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. Arguably, yes. My /var is still Reiser, too. So would you advise that I do the same? As previously stated, I am leaning towards keeping things simple and making everything, including /var ext3 to be consistent. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance Yes. And there's no need mixing fs' on a laptop, either. See comment above on /var. Thanks again to everyone who responded! -- Jimmy Registered Linux User #454138
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:32:25PM -0500, Allan Wind wrote: On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote: (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? no to either /boot should not be a single partition by itself.. it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs even if /boot is fine, if your rootfs is corrupt, you can't boot so there is no point to separating /boot ... we'll leave network boot, boooting off cd, and booting off usb stick for another ballgame Your analysis is correct. The only reason for having /boot on a separate partition is as a work-around for the (historical) 1024 cylinders / 504 MB limits of IDE. just out of curiosity, what about the option of mounting /boot as read-only? I suppose some of that can be done with file permissions, but having to go through a remount of /boot before mucking about there, is probably a good thing. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Quoth Hugo Vanwoerkom: ext2. Never have used any other. I seriously hope that this was a joke... Aleks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Quoth Jimmy Wu: I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. That's because file systems are Voodoo. Everyone wants to take part in the discussion, without anyone really understanding what they're talking about. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. What would you need FS-performance for? You're not going to host a data base, are you? If it's a personal laptop then performance differences between modern file systems won't be noticable at all. Don't mind those benchmarks, that's all hogwash. Yeah Reiser performs well in some benchmarks, but I've never noticed _any_ difference, instead that takes an awful amount of time to mount it after an unclean unmount. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. That is correct, and a reason to avoid it. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. Then again, those people would even disagree on the current local weather. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. If you're fighting for seconds and nanoseconds... perhaps. I suggest you stop minding the seconds, though, it's of no good use. When do you need to mount that thing except at boot time? Right, never. And when do you boot? Right, you got a laptop with suspend/resume... my laptop's uptimes frequently make it from one minor kernel revision to the other. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. Why would you want to modify your laptop's partition table? Your better off not to misuse and abuse that small disk anyways, they tend to have rather short life spans. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. Sure. But who the hell uses JFS on a laptop? (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. Yes, it _will_ be flaky. I've never lost actual data, but that was due to caution and backups. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. Arguably, yes. My /var is still Reiser, too. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. And what of all do you need? Right, data integrity. Firefox won't load faster if you're on Reiser4 or Reiser3. It will just be the same. On a laptop, you don't want to lose data, because you're not likely to make backups that often (imagine when you're away for two weeks, on the road with just your laptop). (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance Yes. And there's no need mixing fs' on a laptop, either. (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? There is no advantage in using /boot altogether. Really, use ext3 for /home and choose freely for the other stuff. You're free to experiment, but don't experiment with your personal data. Nothing but _HEADACHE_, pure old brain-torturing headache will come from losing personal data. Aleks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:32:25 -0500 Allan Wind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote: (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? no to either /boot should not be a single partition by itself.. it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs even if /boot is fine, if your rootfs is corrupt, you can't boot so there is no point to separating /boot ... we'll leave network boot, boooting off cd, and booting off usb stick for another ballgame Your analysis is correct. The only reason for having /boot on a separate partition is as a work-around for the (historical) 1024 cylinders / 504 MB limits of IDE. Actually it is still useful for cases where the root file system is not available until the initrd does it's magic, such as in the case of an encryped LVM volume with everything except /boot. Regards, Daniel -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org No more sea shells: Daniel's Webloghttp://cshore.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Damon L. Chesser wrote: Jimmy Wu wrote: Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. no, responding like you did, is by def. bottom posting. ---comment- -response-- Technically, no. Bottom posting is where all the response is at the bottom of the reply. What Jimmy did goes by various names, interleaved posting being one of them. At any rate, Jimmy used the proper method for this list. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question:
hi ya Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Jimmy Wu wrote: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. any journally fs will be slower than non-journaling fs ( ext2, dos, etc ) (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. i would tar up the current data and backup to dvd etc before blowing it up to extend the current fs into something bigger or smaller - thus the growing/shrinking feature is not an issue for my needs (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. any journalling fs degrades as the fs gets larger some degrades faster than others --- formatting issues ... - journaling FS can format 1Terabyte in a flash - ext2 will take forever ( over a day or more ) - it will/might take forever ( over a day or more ) to format 500MB or 1 terabyte fs or larger - it will take forever ( even longer ) to restore the 1 terabyte of data - times are based on past experience for say P4-2Ghz w/ 1GB of memory or equivalent (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. all journaling fs is flaky for system crash... - some can recover .. some cannot - you probably can't easily recreate the failure mode ( defective fs internals ) on different fs (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. maybe .. maybe not (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, for performance and comparisons http://linux-sec.net/FS/#FS ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. depends on the defect of the crash (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance duh ... :-) .. sorry couldn't resist and it will also confuse the admins when working on different servers, pcs (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? no to either /boot should not be a single partition by itself.. it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs even if /boot is fine, if your rootfs is corrupt, you can't boot so there is no point to separating /boot ... we'll leave network boot, boooting off cd, and booting off usb stick for another ballgame c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. no, responding like you did, is by def. bottom posting. ---comment- -response-- and i just found out my left and right arrow above the ',' and '.' keys don't work, in fact none of my upper row keys work , zoinks. snip -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance for your help Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question:
On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote: (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? no to either /boot should not be a single partition by itself.. it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs even if /boot is fine, if your rootfs is corrupt, you can't boot so there is no point to separating /boot ... we'll leave network boot, boooting off cd, and booting off usb stick for another ballgame Your analysis is correct. The only reason for having /boot on a separate partition is as a work-around for the (historical) 1024 cylinders / 504 MB limits of IDE. /Allan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance for your help Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 This question is very close to what is the best religion for me? However, I will try to answer it and avoid going into religion. Use ext3 and be done with it. Tried, true good rescue tools if you need them (I never have). IF you need the other fs, you would know it. Your killer app would tell you to use fs $X. For a home user, ext3 just works. If any other is a better performer and that bothers you, perhaps you might want to run Gentoo so you can optimize your kernel to save time. I am not trying to be a smart alec, just saying with all the time you might save, over the course of a year, you MIGHT be able to drink a beer. As far as I know, all major distros default to ext3. the rest are mostly for special purpose, ie, you run the data base Foo and they say to set up a raid 1 with a fs of JFS. I am not aware of any advantage over ext2 vs ext3 on /boot. as for ReiserFS, I would not put anything into it in light of Mr. Reiser's troubles. I do not know the future of it. Now I will read the rebuttals and learn! HTH! P.S If you want to know the best religion contact me off list (joking!, please don't!) -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
David Brodbeck wrote: I remember when Intel started shipping processors with unique ID numbers. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth as open-source proponents and privacy advocates declared that this would lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Yup, remember being twitchy about that. In reality, it was a huge non-event; no software I know of uses it, So nobody uses it, and every system I've ever seen has shipped with the processor ID disabled. you've got to turn it on to use it, Even companies that make corporate software, who tend to be more into copy protection than most, seem to have mostly ignored it and it's ignored. It was a non-event because said weeping and gnashing led to it being unused, _not_ because its uses would be benign. It's my pleasure to have helped prevent you from finding out just how bad those uses could be. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:51:21PM -0500, Jimmy Wu wrote: am not a big gamer. The only reason I would have Windows is because there might be unforeseeable circumstances when I may run into Windows only software. I am sure if I needed to, I could always shrink by Debian partition later and install XP, right? As far as I know, M$ doesn't play friendly with other OS's. XP will want all the HD. You are best to install XP, then Debian. There may be ways around it but I'm guessing they would be very unpleasant. It would be like trying to reason with a selfish unsharing child. :-( -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Mon January 14 2008 03:47:32 Chris Bannister wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:51:21PM -0500, Jimmy Wu wrote: am not a big gamer. The only reason I would have Windows is because there might be unforeseeable circumstances when I may run into Windows only software. I am sure if I needed to, I could always shrink by Debian partition later and install XP, right? As far as I know, M$ doesn't play friendly with other OS's. XP will want all the HD. You are best to install XP, then Debian. There may be ways around it but I'm guessing they would be very unpleasant. Lenny installer had no problem shrinking the Vista partition and setting up grub dual boot - actually triple boot on the T61 if you keep the diag partition (recommended). --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 13, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Hal Finney wrote: I am actively involved with some open-source TPM projects and see this technology as having tremendous potential. It pains me to see so much uninformed FUD being cast about whenever the topic comes up. We're a twitchy bunch, aren't we? I remember when Intel started shipping processors with unique ID numbers. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth as open-source proponents and privacy advocates declared that this would lead to the end of civilization as we know it. In reality, it was a huge non- event; no software I know of uses it, and every system I've ever seen has shipped with the processor ID disabled. Even companies that make corporate software, who tend to be more into copy protection than most, seem to have mostly ignored it and stuck with using MAC addresses or external dongles as identifiers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Jan 14, 2008 2:26 PM, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon January 14 2008 03:47:32 Chris Bannister wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:51:21PM -0500, Jimmy Wu wrote: am not a big gamer. The only reason I would have Windows is because there might be unforeseeable circumstances when I may run into Windows only software. I am sure if I needed to, I could always shrink by Debian partition later and install XP, right? As far as I know, M$ doesn't play friendly with other OS's. XP will want all the HD. You are best to install XP, then Debian. There may be ways around it but I'm guessing they would be very unpleasant. Lenny installer had no problem shrinking the Vista partition and setting up grub dual boot - actually triple boot on the T61 if you keep the diag partition (recommended). Thanks again for all the input. Given the large amount of HD space I have, I think I will go with keeping Vista and dual booting, although I have a bit of work to do before I can even get into installation: The computer was a gift, and has been preloaded with a bunch of stuff by the person who gave it to me. Included in this bunch of stuff are, among other things, 20 GB of uncompressed audio and lots of software, including Office 2007, Nero 7 Ultra (or something like that, I have never used nero and don't know what it's supposed to be called), and an install of Tomb Raider. Obviously, it would be rather sad to irrevocably wipe all of this away, so I am trying to back up and salvage as much of it as possible. The isos will be relatively easy to back up (I'll just burn them), but I'll have to go in and find the registration / product keys that were used somehow. What makes my job harder is the weird partition scheme, which makes it so I can't just resize a partition or two and move everything that needs to be backed up to some excess space out of the way. I don't really trust what Windows' disk utility tells me, as IIRC it hides the Rescue Recovery partition, but what it does tell me is as follows: Disk 0 (149 GB): Partition 1: 39 GB (Windows Vista install) Partition 2: 55 GB (all the music, misc .iso's for Vista, Office 2007 and other software installation executables) Partition 3: 55 GB (Tomb Raider-Legend files) Disk 1 (513 MB): Partition 1: 511 MB (I guess this is the recovery partition, but am not sure; it contains one file: ReadyBoost.sfcache (409 MB) ) All partitions are NTFS The Windows Device Manager lists two hard drives: Fujitsu MHW2160BH PL IMD-0 I tried to boot from my Ubuntu 7.04 liveCD to use gParted to get another look at the partition, but the CD wouldn't boot. So I tried a really old (several years old) Knoppix CD I had (Knoppix 4.0), and that booted, but I couldn't figure out how to get Qtparted to show me the partitions (it showed one disk: UNIONFS/dev/hda or something like that, but no partitions) Now that I've given all the background info, I have two main things I'm trying to do: (1) I'm trying to decide if Tomb Raider is worth keeping, especially because I've never played it before and probably won't, and I don't know where the installation .exe is, nor do I have a CD. All that's there is a bunch of cryptic bigfiles (all over 100 MB in size), more cryptic files, two exe's to run the game, an uninstall exe, readme's, and I am guessing hidden in there somewhere save data. I do not know if this mess is salvageable, ie if it will work by just copying everything to another Windows Vista computer. Any ideas/suggestions/opinions on what to do with this? (2) I definitely want to save the music. For the most part, they're split up by CD, with the whole CD audio saved as one file in APE format with a CUE file to go along. There are also a few wav and flac files. But 20 GB is a lot to move, and since it's on the second partition, I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do with it yet. Again, suggestions would be appreciated. What I want to do, eventually, is to split up the CD audio into individual tracks, and convert everything to FLAC (going with the open source format). If there any good Linux audio converters that would accomplish that, then I might move everything somewhere else temporarily and sort through it later, after I get Debian installed. If not, I might be stuck with converting all these files on Windows before I can even get started installing Debian. Wow that was a long post. Sorry. Thanks again for your help, Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
Mike Bird wrote: snip Lenny installer had no problem shrinking the Vista partition and setting up grub dual boot - actually triple boot on the T61 if you keep the diag partition (recommended). Sorry for butting in, but assuming this is the Lenovo T61, what do you think of it? It's one of a number I'm considering at the moment. Did you get the pre-installed SUSE option or do you have Debian installed, and if so, any config problems? Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Mon January 14 2008 13:54:21 David wrote: Lenny installer had no problem shrinking the Vista partition and setting up grub dual boot - actually triple boot on the T61 if you keep the diag partition (recommended). Sorry for butting in, but assuming this is the Lenovo T61, what do you think of it? It's one of a number I'm considering at the moment. Did you get the pre-installed SUSE option or do you have Debian installed, and if so, any config problems? We're running Lenny with a little bit of Sid for the NVidia support. Graphics are really fast. HD, ether, KBD, USB, bluetooth, and various pointing devices are fine. Have not yet tried Wifi or fingerprint or card reader. There are patches available to make sound work in 2.6.22 but I'm not in a hurry so I'm waiting for 2.6.23 which doesn't need patching. I mostly use the T61 on wall current so I haven't tried suspend, hibernate, etc. The packages from Sid for NVidia are nvidia*, xserver-xorg*, and x11-common. You'll also need to build the non-free driver using module assistant. We chose Thinkpads for reliability. For much more useful info, check out thinkwiki.org. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
Mike Bird wrote: On Mon January 14 2008 13:54:21 David wrote: snip Sorry for butting in, but assuming this is the Lenovo T61, what do you think of it? It's one of a number I'm considering at the moment. Did you get the pre-installed SUSE option or do you have Debian installed, and if so, any config problems? We're running Lenny with a little bit of Sid for the NVidia support. Graphics are really fast. HD, ether, KBD, USB, bluetooth, and various pointing devices are fine. Have not yet tried Wifi or fingerprint or card reader. There are patches available to make sound work in 2.6.22 but I'm not in a hurry so I'm waiting for 2.6.23 which doesn't need patching. I mostly use the T61 on wall current so I haven't tried suspend, hibernate, etc. The packages from Sid for NVidia are nvidia*, xserver-xorg*, and x11-common. You'll also need to build the non-free driver using module assistant. We chose Thinkpads for reliability. For much more useful info, check out thinkwiki.org. Thanks for that. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. I went in to system properties to take a look at the hardware device manager and I noticed it included Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Now, this raised a red flag for me, as my first impressions of trusted computing were framed by this article: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista Well, that article doesn't mention the TPM. Vista does not use TPMs for DRM. The only thing Vista uses the TPM for is the DiskLocker whole disk encryption system, which uses the TPM to protect its keys, a use entirely in the interests of the owner/operator of the computer. Contrary to much of the publicity about the chip, TPMs are not (yet) useful for DRM, and it's questionable whether they ever will be. That will require substantially more research in operating systems, as well as a net-wide TPM certificate infrastructure that does not yet exist. Ask yourself this: if the real goal of the TPM is for DRM and taking away control from end users, why would most TPM projects be on Linux and other open-source platforms? In addition to TPM device drivers, Linux has the Trousers TPM library and the Integrity Measurement Architecture kernel patches, among others. Xen has TPM extensions, and a couple of versions of TPM-aware Trusted Grub exist as well. I suggest that the dangers of TPMs and Trusted Computing have been exaggerated and are entirely hypothetical at this time. In contrast, software exists today that can use the TPM to provide real benefits to users on both Linux and Windows platforms. I am actively involved with some open-source TPM projects and see this technology as having tremendous potential. It pains me to see so much uninformed FUD being cast about whenever the topic comes up. Hal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Hal Finney wrote: Jimmy Wu wrote: I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. I went in to system properties to take a look at the hardware device manager and I noticed it included Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Now, this raised a red flag for me, as my first impressions of trusted computing were framed by this article: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista Well, that article doesn't mention the TPM. Vista does not use TPMs for DRM. Besides the fact that DRM isn't the sole core issue here, when it's seen that WMP is no more than a music playing trojan, I have no belief whatsoever, that anything that MS chooses to implant at a deeper level on my system is going to operate according to a higher standard of ethics. I'm not just looking at MS here, but also Intel's CPU registration programme, Belkin's sweet concept of trojans on their routers a little time ago and gremlins placed in the BIOS dating from the Phoenix/Award amalgamation, etc., etc., etc. The rider placed on ethical standards here is the one I have already stated. That of corporate desire for market control, as near to complete as possible, and corporate entities never sleep. It takes things like a continuous, international, labour overhead free, development programme to, at least, keep up, and hopefully gradually pull ahead. The only thing Vista uses the TPM for is the DiskLocker whole disk encryption system, which uses the TPM to protect its keys, a use entirely in the interests of the owner/operator of the computer. Right. So you've read the code? Who holds the master key? Whose servers cater to the information flow? Contrary to much of the publicity about the chip, TPMs are not (yet) useful for DRM, and it's questionable whether they ever will be. That will require substantially more research in operating systems, as well as a net-wide TPM certificate infrastructure that does not yet exist. Really? Seems a fairly simple adaptation to me. http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999015947 Ask yourself this: if the real goal of the TPM is for DRM and taking away control from end users, why would most TPM projects be on Linux and other open-source platforms? Because there are more of them. FOSS development has always been conducted along a multithread format. There is no critique of open source formats here (I've been meaning to check back on the Open Bios project for a while), but I do endorse full control being in the hands of the enduser, especially in regard to the internet. Once control is translated to the network, the controllers of the network dictate access and content and the most innovative environment in the history of the species degenerates to the state of being no more than cable tv, on speed, replete with ads. It is of the utmost importance that the control factor is kept at the 'edge' of the 'net, in the hands of the enduser and that the network itself, is kept in as simple a state as possible. In addition to TPM device drivers, Linux has the Trousers TPM library and the Integrity Measurement Architecture kernel patches, among others. Xen has TPM extensions, and a couple of versions of TPM-aware Trusted Grub exist as well. I suggest that the dangers of TPMs and Trusted Computing have been exaggerated and are entirely hypothetical at this time. In contrast, software exists today that can use the TPM to provide real benefits to users on both Linux and Windows platforms. I am actively involved with some open-source TPM projects and see this technology as having tremendous potential. It pains me to see so much uninformed FUD being cast about whenever the topic comes up. When security aspects are in the control of others, so is the entity those security aspects are 'protecting'. From other conversations I have had, this appears to be a reasonably accurate statement of the scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module I reiterate, we all have a right to a private, personal level of existence. This doesn't mean that those of us that espouse this are therefore guilty of all the negative aspects that an open environment also caters to. There is a tremendous noise concerning paedophilia and the ilk on the net, and the requirement of governments, with concerned corporate citizens in the background, stentoriously proclaiming the need for control of the network, despite the fact that programmes such as 'Netnanny' and similar are downloadable, even directly from your own friendly, local ISP in many cases. There is an agenda and it needs to be countered, not catered to. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. I went in to system properties to take a look at the hardware device manager and I noticed it included Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Now, this raised a red flag for me, as my first impressions of trusted computing were framed by this article: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista It pains me to see so much uninformed FUD being cast about whenever the topic comes up. Hal This possibly because Microsoft endorses it; makes everyone suspicious. Probably not so much because they are into money but indecent amounts of money. But then it might be different if I was a shareholder. The other reason being there is not a great deal of information around about this issue which people have an interest in or maybe time to access? So thanks for adding your view to this topic. That's one of the benefits of a list like this. Be well, Charlie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/13/08 17:07, David wrote: Hal Finney wrote: [snip] There is no critique of open source formats here (I've been meaning to check back on the Open Bios project for a while), but I do endorse full control being in the hands of the enduser, especially in regard to the internet. Once control is translated to the network, the controllers of the network dictate access and content and the most innovative environment in the history of the species degenerates to the state of being no more than cable tv, on speed, replete with ads. It is of the utmost importance that the control factor is kept at the 'edge' of the 'net, in the hands of the enduser and that the network itself, is kept in as simple a state as possible. Here in the US, 99.5% of the people who regularly use the intarweb couldn't secure their computer with a map, both hands and a flashlight. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHirhyS9HxQb37XmcRAr1/AJ9OhK8KvYi4LiEhC2xKhJQ0mzIVWACeNvmx vSXkHIRayqRdA6cilXoHbxc= =k2gO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Sun January 13 2008 17:18:42 Ron Johnson wrote: Here in the US, 99.5% of the people who regularly use the intarweb couldn't secure their computer with a map, both hands and a flashlight. How about with a Debian installation CD? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Ron Johnson wrote: Here in the US, 99.5% of the people who regularly use the intarweb couldn't secure their computer with a map, both hands and a flashlight. They should get the Canadians to show them what they don't know how. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/13/08 19:42, David wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Here in the US, 99.5% of the people who regularly use the intarweb couldn't secure their computer with a map, both hands and a flashlight. They should get the Canadians to show them what they don't know how. The canucks are too busy swilling Molson, eh, and shooting moose. Regards, - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHiseiS9HxQb37XmcRAtJfAKDOBR/j+TrSf3eqSq1jO85PBpcYEgCgn9O3 1sKwhUrBI7uRZJjj4hqa/0w= =flnH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:23:30PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On 01/13/08 19:42, David wrote: Here in the US, 99.5% of the people who regularly use the intarweb couldn't secure their computer with a map, both hands and a flashlight. They should get the Canadians to show them what they don't know how. The canucks are too busy swilling Molson, eh, and shooting moose. Nah, we just use OpenBSD for our secure boxes. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Saturday 12 January 2008 08:45 David wrote: I'm a member of Al Quaida OMG, everybody RUN! Yes that missquote was on purpose, please read the references before arresting this person...(whoever it may concern...) -- http://noneisyours.marcher.name http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoneIsYours You are not free to read this message, by doing so, you have violated my licence and are required to urinate publicly. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
David wrote: Scott Gifford wrote: David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jimmy Wu wrote: [...] (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing-linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ Never on my machine. TPM is actually pretty interesting from a security perspective. It has nothing to do with ID on the Internet, What articles there are on the subject state that network validation is a feature. but instead uses a chain of certificates to verify that the code you're booting is what's configured in the TPM settings. If you get a boot sector virus, your computer won't boot because it doesn't match what's expected. If your box gets owned and the kernel hacked to hide the intruder, it will stop booting because the kernel won't match what's expected. If your applications are modified by an attacker, they won't run because they aren't what's expected. The big question that determines whether this is a giant security win or a huge loss of control is who gets to configure TPM. If it's you, great, you can decide what OS to trust, etc. But if it's the manufacturer, then you've lost control over what you can boot, which is awful. I feel safe in predicting the outcome now. All FOSS advocates are in love with IBM at the moment, forgetting that IBM once occupied that portion of the market that Microsoft are currently trying to regain/retain with their flawed OOXML ISO application, and were every bit as ruthless. It doesn't seem clear to me yet which will be prevalent. Also, it's not clear what this will do for reliability. Will minor, correctable corruption become complete breakage? I find it hard to see how you could have one without the other. Write a small modification script and your system doesn't operate anymore. Corporate supplied software only. Written by licenced programmers only. More than one way to skin a cat. The OOXML and TCM aspects seem to have the same potential in common. Control, and the corporate ideal of dictating to the marketplace. Time will tell, I guess. I don't intend to sit on my hands. I've just bought a couple of Bruce Schneier's books and intend to explore other directions of the cryptographic ilk also. Not just because of TCM or because I'm a member of Al Quaida, but because I have a basic existential right to a private, personal existence. I don't feel that I need either Microsoft or IBM to make decisions on what I should or shouldn't have on my own box. If they began to do so, which it appears they have, I should have to suspect their motives. I feel quite confident in my own abilities to make any and all decisions on my personal existence, thanking them very politely anyway. Regards, That kind of freedom talking will get you marked as a radical!! Next thing you know, you will be talking about source code. I think we need to watch you! -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] 404-271-8699 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 10, 2008 12:31 PM, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Mike Bird wrote: You might want to make the recovery CDs and save the recovery partition. In this sad world, being able to restore/reinstall Vista will dramatically improve resale value when you replace the laptop in a few years. Although maybe not as much as if it had XP. ;) I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. I went in to system properties to take a look at the hardware device manager and I noticed it included Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Now, this raised a red flag for me, as my first impressions of trusted computing were framed by this article: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista So, I have two questions: (1) Is this really as scary as the article makes it out to be? (in other words, should I be worried that this is on my computer?) (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing-linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ Thanks, -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: snip I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. I went in to system properties to take a look at the hardware device manager and I noticed it included Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Now, this raised a red flag for me, as my first impressions of trusted computing were framed by this article: http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista So, I have two questions: (1) Is this really as scary as the article makes it out to be? (in other words, should I be worried that this is on my computer?) (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing-linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ Never on my machine. So we need ID chips/cards on the 'net, now, do we? On disc encription is the direction I'll be heading in. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Friday 11 January 2008 22:14, Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 12:31 PM, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Mike Bird wrote: You might want to make the recovery CDs and save the recovery partition. In this sad world, being able to restore/reinstall Vista will dramatically improve resale value when you replace the laptop in a few years. Although maybe not as much as if it had XP. ;) I just got the ThinkPad T61 laptop today. [TPM description] So, I have two questions: (1) Is this really as scary as the article makes it out to be? (in other words, should I be worried that this is on my computer?) (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing -linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ I have Debian etch on a T61, with the TPM disabled. I forget whether I manually shut it off in the BIOS, or if I just ignored it entirely, but avoiding it is very simple. If you're dual-booting, or if you actually want TPM, that's a different story, of course. FWIW, I also blitzed the Windows install, reformatting the entire HD. -- A. -- Andrew Reid / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jimmy Wu wrote: [...] (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing-linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ Never on my machine. TPM is actually pretty interesting from a security perspective. It has nothing to do with ID on the Internet, but instead uses a chain of certificates to verify that the code you're booting is what's configured in the TPM settings. If you get a boot sector virus, your computer won't boot because it doesn't match what's expected. If your box gets owned and the kernel hacked to hide the intruder, it will stop booting because the kernel won't match what's expected. If your applications are modified by an attacker, they won't run because they aren't what's expected. The big question that determines whether this is a giant security win or a huge loss of control is who gets to configure TPM. If it's you, great, you can decide what OS to trust, etc. But if it's the manufacturer, then you've lost control over what you can boot, which is awful. It doesn't seem clear to me yet which will be prevalent. Also, it's not clear what this will do for reliability. Will minor, correctable corruption become complete breakage? Time will tell, I guess. ---Scott. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trusted computing [WAS new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Scott Gifford wrote: David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jimmy Wu wrote: [...] (2) Does Debian support TPM chips? What is the community's take on the issue? My take is that TPM does have some security merits, but it also has a lot of potential for abuse. Google turned up these results of the beginnings of TPM support in Linux: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/15574/ibm-brings-trusted-computing-linux http://lwn.net/Articles/144681/ Never on my machine. TPM is actually pretty interesting from a security perspective. It has nothing to do with ID on the Internet, What articles there are on the subject state that network validation is a feature. but instead uses a chain of certificates to verify that the code you're booting is what's configured in the TPM settings. If you get a boot sector virus, your computer won't boot because it doesn't match what's expected. If your box gets owned and the kernel hacked to hide the intruder, it will stop booting because the kernel won't match what's expected. If your applications are modified by an attacker, they won't run because they aren't what's expected. The big question that determines whether this is a giant security win or a huge loss of control is who gets to configure TPM. If it's you, great, you can decide what OS to trust, etc. But if it's the manufacturer, then you've lost control over what you can boot, which is awful. I feel safe in predicting the outcome now. All FOSS advocates are in love with IBM at the moment, forgetting that IBM once occupied that portion of the market that Microsoft are currently trying to regain/retain with their flawed OOXML ISO application, and were every bit as ruthless. It doesn't seem clear to me yet which will be prevalent. Also, it's not clear what this will do for reliability. Will minor, correctable corruption become complete breakage? I find it hard to see how you could have one without the other. Write a small modification script and your system doesn't operate anymore. Corporate supplied software only. Written by licenced programmers only. More than one way to skin a cat. The OOXML and TCM aspects seem to have the same potential in common. Control, and the corporate ideal of dictating to the marketplace. Time will tell, I guess. I don't intend to sit on my hands. I've just bought a couple of Bruce Schneier's books and intend to explore other directions of the cryptographic ilk also. Not just because of TCM or because I'm a member of Al Quaida, but because I have a basic existential right to a private, personal existence. I don't feel that I need either Microsoft or IBM to make decisions on what I should or shouldn't have on my own box. If they began to do so, which it appears they have, I should have to suspect their motives. I feel quite confident in my own abilities to make any and all decisions on my personal existence, thanking them very politely anyway. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Mike Bird wrote: On Wed January 9 2008 13:51:21 Jimmy Wu wrote: The reasons I don't want Vista are as follows: (1) Microsoft claims even the Home Basic needs 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequi rements.mspx) You might want to make the recovery CDs and save the recovery partition. In this sad world, being able to restore/reinstall Vista will dramatically improve resale value when you replace the laptop in a few years. Although maybe not as much as if it had XP. ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
Jimmy Wu wrote: [...] I have a few questions before I wipe Vista off the laptop, specifically about the Thinkpad software that comes preloaded. Does Debian provide similar support for stuff like the Client Security that manages the fingerprint reader, and other stuff the volume buttons, the Fn keys, the blue ThinkVantage button? [...] Perhaps it would be best to install with dual booting by shrinking your Windoze partition - have a look at the Debian NewbieDOC wiki [1]. To get access to the latest tools, you may wish to upgrade to Testing (or perhaps Unstable) after installing Etch. Alternatively, you can install Testing directly using the weekly build images [2]. You cannot install Sid directly, although there is the Sidux project [3] which provides 3 or 4 Sid snapshots each year. You might want to try the debian-laptop list [4], and Google for linux thinkpad t61 [5]. [1] http://newbiedoc.berlios.de/wiki/How_to_install_Debian_GNU/Linux_on_your_computer#Dual-boot_installation_-_shrink_an_existing_partition [2] http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ [3] http://sidux.com [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-laptop/ [5] http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=enq=linux+thinkpad+t61btnG=Searchmeta= -- Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
Thanks to Chris and Mike for your responses - I appreciate your input and time On Jan 9, 2008 6:14 AM, Chris Lale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Perhaps it would be best to install with dual booting by shrinking your Windoze partition - have a look at the Debian NewbieDOC wiki [1]. and On Jan 8, 2008 11:08 PM, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] I kept the recovery partition, shrank the Vista partition (needed for a game) and assigned most of the space to a mostly Lenny install with Sid xserver for nvidia. The reasons I don't want Vista are as follows: (1) Microsoft claims even the Home Basic needs 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx) I suppose I could dual boot with less than that, but I still don't want to be wasting 10+ GB of space on something I would almost never use. (2) If I were to dual boot, I would rather do it with XP, since it has worked relatively well for me, and not Vista. I might do this as an afterthought, but I really want to see how far I can go without M$. I am not a big gamer. The only reason I would have Windows is because there might be unforeseeable circumstances when I may run into Windows only software. I am sure if I needed to, I could always shrink by Debian partition later and install XP, right? Once I actually get the laptop and run into hardware issues, you'll probably see me back here with more questions. Also, do any of you use the fingerprint reader? That is one thing I am interested in / curious about. Thanks again, -- Jimmy Wu Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Wed January 9 2008 13:51:21 Jimmy Wu wrote: The reasons I don't want Vista are as follows: (1) Microsoft claims even the Home Basic needs 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequi rements.mspx) You might want to make the recovery CDs and save the recovery partition. In this sad world, being able to restore/reinstall Vista will dramatically improve resale value when you replace the laptop in a few years. Also, do any of you use the fingerprint reader? That is one thing I am interested in / curious about. Thinkwiki says it works. I haven't got around to it yet in Linux. (Vista fingerprinter reader support worked out of the box but Vista is ugly in so many ways.) --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
Hello to the Debian community, A question for Thinkpad Debian users: I will be getting a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 in a few days, which will become my primary computer for school/home etc. I want to run Debian etch on it, but am relatively new to Debian and Linux (I started with Ubuntu about 7 months ago). I have a few questions before I wipe Vista off the laptop, specifically about the Thinkpad software that comes preloaded. Does Debian provide similar support for stuff like the Client Security that manages the fingerprint reader, and other stuff the volume buttons, the Fn keys, the blue ThinkVantage button? Also are there any glaring hardware issues I should be aware of? Thanks in advance for your help, Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61
On Tue January 8 2008 19:40:43 Jimmy Wu wrote: A question for Thinkpad Debian users: I will be getting a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 in a few days, which will become my primary computer for school/home etc. I want to run Debian etch on it, but am relatively new to Debian and Linux (I started with Ubuntu about 7 months ago). I have a few questions before I wipe Vista off the laptop, specifically about the Thinkpad software that comes preloaded. Does Debian provide similar support for stuff like the Client Security that manages the fingerprint reader, and other stuff the volume buttons, the Fn keys, the blue ThinkVantage button? Also are there any glaring hardware issues I should be aware of? Thanks in advance for your help, Check out thinkwiki.org. More info there than I can summarize. This email sent from a new Lenovo T61 with about 75% of the h/w currently configured and tested. I kept the recovery partition, shrank the Vista partition (needed for a game) and assigned most of the space to a mostly Lenny install with Sid xserver for nvidia. There are patches available to get sound working in 2.6.22 but I'll simply wait for 2.6.23. You may have difficulty getting some h/w to work in Etch. (Today's Sid nvidia-kernel-source has a bug and needs to be unbzip2'd and untarred before m-a can auto-install.) --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question about stable branch
Chris Ochs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the stable branch frozen in place except for security/bug fixes from the time it was released? Yes. I installed woody and then upgraded to kernel 2.4.18, which made me think what other packages are update from time to time. In the particular case of the kernel, the 2.4.18 kernel was distributed with Debian 3.0 (woody), but it was still a little fresh to be considered for the default kernel. Also, I'm assuming that running woody is the best bet for mission critical stuff? This is probably the use case that stable is most intended for, yeah. People running desktop machines seem to be frequently frustrated that stable has old packages, but if you don't want to be running the GNOME-of-the-week because that server really really needs to be up, woody is a pretty good call. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal. -- Abra Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new user question about stable branch
Is the stable branch frozen in place except for security/bug fixes from the time it was released? I installed woody and then upgraded to kernel 2.4.18, which made me think what other packages are update from time to time. Also, I'm assuming that running woody is the best bet for mission critical stuff? We are primarily a freebsd house, but run a few redhat servers for our sap databases. Been meaning to dump redhat for a while and now that their update support is stopping soon it's time to make the switch. By the way, coming from a bsd background debian really seems to be the easiest transition. apt-get is probably more similar to the bsd ports then rpm is (god I hate rpm's), and unlike redhat or suse it installs most of what you need for a standard server setup in a conservative, intelligent way. Nice work guys. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new user question about stable branch
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 08:05:57PM -0800, Chris Ochs wrote: Is the stable branch frozen in place except for security/bug fixes from the time it was released? I installed woody and then upgraded to kernel 2.4.18, which made me think what other packages are update from time to time. In terms of Official Debian, yes. Frozen except for those fixes. Lots of people use backports of things they just _must_ have newer versions of, though. The usual place to look for backports is apt-get.org For example, I'm working on setting up a woody mail server at home, using backports of exim4 and spamassassin 2.55... Also, I'm assuming that running woody is the best bet for mission critical stuff? Definitely. Testing seems to be strangely unpopular, and unstable is nowhere near as unstable as the name would indicate, but things do occasionally break. Woody boasts archaic versions of some packages, but when the developers call it 'stable', they mean it. ... (god I hate rpm's), Oh, I hear you. Apt is ... so good ... Especially compared to RPMs. Cheers! -- ,-. -ScruLoose- |I care less and less what people think. Please do not | - Ani DiFranco reply off-list. | `-' pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: New user question
Hi, I'm new to debian too but not windows so: 1. Typically you'd want to install windows 'first' before linux to avoid lilo being blown away by the windows installer. 2. If your installing win 98 or me the fat32 is appropriate and optional in win2k but ntfs is its and xp's native filesystem AND primary fat partitions aren't recommended above 4 gigs. 3. I've been using dual os win linux on desktops and laptops for a while now and they're running fine-- just remember to read the instructions thoroughly on the lilo installer. justin -Original Message- From: kapil khosla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:47 AM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: New user question Hi , I have installed Debian on my system and now want to install windows. While installing I made a separate 7 GB FAT32 Partition. When I put the windows bootable disk , Linux does not reckognize it. What shall I do ..thanks Kapil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New user question
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:47:29AM -0500, kapil khosla wrote: hi Hi , I have installed Debian on my system and now want to install windows. While installing I made a separate 7 GB FAT32 Partition. i don't clearly understand your problem. what i seem to knew was , u first installed Debian and after it u trying to install windows. total of min 3 partitions - 1 for root,1 for swap , other 7GB for the win. u should not use the 7gb as the c:, my idea is that , u can partition the 7GB whole to one 2gb as c:(FAT32) and other 5 gb for another FAT. install win from scratch, it removes the lilo on mbr. reboot the system and boot using linux CD.(i think its debian). goto shell prompt. mount -t ext2 /dev/dha1 /mnt #copy the win mbr dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hda1/mbr.dos count=1 bs=512 #write mbr with lilo lilo -v reboot and appears lilo add image line in the lilo.conf other=/dev/hda3 loader=/dev/hda1/mbr.dos label=windows root=/dev/hda3 the better option is grub -jijo jose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New user question
Hi , I have installed Debian on my system and now want to install windows. While installing I made a separate 7 GB FAT32 Partition. When I put the windows bootable disk , Linux does not reckognize it. What shall I do ..thanks Kapil
Re: New user question
In linux.debian.user, you wrote: Hi , I have installed Debian on my system and now want to install windows. While installing I made a separate 7 GB FAT32 Partition. When I put the windows bootable disk , Linux does not reckognize it. What shall I do ..thanks Kapil I don't understand your question. Here is what I understand. You installed Debian. You made a FAT32 Partition to install Windows on. You put in the windows boot floppy. At that point Linux has nothing to do with it. The boot floppy should boot and offer to install windows. Or did you get Windows installed and you find that Linux does not recognize the partition that Windows is on. Please explain a little more. Thank you. Anita
Re: New user question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 22 December 2001 4:47 pm, kapil khosla wrote: Hi , I have installed Debian on my system and now want to install windows. While installing I made a separate 7 GB FAT32 Partition. When I put the windows bootable disk , Linux does not reckognize it. What shall I do ..thanks Kapil I saw a previous poster saying he didn't understand the question - and I don't either. But a couple of points. 1) You will probably have had to use the DOS fdisk to set up your windows partition. This will have overwritten the boot loader (lilo) so you will need to boot using the rescue floppy load your original root disk as root and then run lilo again 2) You can see the files on your windows partition under linux by mounting the partition (something like mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /win) - -- Alan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8JOlf1mf3M5ZDr2kRAiR5AKCtvj3xIZyw58zoMdFzUsexRfp9zACfR6CI C9kG1QBIlQPQ7+mbRYrPrXs= =Or8b -END PGP SIGNATURE-
