DS Forums

 
 

Linux Users general chat thread.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-08-2011, 21:30
MrQuike
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.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-08-2011, 15:19
ironjade
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.
ironjade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 17:22
Kal_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
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.
Without wishing to start problems in this thread (it's gone so well so far!), I have to say I agree. The worst one was the update to Service Pack 1 on W7. I tried for weeks to get it to install, but it was just not happening, and it resulted in the system crashing and having to abort it on several attempts. The solution, that no one mentioned and took me ages to find, was to go into Disk Management and mark the partition as active. How the partition isn't "active" when I'm using it is anyone's guess.

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.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 17:28
scooby1970
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,467
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.
Because Linux-Does what Windoze-Don't. But seriously, I have no idea on this. Pinguy took 7 minutes to install on my main PC, including downloading updates, my last Windows install of Windows 7 took around 2 hours. Yet another reason to love Linux

Mark
scooby1970 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 17:30
Tadpole
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.
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 17:58
Kal_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
Well I wasn't for a minute suggesting Linux is perfect...
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 17:59
Esot-eric
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,173
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.
One of the reasons will be because many Linux distros are released more often than Windows discs are so there are fewer updates required.

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.
Esot-eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 19:17
RobinOfLoxley
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!!??)
RobinOfLoxley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2011, 19:21
Tadpole
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Solihull, West Mids
Posts: 1,609
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.
Happy birthday, Linux
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 17:48
JasonWatkins
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.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 17:59
Kal_El
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.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 18:33
1saintly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,662
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.
Cant see it on Distrowatch, as Kal-EI says, its released in another 5hours.
What version have you downloaded, 2010 or 2011?

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.
1saintly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 19:53
JasonWatkins
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.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 20:37
1saintly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,662
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.
Oh no, i feel another late night coming on for you, not much :sleep: Good job its a long bank hol weekend
1saintly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2011, 22:36
JasonWatkins
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
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2011, 20:01
Gort
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.
Gort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 11:39
On the Rocks
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?!
On the Rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 16:27
scooby1970
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
scooby1970 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 16:29
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,625
y'all want me to try it don't you ?
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 16:45
scooby1970
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,467
y'all want me to try it don't you ?
Yes...

Mark
scooby1970 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 16:53
theARE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,832
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?!
I'm running Chakra - which is an Arch offshoot that's slightly less bleeding edge as it's on a 'half-rolling release' schedule. So far I'm quite impressed. Compared to kubuntu it's way faster. Might not be for you if you want Gnome though as it's most definitely a KDE desktop
theARE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 17:04
Kal_El
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.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 17:16
On the Rocks
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 139
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.
I got my install up and running in a VM in about an hour - that's from downloading the ISO to having a basic functioning GNOME 3 desktop with network.

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.
On the Rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 18:33
Kal_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 4,234
...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.
I kind of like Unity, but it's in such beta condition at the moment that it's no wonder Ubuntu is getting such bad press of late. It reminds me of when KDE4.0 was launched, and though Unity isn't in quite such a dreadful state, it's in a similar position. It has to convince users it can work. I believe it can work in the long run and will prove to have been a good decision, but right now Gnome 3 by comparison just feels so much more together and complete. Ubuntu is really going to have to rock my socks off to get me to switch back, it really is.

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.
Kal_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 19:01
JasonWatkins
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.
JasonWatkins is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02.