|
||||||||
Linux Users general chat thread. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#326 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,268
|
Bad luck Jason. Hope you get it sorted.
My old IBM laptop upgrade to 11.04 Natty Narwhal went a treat. ![]() Even Stellarium, which I could never get working in 10.10, just loaded up 1st time. I don't have the hardware for Unity so it's the same old classical GUI for me. No problems though. Fingers crossed. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#327 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
How come Linux updates take minutes, sometimes even seconds, to install but Windows can sometimes take hours?
Last time I updated Windows 7 it took almost 2 hours of faffing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#328 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
|
Quote:
How come Linux updates take minutes, sometimes even seconds, to install but Windows can sometimes take hours?
Last time I updated Windows 7 it took almost 2 hours of faffing. ![]() Anyhoo... Can anyone recommend a decent USB creator? I used to use Unetbootin, but it's just not working these days for me. Someone recommended some others way back in the thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#329 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,467
|
Quote:
How come Linux updates take minutes, sometimes even seconds, to install but Windows can sometimes take hours?
Last time I updated Windows 7 it took almost 2 hours of faffing. ![]() ![]() Mark
|
|
|
|
|
#330 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Solihull, West Mids
Posts: 1,609
|
Only problems I've had with Linux installs were related to APIC or ACPI, had to pass a noapic or acpi=off param to the kernel to get the CD to boot. problem was specific to particular hardware, I guess the PC's BIOS was a bit buggy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#331 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
|
Well I wasn't for a minute suggesting Linux is perfect...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#332 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,173
|
Quote:
How come Linux updates take minutes, sometimes even seconds, to install but Windows can sometimes take hours?
Last time I updated Windows 7 it took almost 2 hours of faffing. ![]() Today i installed the new Linux Mint Debian XFCE RC on my Netbook and then when the sound went and i couldn't get it working again i reverted back to LMDE tracking stable. Because the LMDE ISO was released last December there are a lot of updates, even when you switch to tracking Debian Stable. After install it took about an hour or so to download and install all the updates and another half an hour to remove packages i dont want and install those i do. |
|
|
|
|
|
#333 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,829
|
Read in MicroMart today: Mint 11 XFCE is Linus' day-to-day desktop these days.
(rumour/apocryphal!!??) |
|
|
|
|
|
#334 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Solihull, West Mids
Posts: 1,609
|
Quote:
Food for thought, it was 25th August 1991 when Linus let the cat out of the bag about developing his OS kernel, so Linux will be 20 years old later this month. The kernel finally reached version 1.0 in March 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#335 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
|
uh-oh.. just seen a screenie of the new Mandriva desktop. Hit "Download" on Distrowatch .. *gulp*
![]() It's all good though - at least taking a disk image backup onto my 2nd HDD means it only takes around 20 minutes to restore everything again if it all goes tits up. |
|
|
|
|
#336 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
|
I didn't realise they were releasing a new one! According to their site's countdown clock, it's out in a few hours. I'll keep an eye on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#337 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,662
|
Quote:
uh-oh.. just seen a screenie of the new Mandriva desktop. Hit "Download" on Distrowatch .. *gulp*
![]() It's all good though - at least taking a disk image backup onto my 2nd HDD means it only takes around 20 minutes to restore everything again if it all goes tits up. What version have you downloaded, 2010 or 2011? Quote:
I didn't realise they were releasing a new one! According to their site's countdown clock, it's out in a few hours. I'll keep an eye on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#338 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
|
I saw it was being released tomorrow on the 'upcoming releases' section so i clicked on the Mandriva link and downloaded the latest RC
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06810 Anyway, it doesn't even get past the installer as it loads everything up and the screen totally glitches out and is unusuable. I had the same problem in fedora which was solved by typing 'nomodeset' at the boot up menu but there isn't such a menu here, although i'm just going to have a quick google around to see if there's a function key i can press or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
#339 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,662
|
Quote:
I saw it was being released tomorrow on the 'upcoming releases' section so i clicked on the Mandriva link and downloaded the latest RC
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06810 Anyway, it doesn't even get past the installer as it loads everything up and the screen totally glitches out and is unusuable. I had the same problem in fedora which was solved by typing 'nomodeset' at the boot up menu but there isn't such a menu here, although i'm just going to have a quick google around to see if there's a function key i can press or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#340 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
|
ha HAR ! .. *pokes tongue out*
Mandriva installed and running. ATI Drivers installed and running, correct resolution. Actually i have no clue how i accessed the kernel options menu on the live cd - i just rebooted a few times and there it was. One quick "nomodeset" later and it's all installed and running fine. All desktop effects enabled and working as well. So might be able to get some kip after all .. hehe
|
|
|
|
|
#341 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,053
|
I've been exclusively running Linux for over eight years, but I learnt something new and simple yesterday. Take a look at /dev/shm. Now, what is it, I might hear you ask? It's an actual RAM drive that defaults to half your RAM (this is the case in Debian Squeeze; also the size grows or shrinks depending on what you store in it, but can't go above half your RAM... although you can change that in /etc/default/tmpfs). Even as a simple user (ie, non-root), I can copy, edit and run things in /dev/shm, meaning that things can be a lot quicker as I don't need to use the hard drive. Want to ensure nothing in the cache gets written on the disc while you browse? Well, use /dev/shm as your cache (if, for instance, you use Opera, you can also make a new profile and use the RAM drive to run it: opera -pd /dev/shm/opera). Naturally, once you shutdown or reboot, you lose everything that's in /dev/shm. Also be careful that your machine doesn't need the RAM you use in /dev/shm for something a bit more critical. Interesting what simple things you can find even after using Linux for nearly a decade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#342 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 139
|
What's the general consensus on Arch Linux?
I've been having a play with it in a VirtualBox VM when I've had some spare time and I've been fairly impressed, particularly with the pacman package manager. In terms of raw speed, pacman running in a VM kicks the Ubuntu apt's bum even with the latter running on my actual quad-core machine. (apt seems to churn the HD for aaaages, just to run a quick update.) Having said that, it seemed to take a fair while to get working in the first place, and I did feel a strange sense of pride when I managed to get it into a working GNOME 3 desktop! Does anyone know how much fiddling is needed to keep it running well enough to do actual work on? I'm fine with investing a weekend to get a nice system working in the first place, but I don't have the time to spend hours a week keeping it up to date and fixing breakages. The concept of a distro that keeps up to date with the latest releases of software appeals (I don't like how Ubuntu leaves you stuck with six-month-old versions of everything unless you mess around adding hundreds of PPAs for every little bit of software) but I don't know how much breakage that would bring. Anyone here been brave enough to try Arch, then?! |
|
|
|
|
|
#343 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,467
|
Can't say I've even contemplated using Arch Linux, I have just checked it out and maybe in the future, but for now Pinguy OS just keeps giving and giving unlike any other Linux distro I have used. I'm sure there is someone on here who MUST have tried it, as they have tried almost everything
![]() I'm waiting patiently for Ubuntu 11.10, I'm actually getting a new top-spec PC built just for it to use as my main PC. Mark
|
|
|
|
|
#344 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
|
y'all want me to try it don't you ?
|
|
|
|
|
#345 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,467
|
|
|
|
|
|
#346 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,832
|
Quote:
What's the general consensus on Arch Linux?
I've been having a play with it in a VirtualBox VM when I've had some spare time and I've been fairly impressed, particularly with the pacman package manager. In terms of raw speed, pacman running in a VM kicks the Ubuntu apt's bum even with the latter running on my actual quad-core machine. (apt seems to churn the HD for aaaages, just to run a quick update.) Having said that, it seemed to take a fair while to get working in the first place, and I did feel a strange sense of pride when I managed to get it into a working GNOME 3 desktop! Does anyone know how much fiddling is needed to keep it running well enough to do actual work on? I'm fine with investing a weekend to get a nice system working in the first place, but I don't have the time to spend hours a week keeping it up to date and fixing breakages. The concept of a distro that keeps up to date with the latest releases of software appeals (I don't like how Ubuntu leaves you stuck with six-month-old versions of everything unless you mess around adding hundreds of PPAs for every little bit of software) but I don't know how much breakage that would bring. Anyone here been brave enough to try Arch, then?! |
|
|
|
|
|
#347 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
|
I would love to try Arch, but I fear I just don't have the time to commit to it. I hear it can eat a weekend up just installing it and setting it up. I'd rather have a distro up and running out of the box, but I appreciate that some Linux users prefer the manual approach.
Plus I worry that I just won't understand how to use it. Though I've been using Linux for five years now ( ), I'm not really a technical user, just a regular PC user, and I can imagine it leaving me behind somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#348 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 139
|
Quote:
I would love to try Arch, but I fear I just don't have the time to commit to it. I hear it can eat a weekend up just installing it and setting it up. I'd rather have a distro up and running out of the box, but I appreciate that some Linux users prefer the manual approach.
Plus I worry that I just won't understand how to use it. Though I've been using Linux for five years now ( ), I'm not really a technical user, just a regular PC user, and I can imagine it leaving me behind somewhat.However, it took twenty minutes to install and manually configure GNOME NetworkManager, and that's where I left off when I finished last time. If every last little piece of the system takes 20-30 minutes to sit and configure, I do wonder how long it would take to get something usable day-to-day! For instance, this is the guide for setting up printers: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CUPS It's incredibly well-documented (the wiki is well-organised and much better than the messes that pass for Ubuntu and Fedora docs), I enjoy the speed, and pacman looks to be a brilliant package manager, but I just don't know if I have the time to invest in Arch. I'm just not keen on the direction Ubuntu is going in--and having tried both, if I have to move away from my GNOME 2, I'd rather go to stock GNOME 3 than Unity. |
|
|
|
|
|
#349 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
|
Quote:
...I'm just not keen on the direction Ubuntu is going in--and having tried both, if I have to move away from my GNOME 2, I'd rather go to stock GNOME 3 than Unity.
Personally though, I have to say I haven't missed Gnome 2 one bit. In fact I'm glad to see the back of it! It really needed a refresh imho. |
|
|
|
|
|
#350 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
|
I still want a Gnome 3 desktop but nothing flippin' works .. i s'pose if i'd found out that Gnome 3 doesn't like ATI cards I might have got a new NVidia one instead.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02.







), I'm not really a technical user, just a regular PC user, and I can imagine it leaving me behind somewhat.