Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Linux *is* hard to install

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Cameron Newham

unread,
Jan 14, 1995, 3:04:10 AM1/14/95
to

I'm no stranger to installing Linux - I've installed SLS (0.99 pl15)
and Slackware (an early version from May last year). I've done this
multiple times.

I'm trying to install the slackware distribution off the
InfoMagic CDROM today. It's too complex!

Sure, there is a nice interface to setup, but I'm glad I'm no
newbie. Here's why:

a) Creating root/boot disk. A *windows* installation (unless I use
rawrite.exe directly). Someone installing Linux is more likely to
have a small DOS partition than Windows. That's ridiculous.

b) Setup got a segmentation fault first time around. I hadn't switched
on swapping (I have 8Mb ram) - the possible cause. Second time around
it worked. Ok, my fault, but still.... 8Mb should be enough for
installation.

c) The setup utility would be better if you had the same scheme as for
the disk sets (select/deselect using space bar) for everything.
Also the descriptions leave a lot to be desired. No improvement
over what existed a year ago.

d) I wasn't impressed with any of the pre-compiled kernels. Plenty
of problems being reported on boot-up. Didn't have these with
stock versions I have compiled myself.

e) X11R6 didn't work (and still doesn't). Won't recognise my modes - it
"deletes" them. All I have to say to this is "load of crap". Give
me back the X11R5 server - it worked! (equipment: run-of-mill monitor
and stock standard Trident 8900c). Looks like I'm going to have
to read the entire X11R6 docs just to get it to work. Heh - R5
worked first time. And I'm more than suspicious about ConfigXF86 -
but that's another story.

So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than
Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
(unfortunately :( ).

- cameron "very unhappy with his new system".

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Newham | Everything counts
c...@iinet.com.au | in large amounts.
c...@adied.oz.au | -- "Everything Counts" Depeche Mode

Darin Johnson

unread,
Jan 15, 1995, 8:24:06 PM1/15/95
to
> a) Creating root/boot disk. A *windows* installation (unless I use
> rawrite.exe directly). Someone installing Linux is more likely to
> have a small DOS partition than Windows. That's ridiculous.

Hmm, I've never seen a windows setup. But I don't have the CD
yet. Rawrite.exe was ok, but then I can follow directions. I've
slowly and painfully learned that many people can't.

Here's an idea - why bother with these boot disks? Why not use
loadlin and use that to boot? Then if you don't want the root disk,
you can have a mini filesystem under umsdos... But that makes
resizing partitions hard. If the minisystem were on the CD, things
would be easy. (except loadlin doesn't always work that great if you
have wierd dos memory stuff) But a simple .BAT file that automatically
created a boot disk would be straight forward.

Someone could write this and present it to InfoMagic. (I'm no DOS
wiz and don't have space to practice new installations)

> d) I wasn't impressed with any of the pre-compiled kernels. Plenty
> of problems being reported on boot-up. Didn't have these with
> stock versions I have compiled myself.

Probably because the precompiled ones have to support a lot of stuff
you didn't put in your custom kernel. Therefore, more device
checking.

> e) X11R6 didn't work (and still doesn't). Won't recognise my modes - it
> "deletes" them. All I have to say to this is "load of crap". Give
> me back the X11R5 server - it worked!

Well, X11R6 worked better for me, because it actually supported
what I have. Still, X11 in general is a bitch to set up - but this
is because the PC architecture is such a bitch! Even Windows setup
is a pain in the butt - my roommate tried to switch to a lower
resolution awhile back and Windows asked for the installation disks,
which he couldn't find, and it took ages to get things back to normal.

> So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than
> Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
> seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
> (unfortunately :( ).

But a CD distribution designed to make things easy to install would
be much simpler. You can tell which these are because they cost
so much more than the ones that didn't do any of their own customization.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
- I'm not a well adjusted person, but I play one on the net.

jpsb

unread,
Jan 16, 1995, 1:57:10 AM1/16/95
to

>RTF documentation!

>: So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than


>: Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
>: seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
>: (unfortunately :( ).

>: - cameron "very unhappy with his new system".

>Sheesh, another one of those "want to be linuxers" who can WRITE
>but not READ.

Hey who the hell reads the documentation? I'm VERY happy with my new linux,
i'm an old timer with Unix but a newbbe linuxer. It took me three days
to get linux running well and i only sneaked one little peek at the
howto bus mouse. Now i got solaris running well in two hrs. at&t svr4
took a week. my biggest problem was with lilo, i'd build a kernal ok,
but had a hell of a time installing it. thank god for the floppy boot!
Linux install could be alot easier. solaris has a great install program
it works great once you buy all the hardware it expects your system to
have!

jim shirreffs

ps what is with the backspace in an xterm?
what every happened to yank and put in vi?

Christopher B. Browne

unread,
Jan 16, 1995, 11:42:33 PM1/16/95
to
In article <3fe8ku$a...@2hoog.vpro.nl>,
Peter Busser <pe...@2hoog.vpro.nl> wrote:
>c...@iinet.com.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>
>>My original "gripe" still stands - Linux is not as easy to install
>>as windoze. It has a long way to go.
>
>Compared to Windoze, Linux is very easy to install.
...
>Then get *all* the networking stuff for Windoze and try to install that. What
>do you get? A complex system which is difficult to administer. Same as a fully
>loaded UNIX box. Except that you can share the UNIX box with several people
>and that it doesn't crash as much as Windoze.

Hear, hear!

I spend this afternoon trying to get WFW up and running under pure TCP/IP.
Sheer pain; popping in updated network drivers hither thither, as well as
patching TCP/IP so that it actually *worked.* At this point, it randomly
refuses to allow me to log in about 2 times out of 3, so it's certainly not
quite right. And I'm TCP/IP literate. Throw this at "Joe User," and he'll
have nightmares.

Last Thursday, I had installed Linux under UMSDOS on the very same machine.
Getting network services up and running literally took less than a minute.
And most of that was in realizing that I had misconfigured an entry in the
/etc/hosts file, and going back to fix it.

I had far more obscure things to fill in with WFW.

>The moral is that you can't compare a fully loaded system with a bare bones
>system.

Or one that works to one which requires regular rebooting to stay
functional.
--
Christopher Browne
"Microsoft isn't the answer... it is the QUESTION. ``No'' is the answer."

Joerg Mertin

unread,
Jan 17, 1995, 4:33:14 AM1/17/95
to

In article <D2GvH...@rniil.swb.de>, gir...@rniil.swb.de (Norbert J. Girardi) writes:
>Cameron Newham (c...@iinet.com.au) wrote:
>
>: I'm no stranger to installing Linux - I've installed SLS (0.99 pl15)

>: and Slackware (an early version from May last year). I've done this
>: multiple times.
>
>: I'm trying to install the slackware distribution off the
>: InfoMagic CDROM today. It's too complex!
>
>: Sure, there is a nice interface to setup, but I'm glad I'm no
>: newbie. Here's why:
>
>RTF documentation!
Right. I just can't stand people telling it doesn't work, when they don't even take a look at the Great manuals authors write for the Programms they write.

>: a) Creating root/boot disk. A *windows* installation (unless I use


>: rawrite.exe directly). Someone installing Linux is more likely to
>: have a small DOS partition than Windows. That's ridiculous.
>

>RTF documentation!
s.o.

>: b) Setup got a segmentation fault first time around. I hadn't switched


>: on swapping (I have 8Mb ram) - the possible cause. Second time around
>: it worked. Ok, my fault, but still.... 8Mb should be enough for
>: installation.
>

>RTF documentation!
s.o.

>: c) The setup utility would be better if you had the same scheme as for


>: the disk sets (select/deselect using space bar) for everything.
>: Also the descriptions leave a lot to be desired. No improvement
>: over what existed a year ago.
>

>Why improve it? It was OK last year and is still good.
Yep !

>: d) I wasn't impressed with any of the pre-compiled kernels. Plenty


>: of problems being reported on boot-up. Didn't have these with
>: stock versions I have compiled myself.
>

>What did you expect? A custom taylored kernel for your hardware?
Well, OS/2 or Winshit just don't show you the errors, and don't think there are none. Almost twice in a working day you have to push the reset button under Winshit cause the system hangs. And all this unusable shit they carry in their Windows kernel... Undocumented... Not working right... If you want to go back to it, just do it. I won't hold you back...

>: e) X11R6 didn't work (and still doesn't). Won't recognise my modes - it


>: "deletes" them. All I have to say to this is "load of crap". Give

>: me back the X11R5 server - it worked! (equipment: run-of-mill monitor


>: and stock standard Trident 8900c). Looks like I'm going to have
>: to read the entire X11R6 docs just to get it to work. Heh - R5
>: worked first time. And I'm more than suspicious about ConfigXF86 -
>: but that's another story.

Be happy. Under Linux you can take out of your Hardware what it gives you. Under Winshit you can only take out of your hardware what Micros. lets you take. If this would'nt happen, you would've destroyed your Monitor by now...

>
>RTF documentation!
>
>: So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than
>: Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
>: seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
>: (unfortunately :( ).

Nope, but some People just always have problems because they don't read absolutely nothing. The biggest Problem we have at University is, there are no manuals about the Micros. Programs. They just tell you, take the Online Help Beuark... But there's nothing that tells you how to take care of an internal error...

>: - cameron "very unhappy with his new system".

Switch back to Microshit !


>Sheesh, another one of those "want to be linuxers" who can WRITE
>but not READ.

That's right. Might be a MicroS. ilnness...

cu
--
Solong & Happy Hacking
________________________________________________________________________
| Joerg Mertin : smu...@stardust.bln.sub.org (Home) |
| in Berlin Spandau at : jorg...@w203zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de |
| Stardust's Linux System : Data, Fax & Voice 49 30 3627345 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] System -> Repartitioning Disk for LinuX...'


Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 17, 1995, 2:19:21 PM1/17/95
to
In article <3f80hq$n...@classic.iinet.com.au> c...@iinet.com.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>I'm trying to install the slackware distribution off the
>InfoMagic CDROM today. It's too complex!

Did it all thursday night.

>a) Creating root/boot disk. A *windows* installation (unless I use
> rawrite.exe directly). Someone installing Linux is more likely to
> have a small DOS partition than Windows. That's ridiculous.

My Adaptec 1542C came with DOS device drivers. I ran the program to install
them, it told me it needed Windows. I loaded Windows, it bombed out when I
ran the program. I gave up.

>b) Setup got a segmentation fault first time around. I hadn't switched
> on swapping (I have 8Mb ram) - the possible cause. Second time around
> it worked. Ok, my fault, but still.... 8Mb should be enough for
> installation.

8M is enuff, even without swap. Wonder what the problem on that one was.

>c) The setup utility would be better if you had the same scheme as for
> the disk sets (select/deselect using space bar) for everything.
> Also the descriptions leave a lot to be desired. No improvement
> over what existed a year ago.

I won't argue there. Some of the descriptions are written in such a manner
that someone familiar with the package would recognize them, but others
wouldn't. Also, I tend to wonder about some of the stuff that it installs as
[required].

>d) I wasn't impressed with any of the pre-compiled kernels. Plenty
> of problems being reported on boot-up. Didn't have these with
> stock versions I have compiled myself.

That is probably because they are compiled with as many options as possible.
I choose the SCSI kernel w/ CD-rom (and a side of fries.) During bootup, it
gave me an error because it could not find the BusLogic SCSI card...mainly
because I don't have one. It did find my adaptec though.

The only real solution would be to have a list of kernels like:
1) Adaptec 1542 w/ Mitsumi CD-Rom, No Networking
2) Adaptec 1542 w/ SCSI CD-Rom, No Networking
3) Adaptec 1542 w/ SBlaster CD-Rom, No Networking
4) Adaptec 1542 w/ Mitsumi CD-Rom, Networking
5) Adaptec 1542 w/ SCSI CD-Rom, Networking
6) Adaptec 1542 w/ SBlaster CD-Rom, Networking
Personally I don't feel like a 4CD distribution just to have a CD of every
possible kernel config.

>e) X11R6 didn't work (and still doesn't). Won't recognise my modes - it
> "deletes" them. All I have to say to this is "load of crap". Give
> me back the X11R5 server - it worked! (equipment: run-of-mill monitor
> and stock standard Trident 8900c). Looks like I'm going to have
> to read the entire X11R6 docs just to get it to work. Heh - R5
> worked first time. And I'm more than suspicious about ConfigXF86 -
> but that's another story.

Did you bother to READ the docs? I had the same problem. I had manually put
my monitor frequencies in the XConfig, after running ConfigXF86. It kept
telling me that it couldn't find the frequency needed so it dropped the mode.
I read the docs, and it told me how to specify the frequency. I put it in
correctly (46.5-49.5,28.5-31.5) or whatever, and it worked.
Sounds like you have something setup wrong in the XConfig.

-Dan

--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion

Bernd Bernie Meyer

unread,
Jan 18, 1995, 5:04:24 PM1/18/95
to
mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:

> Look, this is not a productive way to advance the cause of Linux.
>If we want to have commercial apps, like other PC operating systems and
>other versions of UNIX, we need to have a large user base. The way to
>get more users is not by telling them to "RTF documentation" over and over.
>Do real tech support lines do that? No, they help you with the problem,
>whether it's in the documentation or not, or at the least tell you which
>documentation they need to read.

I think you would be very surprised if you asked the tech stuff at the "real
tech support lines" what they would tell such customers if they weren't paid
to be polite....

Bernie

Corine Nitsiza

unread,
Jan 18, 1995, 11:14:56 PM1/18/95
to
The addresses for Mr Nicholson and Mr Darlington in this thread seem to be
invalid (host name unknown when emailed).

i.e Stephen.D...@dur.ac.uk
and J.J.Ni...@dur.ac.uk or jo...@acme.demon.co.uk

If either of you reads this, or if someone knows the correct addressing
protocol, please email me as I'm trying to send them a msg.

Thanks...Don Weston

Kazimir Kylheku

unread,
Jan 19, 1995, 10:24:09 PM1/19/95
to
In article <D2MFz...@wombat.hanse.de>,
Bernd "Bernie" Meyer <ro...@wombat.hanse.de> wrote:

>mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:
>
>I think you would be very surprised if you asked the tech stuff at the "real
>tech support lines" what they would tell such customers if they weren't paid
>to be polite....
>
>Bernie

What they *would* tell? Are you saying that you don't know anyone
who's been told to fuck off by a Microsoft support dipstick?


Joern Rennecke

unread,
Jan 19, 1995, 10:26:30 PM1/19/95
to
jp...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (jpsb) writes:

>ps what is with the backspace in an xterm?

Hmm, works here. X11R6.

>what every happened to yank and put in vi?

Hmm, the y[ank] and p[ut] commands work fine more me to. If you mean
cut & paste not working:

Get an older version of elvis (e.g. from slackware 1.04 disks). This bug
is unlikely to be ever fixed since it is supposed to be a feature:
you can use any of the three mouse buttons to position the cursor.

meolyon:~# ls -l /usr/bin/elvis* /usr/bin/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 103428 Oct 17 1993 /usr/bin/elvis*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 107524 Jun 8 1994 /usr/bin/elvis.broken*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 Dec 12 00:36 /usr/bin/vi -> elvis*

Joern Rennecke

Donal K. Fellows

unread,
Jan 20, 1995, 4:34:21 AM1/20/95
to
In article <3fk2i7$j...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Doug Dejulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <merlin.47...@halcyon.com>,
>Tim Rick <mer...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>That's its biggest weakness, IMO. I would like to suggest that my not so
>>computer literate friends use Linux, but I know that they would never get it
>>installed. I haven't even to X to work yet, ConfigXF86 is a piece of junk.
>>Can someone _please_ write something better? I would if I could.
>
>Something that might be useful for the Slackware distribution would be
>a "don't ask me any questions, just do some sensible default thing".
>
>I think a lot of people would be a *lot* happier with Slackware if
>X11R6 worked with the default VGA (16 color, 640x480 resolution) X
>server OUT OF THE BOX, letting you tweak it to optimise for your
>monitor and card after you've got it running. Does anyone agree?
>

Well, I'd agree except that 640x480x16 colours is just so disgusting a
mode that I wouldn't wish it on anyone! Perhaps the installation
program should ask what sort of video card you have and try to figure
out a correct and fairly sensible mode from that? (i.e. if the card
can support 256 colours, then why go for 16, which just produces video
response which would put LoseSleep to shame!)

IMHO anyway! :)

Hmm.

Just wondering whether video mode information can easily be extracted
from VESA BIOS ROMs, and whether something could be cobbled together
to grab all this stuff (including the chipset) so that a sensible
default mode could be set up? I'm afraid I don't know enough to do
this, but it _should_ be possible (provided the ROMs are sufficiently
standard). Even if the ROMs aren't particularly standard, you could
try running the code in them in emulation, since there is no
particular need for speed...

Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows, A.K.A. ``I'll get a life when I can find the FTP site...''
--
Dept. of Computer Science, | 6, Randall Place, Heaton,
University of Manchester | Bradford, BD9 4AE
U.K. Tel: ++44-161-275-6137 | U.K. Tel: ++44-1274-401017
fell...@cs.man.ac.uk (preferred) | do...@ugglan.demon.co.uk (if you must)
--
Please do not quote this .signature, it isn't worth it! :)

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 21, 1995, 1:59:06 AM1/21/95
to
In article <3fo02t$5...@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fell...@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

>>I think a lot of people would be a *lot* happier with Slackware if
>>X11R6 worked with the default VGA (16 color, 640x480 resolution) X
>>server OUT OF THE BOX, letting you tweak it to optimise for your
>>monitor and card after you've got it running. Does anyone agree?
>>

>Well, I'd agree except that 640x480x16 colours is just so disgusting a
>mode that I wouldn't wish it on anyone! Perhaps the installation
>program should ask what sort of video card you have and try to figure
>out a correct and fairly sensible mode from that? (i.e. if the card
>can support 256 colours, then why go for 16, which just produces video
>response which would put LoseSleep to shame!)

Lately, I've been going around our campus installing Mosaic for Windows on
machines. You have these people that have 16M on a Pentium, with a great
video card, and all they ever run the thing in is 640x480x16. If X came that
way, I wonder for how many people it would stay that way.

-Dan

(Then again, it seems to most, Windows is just a neat way to run two dos apps.)

Byron A Jeff

unread,
Jan 21, 1995, 1:03:28 PM1/21/95
to
In article <3fk2i7$j...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Doug Dejulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote:
-In article <merlin.47...@halcyon.com>,
-Tim Rick <mer...@halcyon.com> wrote:
->>>My original "gripe" still stands - Linux is not as easy to install
->>>as windoze. It has a long way to go.
->
->That's its biggest weakness, IMO. I would like to suggest that my not so
->computer literate friends use Linux, but I know that they would never get it
->installed. I haven't even to X to work yet, ConfigXF86 is a piece of junk.
->Can someone _please_ write something better? I would if I could.
-
-Something that might be useful for the Slackware distribution would be
-a "don't ask me any questions, just do some sensible default thing".
-
-I think a lot of people would be a *lot* happier with Slackware if
-X11R6 worked with the default VGA (16 color, 640x480 resolution) X
-server OUT OF THE BOX, letting you tweak it to optimise for your
-monitor and card after you've got it running. Does anyone agree?

Agreed. There's one of other thing that could be helpful.

While UMSDOS is quite useful, most folks will still want to create a
separate Linux partition. In Slackware this is done external to the
setup and is a pain to do. You have to boot DOS, defrag the DOS disk
(because it's almost impossible to come across a PC without DOS/Win
already installed on it), run FIPS to partition, then set up the
Linux root and swap. A pain in the butt to be honest. This set of tasks
need to be a part of the installation process. We need a Linux based
application that can defrag and partition DOS partitions.

It usually takes me about 20-25 minutes to get a machine to the point
where Linux can be installed.

This would be helpful.

BTW I understand that the application xf86config-XFree86-3.1 in the
/usr/X11R6/lib/ConfigXF86 is superior in setting up X config files.

BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu

Pixelated!

unread,
Jan 22, 1995, 4:20:53 AM1/22/95
to
In article <3fri9g$k...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>,

Byron A Jeff <by...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>BTW I understand that the application xf86config-XFree86-3.1 in the
>/usr/X11R6/lib/ConfigXF86 is superior in setting up X config files.

HAH. You don't understand how much better it is. :) I actually managed
to generate a XF86Config without rolling my own modes. Unlike ConfigXF86,
the other program isn't broken.
--
Richard Cooley Extraordinaire "Yeah. Arrgh."
pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu These are my opinions, not MIT's.
rcoo...@dgl.ssc.mass.edu Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux

Mark Schumann

unread,
Jan 22, 1995, 2:26:16 PM1/22/95
to
In article <3fggdj$6...@gw.laitram.com>, Mark Sutton <mar...@laitram.com> wrote:
>The original poster (Cameron Newham) appears to be comparing the ease of
>installing Linux to Dos or Windows. When you compare "apples to apples"
>as it were, and compare a Slackware Linux installation to that of other
>UNIXes, Linux fares very well. I have installed several commercial UNIX
>systems on 386/486/586 platforms and Linux is the easiest I have ever dealt
>with. Linux also supports the widest variety of hardware IMHO.

I found that AIX 3.2 on the IBM RS/6000 was *really* easy to install.
About as easy as DOS 5.0 on a PC. No joke. I was amazed too.

Just one more data point. We now return to your original flamegroup.

--
Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
cat...@underflap.com or cat...@wariat.org
"Aren't you glad you didn't marry someone dumber than you?" --my wife

sbw...@ibm.net

unread,
Jan 23, 1995, 7:13:48 AM1/23/95
to
In <3ft81l$r...@life.ai.mit.edu>, pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Pixelated!) writes:
>In article <3fri9g$k...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>,
>Byron A Jeff <by...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>BTW I understand that the application xf86config-XFree86-3.1 in the
>>/usr/X11R6/lib/ConfigXF86 is superior in setting up X config files.
>
>HAH. You don't understand how much better it is. :) I actually managed
>to generate a XF86Config without rolling my own modes. Unlike ConfigXF86,
>the other program isn't broken.

I had no trouble gettig the X UI to start when installing the Slackware
1.1.18 version of Linux.

But the December '94 version (1.1.54 - since upgraded to 1.1.75)
with X11R6 would not work without manually editing the Xconfig file
and changing the video freqency parameters......

There was only one brief message that I eventually came to understand
the significance of.

I like Linux. But I would prefer an installation that let me chose all the
packages and sub-packages at the start - then just do it. The constant,
yes/no, yes/no, yes/no....on and on and bloody on in the current install
grates after a while.

Just a suggestion......

Steve

//--------------------------------------------
// Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand
// ste...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz / swit...@vnet.ibm.com
// AND *NOW* -> sbw...@ibm.net
// "If you want X-windows.....then run PMX!"

Pixelated!

unread,
Jan 23, 1995, 1:41:20 PM1/23/95
to
In article <3g06hs$q...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, <sbw...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I like Linux. But I would prefer an installation that let me chose all the
>packages and sub-packages at the start - then just do it. The constant,
>yes/no, yes/no, yes/no....on and on and bloody on in the current install
>grates after a while.

I agree with this. If someone wants to stake me enough disk space, I'd be
only too glad to develop a new distribution. All in all, though, I like
Slackware. It works pretty well.

Kevin Cowtan

unread,
Jan 23, 1995, 2:10:10 PM1/23/95
to
In article <3fggdj$6...@gw.laitram.com>, Mark Sutton <mar...@laitram.com> wrote:
> Linux also supports the widest variety of hardware IMHO.

Linux does not support my brand new 8Mb 486 machine bought specially
for the purpose. I am now looking at a motherboard replacement to get
the stupid thing working. WindozeFWG works. MS Works works. Dos
works. I can even play Xwing.

Unless someone wants to try compiling a more up-to-date kernel than
1.1.59 and making a 'idekern' type package and bootdisk for me?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kevin D. Cowtan email: cow...@yorvic.york.ac.uk
+44 (0)904 432565 WWW: http://www.yorvic.york.ac.uk/

)-: LINUX DIDN'T WORK FOR ME :-(

Hallvard Paulsen

unread,
Jan 24, 1995, 12:24:23 PM1/24/95
to
In article <COWTAN.95J...@www.yorvic.york.ac.uk>, cow...@www.yorvic.york.ac.uk (Kevin Cowtan) writes:
|> Linux does not support my brand new 8Mb 486 machine bought specially
|> for the purpose. I am now looking at a motherboard replacement to get
|> the stupid thing working. WindozeFWG works. MS Works works. Dos
|> works. I can even play Xwing.
|>
|> Unless someone wants to try compiling a more up-to-date kernel than
|> 1.1.59 and making a 'idekern' type package and bootdisk for me?

I find this very hard to understand. I have used linux on computers
that would not run windows and games because of hardware problems. And
just now I am running linux on a standard clone pentium -90 CPU. It
installed without any problems at all.

I suspect somthing went wrong for you somewhere along the way. Spesify
what the problem was, and I am sure someone will help you get
linux running on your hardware.


|> --
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Dr. Kevin D. Cowtan email: cow...@yorvic.york.ac.uk
|> +44 (0)904 432565 WWW: http://www.yorvic.york.ac.uk/
|>
|> )-: LINUX DIDN'T WORK FOR ME :-(

Hallvard P.

Pixelated!

unread,
Jan 24, 1995, 4:02:34 PM1/24/95
to
In article <newcombe.12...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu>,
Dan Newcombe <newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>It sounds like everyone seems to like slackware, just not the fact that you
>have to babysit the install (though the Quickinstall option on the December
>InfoMagic CD's is nice. It allows you to select what packages you want
>before
>hand at the diskset level (ie...make all your choices for the x disks, and
>let
>it run).).

Well...Nuts. Where was this Quickinstall? I didn't notice. My system is'nt
configured the way I want it yet, 'cos I got bored during the Slackware
install and never got around to finishing. :) My offer still stands to
right a new distribution. InfoMagic, wanna give me some disk? I'llplug
your product even more. :)

Seriously, I think Pat Volkerding deserves a big round of applause.

Raymond A. Bailey

unread,
Jan 18, 1995, 4:15:26 PM1/18/95
to
In article <3f80hq$n...@classic.iinet.com.au>, c...@iinet.com.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>
> I'm no stranger to installing Linux - I've installed SLS (0.99 pl15)
> and Slackware (an early version from May last year). I've done this
> multiple times.
>
> I'm trying to install the slackware distribution off the
> InfoMagic CDROM today. It's too complex!
>
> Sure, there is a nice interface to setup, but I'm glad I'm no
> newbie. Here's why:
>
> a) Creating root/boot disk. A *windows* installation (unless I use
> rawrite.exe directly). Someone installing Linux is more likely to
> have a small DOS partition than Windows. That's ridiculous.
>
I think this was probably aimed at users interested in taking advantage of
UMSDOS. Based on the percentage of DOS PC's running Windows, its seems only
logical to have the UMSDOS installation run from Windows.

> b) Setup got a segmentation fault first time around. I hadn't switched
> on swapping (I have 8Mb ram) - the possible cause. Second time around
> it worked. Ok, my fault, but still.... 8Mb should be enough for
> installation.

Yes, your fault there. I do think there ought to be a warning about going
ahead with an install with no swap turned on.


>
> c) The setup utility would be better if you had the same scheme as for
> the disk sets (select/deselect using space bar) for everything.
> Also the descriptions leave a lot to be desired. No improvement
> over what existed a year ago.

What part of the setup utility are you talking about? I think you mean
selecting the packages on the disksets you've chosen. You could have chosed
"Quick" mode instead of "Verbose" mode, which would do exactly this.
Unfortunately, when you're getting something free anyway, you cant expect a
handy little guide that explains the options you're presented with.

(How about this Pat? Maybe a small postscript document that will walk you
through the installation process?)


>
> d) I wasn't impressed with any of the pre-compiled kernels. Plenty
> of problems being reported on boot-up. Didn't have these with
> stock versions I have compiled myself.

This has been a serious problem with plug and play distributions previously.
The concept of (un)loadable modules is one thats going to insure the success of
Linux as a Desktop OS. The majority of drivers in the Alpha kernels are
loadable. Expect to see this replace the kernel recompile after an installation
with a base kernel.


>
> e) X11R6 didn't work (and still doesn't). Won't recognise my modes - it
> "deletes" them. All I have to say to this is "load of crap". Give
> me back the X11R5 server - it worked! (equipment: run-of-mill monitor

> and stock standard Trident 89 00c). Looks like I'm going to have


> to read the entire X11R6 docs just to get it to work. Heh - R5
> worked first time. And I'm more than suspicious about ConfigXF86 -
> but that's another story.

XFree86-3.1 "deleted" modes that you gave it, because the ModeLine you
specified didnt match any of the available dot clocks your card offered. I used
to be able to fudge the settings a little bit. Not so now, things are designed
with the safety of ones monitor in mind. Its all as it was before. Run an X
-probeonly to get your clocks, and match them to a popular Modeline that your
monitor supports. 9 out of 10 times all the modelines you need will be VESA
ones, available in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc/modeDB.txt


>
> So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than
> Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
> seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
> (unfortunately :( ).

The problem is, people have become complacent with mindless software
installation. For god's sake, one of the top 10 software sellers a week or two
ago was a program that removed windows applications that you installed. I think
thats rather sad. Calling Slackware a load of crap because you didnt read the
XFree86-3.1 documentation is unjustified. Pat V. didn't design XFree, and if
you knew the amount of labor you were saved by not having actually build and
set up XFree from scratch, you'd think highly of the man.

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 12:46:15 PM1/25/95
to
In article <3g3pta$6...@life.ai.mit.edu> pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Pixelated!) writes:
>In article <newcombe.12...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu>,
>Dan Newcombe <newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>>It sounds like everyone seems to like slackware, just not the fact that you
>>have to babysit the install (though the Quickinstall option on the December
>>InfoMagic CD's is nice. It allows you to select what packages you want
>>before
>>hand at the diskset level (ie...make all your choices for the x disks, and
>>let
>>it run).).
>Well...Nuts. Where was this Quickinstall? I didn't notice. My system is'nt
>configured the way I want it yet, 'cos I got bored during the Slackware
>install and never got around to finishing. :) My offer still stands to
>right a new distribution. InfoMagic, wanna give me some disk? I'llplug
>your product even more. :)

Okay...maybe it's not quick install, but it's something close. I think it's
about the 4th menu item down. Normally it's set to VERBOSE or something like
that, where it asks for each package. If you set it to quick, it gives you a
halfaline description of all the packages in the given disk set, and lets you
choose what you want and don't want. It then goes and installs all those
programs. A REAL time save on the X disks!

>Seriously, I think Pat Volkerding deserves a big round of applause.

Very much so, along with Peter McDonald, Manchester Computing Center, etc...
Everyone who has taken time to put these distributions together over the past
few years has done a lot to help Linux succeed. If you stil had to install
GCC, X, libraries, etc... all by ftping the files and reading the README's,
there wouldn't be as big of a base.

Hats off,
-Dan

Joe Sloan

unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 7:36:09 PM1/25/95
to
In article <COWTAN.95J...@www.yorvic.york.ac.uk>,

Kevin Cowtan <cow...@www.yorvic.york.ac.uk> wrote:
>Linux does not support my brand new 8Mb 486 machine bought specially
>for the purpose. I am now looking at a motherboard replacement to get
>the stupid thing working. WindozeFWG works. MS Works works. Dos
>works. I can even play Xwing.

Congratulations!
You had to look fairly hard to find a system that won't run linux
(I've never seen one yet)

what exactly did you buy? I'm quite curious, and want to make a mental
note of it...

jjs

--
j...@wintermute.ucr.edu / You can't figure out how to
A linux machine! because a 486 / ACCELERATE your Windoze NT box?
is a terrible thing to waste! / -9.8 m/s^2 works quite well!!!

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 17, 1995, 4:55:32 PM1/17/95
to
In article <3fdqnv$e...@classic.iinet.com.au> c...@iinet.com.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>My original "gripe" still stands - Linux is not as easy to install
>as windoze. It has a long way to go.

And a stick is not as easy to drive as an automatic...but that doesn't make
them bad :)

>man pages? who needs man pages when you've installed stuff 50x before!!! :)
>no - I didn't mess up anything. The software messed it up. When I get some
>spare time I'll write another ConfigXF86 - one that works for the new Xfree.
>In the meantime I suggest people copy the example config file and hand modify
>it.

So, you've installed X11R6 50x's before? Things change with versions. I
found ConfigXF86 to work for me. I edited the file because the config script
told me to at the end. I agree that it could be done a little better, like
asking for the frequency info and stuff, but it's not like the program said
that it was the end all.

>are more likely to have a small DOS partition than one with Windows
>(if they are serious about running Linux :) Now I've explained
>that for the second time, I say I shouldn't *have* to run rawrite
>directly....and, yes, I do know how to run it. How do you think
>I installed SLS? Doh!

This is a good point. Write one :)

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 17, 1995, 4:57:15 PM1/17/95
to
In article <3fe8ku$a...@2hoog.vpro.nl> pe...@2hoog.vpro.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>Then get *all* the networking stuff for Windoze and try to install that. What
>do you get? A complex system which is difficult to administer. Same as a fully
>loaded UNIX box. Except that you can share the UNIX box with several people
>and that it doesn't crash as much as Windoze.

How do you do that (get a complex system...) All I get on my 16M machine w/
28M of swap is Out Of Memory. And that's before I run WordPerfect 6.0 for
Windows :)

Manfred Waßmann

unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 11:18:20 PM1/26/95
to
>Linux does not support my brand new 8Mb 486 machine bought specially
>for the purpose. I am now looking at a motherboard replacement to get
>the stupid thing working. WindozeFWG works. MS Works works. Dos
>works. I can even play Xwing.
>
>Unless someone wants to try compiling a more up-to-date kernel than
>1.1.59 and making a 'idekern' type package and bootdisk for me?

As you obviously have an IDE-disk I can't imagine that your hardware is not supported by linux.
And if it really isn't wait a week or two. ;-)

--
cu manolo
cu: manolo: System not found

Manfred Waßmann

unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 10:55:14 PM1/26/95
to
In article <3fnacp...@bowen.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>,

Kazimir Kylheku <c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>What they *would* tell? Are you saying that you don't know anyone
>who's been told to fuck off by a Microsoft support dipstick?
>
I just tried to get some help from autodesk regarding a severe bug in Autocad R12.
Even my dealer didn't get *any* support from the official lines.
Though the bug seems to be known at autodesk nobody ever said it is.
When I had a problem with linux mostly the answer was on the net already.

Manfred Waßmann

unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 11:35:49 PM1/26/95
to
>Now all we need to do is have a top level select, much like when you go to
>uninstall a package using pkgtool.
>
I wonder why everyone asks for a feature I'm using all the time.
Of course I didn't install directly from CD and I don't know if you can have tagfiles in a different directory than the source, or if you can map a file over the original tagfile on CD.
But apart from that tagfiles work great.

Des Herriott

unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 7:01:15 AM1/30/95
to
bai...@marshall.edu (Raymond A. Bailey) wrote:
> [ ... complaints about ConfigXF86 ... ]
>
> It isn't a piece of junk. In fact, it works quite flawlessly. The nature of
>the configuration process for XFree-86 makes it an inherently hands on one,
>since you are given free reign over very critical timing information. The basic
>reason for using it is to produce a "shell" XF86Config, into which you can plug
>your monitor timings. Of course it's not the cutesy little MS win Window-Setup
>screen, but it does exactly what it was meant to do, and quite nicely.

ConfigXF86 didn't work well for me at all, at least not in obtaining a
1024x768 mode. When it came to the monitor choosing section, I noticed
an entry for a CVP5468 monitor - exactly what I have. Aha, nice and
simple, I thought. Not so. When I ran the X server, the screen was
*badly* corrupted. So I tried just using a generic SVGA monitor.
Better, but the screen was now about an inch too far to the right. So
I sat down, worked it out manually, and got it working in about two
miuntes.

ConfigXF86 is a good idea, but it needs a *lot* of work, especially when
I can come up with a better configuration in less time with pencil & paper.

--
Des Herriott, Systems Programmer, Micro Focus, Newbury, UK.
d...@mfltd.co.uk
http://www.mfltd.co.uk/~dnh

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:27:13 PM1/30/95
to

From the online help. it sounded like tagfiles were something that you
generated after doing one install. They would then be around for your next
install, so it'll be just like the first one.

Great if you have a lab of machines, not if it's just one machine.
Or if you have a CD.

Todd B SanMillan

unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 5:08:19 PM1/30/95
to
Dan Newcombe (newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu) wrote:

: In article <D31rF...@dawn.oche.de> man...@dawn.oche.de (Manfred Waßmann) writes:
: >In article <newcombe.12...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu>,
: >Dan Newcombe <newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
: >>Now all we need to do is have a top level select, much like when you go to
: >>uninstall a package using pkgtool.
: >>
: >I wonder why everyone asks for a feature I'm using all the time.

: From the online help. it sounded like tagfiles were something that you

: generated after doing one install. They would then be around for your next
: install, so it'll be just like the first one.

: Or if you have a CD.
: -Dan

While I admit there is some work to be done to make the tagfiles easier
to use on a first time install, I believe that it is possible to do what
you are asking for from a first time install, even from CD. (Not having
a CD-ROM yet, I can't check this out. Anyone wanna give me one to try
this out at home?:)) You do need some scratch space accessable to the
install program, but the suggestion that you manually clean out old
packages before installing new ones leads me to think that the install
program doesn't clean up, just overwrites old files. So once the partion
is formatted just copy the "tagfile" for each set to a writable
partition, and go at it with an editor, changing the flag to either ADD
or SKP, both of which will run unattended. (Avoid OPT and REC, which
require user input) If you want more info on what a particular package
does, just run Maketag, which gives a short description of each available
package in that diskset. Then when you run setup, it will ask for tagfile
locations, just point to your new ones. If I am wrong here, someone pls
correct me. Don' wanna be given' out poor info.

Thomas Sames

unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 9:21:43 PM1/30/95
to
In article <bau1D2E...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Bogdan Urma) says:
>
>: So, if anyone out there is claiming the latest Slackware is easier than

>: Windows to set up - snoot to you! Yesterday I would have agreed, but
>: seeing the latest offering from the Slackware camp - no way!
>: (unfortunately :( ).
>
>
> Hey have a little patience and try to calm down. Linux or Unix is NOT easier
>to install than Windows, because there are many things to set up, like networking, etc. Slackware is the best linux distribution out there and for many pe
>rawrite.exe directly from DOS? Why do you have to use the Windows installation?
>If you can't use rawrite in DOS, forget about Linux my friend. Also there is
>nothing wrong with XFree86-3.1 (X11R6). You probably don't read the man
>pages and messed up your XF86Config file.
>
>
>: - cameron "very unhappy with his new system".
>
> If you're so unhappy go back to DOS/Windows and stop bitching.
>
>
>Bogdan "very unhappy with DOS/Windows".

Hate to break the news, but installing the XF86Config from SLAKWARE was a
pain to set up. It seems that the Docs say conflicting info. The bottom
line is that XFree86 was upgraded to version 3.1 but the auto config program
only creates a ConfigXF86 file that is not compatiable (old file format).
The reconfig program included with this set is brain dead. It died on line
number 122 ( I forget the reason ). I spent a couple of hours looking at
the MAN docs included ( Thank goodness they did upgrade the docs :-). Also,
this version seems to conflict in other areas ( No diamond support in most
docs but accel docs indicate they do ). Someone needs to clean this up.

Sleepless over Linux ;-)
tsa...@ping.com

Mark van Hoeij

unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 4:51:18 PM2/1/95
to
In <3gikeb$4...@icebox.mfltd.co.uk> d...@mfltd.co.uk (Des Herriott) writes:

>ConfigXF86 is a good idea, but it needs a *lot* of work, especially when
>I can come up with a better configuration in less time with pencil & paper.

Yes, but nobody can write a config program as good as the method you used.
Which is: you've read the docs.

IMO the slackware distribution should recommend people not to copy Xconfigs
but to write them theirselves. This is the only way you can make optimal use
of your hardware. Isn't that the reason you are running Linux in the first
place?

Mark van Hoeij

Mohd H Misnan

unread,
Feb 3, 1995, 4:30:19 PM2/3/95
to
Thomas Sames (tsa...@ping.com) wrote:
: Hate to break the news, but installing the XF86Config from SLAKWARE was a

: pain to set up. It seems that the Docs say conflicting info. The bottom
: line is that XFree86 was upgraded to version 3.1 but the auto config program
: only creates a ConfigXF86 file that is not compatiable (old file format).
: The reconfig program included with this set is brain dead. It died on line
: number 122 ( I forget the reason ). I spent a couple of hours looking at
: the MAN docs included ( Thank goodness they did upgrade the docs :-). Also,
: this version seems to conflict in other areas ( No diamond support in most
: docs but accel docs indicate they do ). Someone needs to clean this up.

Well, there is this neat utility which came with config86 called xf86config-
XFree86-3.1 which will create ConfigXF86 in the new format and you should
run it instead of ConfiXF86. I get my setup up and running in few minutes,
provided that you've the specs of your monitor.. that all what you need.
Anyway, I'm using Diamond card (Speedstar + which uses ET4000) and NEC3FG
monitor.


--
Internet: ha...@mhmsys.pc.my | ha...@uop.cs.uop.edu
"Portability is for people who cannot write new programs"
- Quoted without permission from Linus Benedict Torvalds, Jan 29th, 1992.

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 12:47:42 AM1/31/95
to
In article <3gk6rn$8...@news.ping.com> tsa...@ping.com (Thomas Sames) writes:
>Hate to break the news, but installing the XF86Config from SLAKWARE was a
>pain to set up. It seems that the Docs say conflicting info. The bottom
>line is that XFree86 was upgraded to version 3.1 but the auto config program
>only creates a ConfigXF86 file that is not compatiable (old file format).
>The reconfig program included with this set is brain dead. It died on line
>number 122 ( I forget the reason ). I spent a couple of hours looking at
>the MAN docs included ( Thank goodness they did upgrade the docs :-). Also,
>this version seems to conflict in other areas ( No diamond support in most
>docs but accel docs indicate they do ). Someone needs to clean this up.

I found XFree86 3.1 from the Dec. Infomagic CD's (using Slackware) to be cake.
I installed X, and the XConfig package. I then ran ConfigXF86, answered all
the questions, and at the end edited XF86Config like it told me to. I had to
read the man page to find out exaclty how to enter my monitors frequencies,
but it worked fine once I did that. And I hear that xf86Config.... works even
better.

0 new messages