Clan x86
Technical (Development, Security, etc.) => Unix / Linux Discussion => Topic started by: Newby on October 02, 2006, 11:10:52 pm
-
www.slackware.com.
I'm getting my three install disks as we speak. :)
-
!CHEER!
-
Fine, don't thank the guy who has no life and refreshes the changelog daily and informed you about it. He doesn't mind at all; he has no feelings :(.
-
www.slackware.com.
I'm getting my three install disks as we speak. :)
Let me know how it handles WINE.
-
The best of both worlds.. power struggle.
-
Warning: mysql_pconnect(): Too many connections in /var/www/slackware/php_includes/database.inc on line 20
could not connect to database
:(
-
What's all this sticky white shit on the thread?
*Notes iago didn't post*
Ewwwwww
-
It's really not that big of a deal to me. I'm content with Slackware 10.2, and I'm not in a rush to update.
If, however, I need to re-load one of my computers (which I'm actually planning on doing to my laptop, soon), I'll use Slackware 11. But not until then.
-
What's all this sticky white shit on the thread?
*Notes iago didn't post*
Ewwwwww
Hahahahahah!
Cool. I downloaded the three install disks and the DVD ISO.
-
It's really not that big of a deal to me. I'm content with Slackware 10.2, and I'm not in a rush to update.
Likewise. I think of all the extra work I have to do to install my 300gb harddrive and am content with my setup right now.
-
Is this your external hard drive?
I still need to set up my RAID in Linux. I'm sure there's a workaround without the 2.6 kernel, but all of the pages I found explaining the linux installation of the RAID controller I have require the 2.6 kernel.
I noticed that they said there were "more options" with the 2.6 kernel. Does this mean you can install it in place of 2.4 without all the hassle of setting it up after the slackware install?
-
Is this your external hard drive?
I still need to set up my RAID in Linux. I'm sure there's a workaround without the 2.6 kernel, but all of the pages I found explaining the linux installation of the RAID controller I have require the 2.6 kernel.
There's a Slackware kernel designed for RAID. It worked perfeclty. It's a 2.4 kernel, obviously. It's called "raid" I think.
I noticed that they said there were "more options" with the 2.6 kernel. Does this mean you can install it in place of 2.4 without all the hassle of setting it up after the slackware install?
That's a tricky one to answer.
First, by "more options", they mean that you can use 2.6.17.something (which is in the /extras folder) or 2.6.18 (which is in the /testing folder).
Second, you could always install the 2.6 kernel at the start. I forget how, though.. :P
-
There's a Slackware kernel designed for RAID. It worked perfeclty. It's a 2.4 kernel, obviously. It's called "raid" I think.
Yeah, but I have to use sata.i to have the installer detect the drive I want it to install Slackware to. :P
First, by "more options", they mean that you can use 2.6.17.something (which is in the /extras folder) or 2.6.18 (which is in the /testing folder).
Second, you could always install the 2.6 kernel at the start. I forget how, though.. :P
I was wondering if they added an intuitive way to accomplish the recommendation in your second sentence. :P
-
Nothing is intuitive. RTFM. :P
-
Nothing is intuitive. RTFM. :P
It should be...
-
Good job to Pat on a great distro.
-
Nothing is intuitive. RTFM. :P
It should be...
Not when it's considered 'testing' (ie, beta)
-
I was wondering if they added an intuitive way to accomplish the recommendation in your second sentence. :P
I thought they did, when it asks you to install a kernel and normally you just pick the one the boot disk used. :/
-
That's for creating a bootdisk (vmlinuz or whatever), not installing the kernel :P
-
Wrong.
4.6 The CONFIGURE option:
The setup's CONFIGURE option does the basic configuration your system
needs, such as creating links for your mouse and modem, setting your
timezone, and more.
The CONFIGURE option will first ensure that you've installed a usable
Linux kernel on your hard drive. The installation program should suggest
installing the same kernel from the CD-ROM that you used for the
installation process, and you should go ahead and do this. There is a
generic kernel (kernel-ide) that comes with the A series that is actually
the same as the bare.i kernel, but the best kernel to install to your hard
drive is the one that you used to do the installation. If you used a
bootdisk rather than booting the CD-ROM, you should install the kernel
from your bootdisk by selecting the "bootdisk" option on the kernel
installation menu. The menu will prompt you to reinsert your installation
bootdisk and hit enter, and then setup will copy the kernel from the
bootdisk to your hard drive.
If you don't want to use the recommended kernel, you can pick any kernel
from the menu of kernels available on the CD-ROM, but if you install the
wrong kernel the machine likely won't boot -- it's really a much better
plan to install the same kernel you installed the system with. Since you
used it to successfully install Slackware, you know it will work on the
installed system as well.
NOTE: If you install a kernel on your system that doesn't boot correctly,
you can still boot your system with the CD-ROM. To do this, you need to
enter some information on the boot prompt. For example, if your root
partition is on /dev/hda1, you'd enter this to boot your system:
bare.i root=/dev/hda1 noinitrd ro
The "noinitrd" option tells the kernel not to load the installer image
into RAM, and the "ro" option makes the root partition initially load as
read-only so Linux can safely check the filesystem.
You can also start the system with an installation bootdisk, but the
syntax is slightly different:
mount root=/dev/hda1 ro
Once you've installed a kernel, you'll be asked if you want to make a
bootdisk for your new system. This is a very good idea, so insert a
formatted floppy disk and use the "Create" option to create a bootdisk for
your system.
-
Oi? Someone lied to me.
-
Not when it's considered 'testing' (ie, beta)
Installing a kernel that is considered somewhat standard in the Linux community should be installed in an obscurely difficult fashion? :P
Cool, Newby. That's sitll more difficult than it could be, though! I'll give it a try sometime...
-
Can you boot the disk with the 2.6 kernel? If so, do it. :P
-
Not when it's considered 'testing' (ie, beta)
Installing a kernel that is considered somewhat standard in the Linux community should be installed in an obscurely difficult fashion? :P
Cool, Newby. That's sitll more difficult than it could be, though! I'll give it a try sometime...
Well, I don't think a beta/testing version should be easy to install, if you want it you should know what you're doing. So shuttup :P
-
Well, I don't think a beta/testing version should be easy to install, if you want it you should know what you're doing. So shuttup :P
It may be considered beta testing, but have you ever had any problems that you were able to directly attribute to the 2.6 kernel? I've ran into so many issues that had solutions only implementable with the 2.6 kernel that I don't think it's very sensible to make it difficult to install it.
-
Yhey, am downloading.
-
Well, I don't think a beta/testing version should be easy to install, if you want it you should know what you're doing. So shuttup :P
It may be considered beta testing, but have you ever had any problems that you were able to directly attribute to the 2.6 kernel? I've ran into so many issues that had solutions only implementable with the 2.6 kernel that I don't think it's very sensible to make it difficult to install it.
It's not difficult, you install it the same way you install anything: find the package, and run "installpkg" on it. It's just not easy.
-
It's not difficult, you install it the same way you install anything: find the package, and run "installpkg" on it. It's just not easy.
It's not easy, but it's not difficult, huh? :P
If it's that easy, why don't they just make it an option during the install sequence?!
Also, I was unable to get the installpkg to work with the 2.6 kernel when you recommended it. I had to use a custom kernel.
-
It's not easy, but it's not difficult, huh? :P
Yes, it's like doing an average Su-Do-Ku, to take a completely random example. They aren't easy, nor are they hard.
If it's that easy, why don't they just make it an option during the install sequence?!
You install it the same way you install other weird packages. It's completely normal for the distro.
Also, I was unable to get the installpkg to work with the 2.6 kernel when you recommended it. I had to use a custom kernel.
Then it probably wouldn't have worked if you'd installed it during the normall installation, either. All the installer does is run "installpkg" on everything you tell it to.
-
Yes, it's like doing an average Su-Do-Ku, to take a completely random example. They aren't easy, nor are they hard.
I'm talking about the install sequence. I see no reason for it to not be an option.
You install it the same way you install other weird packages. It's completely normal for the distro.
It's a kernel, though! It should be implemented into the install sequence.
Then it probably wouldn't have worked if you'd installed it during the normall installation, either. All the installer does is run "installpkg" on everything you tell it to.
Then they should fix it. :P
-
I'm talking about the install sequence. I see no reason for it to not be an option.
Because it's considered beta/'testing', which means it won't always work.
It's a kernel, though! It should be implemented into the install sequence.
Because it's considered beta/'testing', which means it won't always work.
Then they should fix it. :P
Why do you think it's beta? :P
-
I'm talking about the install sequence. I see no reason for it to not be an option.
Because it's considered beta/'testing', which means it won't always work.
It's a kernel, though! It should be implemented into the install sequence.
Because it's considered beta/'testing', which means it won't always work.
Then they should fix it. :P
Why do you think it's beta? :P
It worked fine when I compiled my own kernel. :P
-
But when you compiled it, it's configured differently than the way Slackware configured it. That's probably why.
But yeah, you're suggesting that they make this beta version, which didn't work on your laptop, should be easier to install? Make it easier for people to potentially render their installation unusable? Phoey! :P
-
But when you compiled it, it's configured differently than the way Slackware configured it. That's probably why.
Obviously!
Anyway, why does kernel.org say: "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.18"? It must be a damn stable beta! :)
But yeah, you're suggesting that they make this beta version, which didn't work on your laptop, should be easier to install? Make it easier for people to potentially render their installation unusable? Phoey! :P
Huh? It works fine on my laptop. Did you mean the install package or the kernel? I couldn't get the package to work on my machine either. :(
-
In the linux world, there's unstable, stable, and release. A finished version is always marked "release", and a working beta is "stable".
-
In the linux world, there's unstable, stable, and release. A finished version is always marked "release", and a working beta is "stable".
What about Alpha? Production? Testing?
Every project (open-source and not) uses its own set of conventions.
-
In the linux world, there's unstable, stable, and release. A finished version is always marked "release", and a working beta is "stable".
There isn't a "release" version listed on kernel.org.
-
www.slackware.com.
I'm getting my three install disks as we speak. :)
:)..........:):):):)....:):):):)....:):):):):)
:)..........:).............:)...................:).....
:)..........:):):):)....:):):):)..........:).....
:)..........:).............:)...................:).....
:):):)....:):):):)....:):):):)..........:).....