General Linux Chat and Small Questions - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;25116349]What you think I need and what I actually need are two different things. Everything I need runs on Linux. Those "hundreds of other programs" on Windows are things I don't want or need.[/QUOTE] A newer version of Skype would've been nice though. I can't find ANY good video call programs for GNU/Linux :\

[QUOTE=Ayra;25116826]A newer version of Skype would've been nice though. I can't find ANY good video call programs for GNU/Linux :\[/QUOTE] THIS. For the love of god I want multi-person video calls like I can do on windows.

too bad skype is cancer

Wish I knew about *-devel sooner. Was wondering why when compiling it said it couldn't find the library even though it was there.

Wow, I see why you all like Linux now! Just installed Ubuntu on my old pc and its running faster than ever.

once you get past ubuntu you might actually enjoy your experience

[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;25139522]once you get past ubuntu you might actually enjoy your experience[/QUOTE] Implying that using Ubuntu won't be a good experience. Quite the opposite is true, Ubuntu works really well.

Getting dumped to BusyBox on my Ubuntu 10.04 EXT4 netbook for what I think is a mount error, I'm assuming I have no choice now but to grab a live environment, stick it on a USB drive, and FSCK it

Surreal problem here I've never hit before. Here's the back story. New PC, all cool. Installed Ubuntu Lucid and all was peachy. Then decided I was going to need a small windows partition. First I lazily tried to just resize the ubuntu partition, didn't hold up much hope, resizes rarely work, but it was a fresh install so I didn't have much to lose and what I did, I just backed up. One Kernel Panic later I have windows installed and I go to reinstall Lucid and it is flat out refusing. I can't even run it live off of the disc. I've burned 3 extra copies (at stupidly low speeds), redownloaded the iso and verified the md5 which was fine. But basically trying to load Ubuntu Lucid in any forms just crashes out. But weirdly, I found an old copy of 8.10 intrepid and that's fine, boots to live, and if I wanted to. Installs. What the hell? [editline]01:34PM[/editline] Also considering just yelling [b]fuck it[/b] and switching to Arch anyway, concerned that this is still going to happen.

Well I've taken the dive in Linux, Ubuntu 10.04 to be exact, and I'm dual booting with Windows 7 and I'm wondering how I would go about making GRUB prettier? Right now there's a couple of different Ubuntu boot options (safe mode, etc) and I'd like to just have one Ubuntu and one Windows.

GRUB 1 is editable (in /boot/grub/menu.lst?) GRUB 2 is harder/different. So it depends on which version you use.

Grub 2 makes me sad :(

[QUOTE=Cluckyx;25149737]Also considering just yelling [b]fuck it[/b] and switching to Arch anyway, concerned that this is still going to happen.[/QUOTE] I did that when Ubuntu still refused to let me login after two reinstalls :|

Gonna switch to Arch when 10.10 gets released I think.

I've got two questions about Arch: 1. My kernel version is 2.6.35-ARCH, does this mean arch edited the kernel? and if they did, what's the difference between the original and the arch version? 2. Does arch have distro updates?

Actually fuck waiting for 10.10, I'm gonna go try install Arch now.

[QUOTE=FPtje;25170362]I've got two questions about Arch: 1. My kernel version is 2.6.35-ARCH, does this mean arch edited the kernel? and if they did, what's the difference between the original and the arch version? 2. Does arch have distro updates?[/QUOTE] 1) Kernel 2.6.35 with Arch patches. The patches are most likely nothing more than upstream bugfixes that havnt been released as a minor yet. 2) Rolling release. No distro updates as such, but packages are constantly being updated and added to the repositories. You could argue that Arch undergoes a new "version" every time GCC or Libc gets updated.

Actually the rolling release platform was one of the things that makes me want to switch. I like the idea that if something needs fixing, it gets fixed. As opposed to waiting for some arbitrary date for the sake of versioning. Also on the linux knowledge-o-meter I'd rate myself a 5. And I can't see that getting much higher in Ubuntu.

[QUOTE=Cluckyx;25171458] I like the idea that if something needs fixing, it gets fixed. As opposed to waiting for some arbitrary date for the sake of versioning.[/QUOTE] Same, rolling release is awesome.

Ok So Arch is kicking off in a similar manner, but as it's a textbased installer, I got a little more info. Brace for horrible iPhone photo. [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4219687/Mobile Photo 1 Oct 2010 18 10 41.jpg[/img_thumb] If you need any more information please let me know, I'm mobbing it up to the max with this one.

[QUOTE=Cluckyx;25176667]Ok So Arch is kicking off in a similar manner, but as it's a textbased installer, I got a little more info.[/QUOTE] [B]Edit: Either way works, but follow what rieda1589 linked to below instead: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=25181167&postcount=864[/url][/B] At the prompt, enter the following: [code] mv /dev/disk/by-label/ACTUAL_NAME_OF_DISK /dev/disk/by-label/ARCH_201005 exit [/code] The name of your drive is not ARCH_201005 so the installer cannot find the installation media. Renaming it to ARCH_201005 will solve the problem. If you do not remember the name of the drive, just double tap the tab key when you have entered the first /dev/disk/by-label/ part.

[QUOTE=Cluckyx;25171458]Actually the rolling release platform was one of the things that makes me want to switch. I like the idea that if something needs fixing, it gets fixed. As opposed to waiting for some arbitrary date for the sake of versioning. Also on the linux knowledge-o-meter I'd rate myself a 5. And I can't see that getting much higher in Ubuntu.[/QUOTE] I love rolling release, but keep in mind that it means things may get unstable occasionally. With a traditional release model things don't get major updates, but things typically don't break later on.

[QUOTE=ers35.;25177260]At the prompt, enter the following: [code] mv /dev/disk/by-label/ACTUAL_NAME_OF_DISK /dev/disk/by-label/ARCH_201005 exit [/code] The name of your drive is not ARCH_201005 so the installer cannot find the installation media. Renaming it to ARCH_201005 will solve the problem. If you do not remember the name of the drive, just double tap the tab key when you have entered the first /dev/disk/by-label/ part.[/QUOTE] I'd rather do a symbolic link than to move it.

[QUOTE=ers35.;25177260]At the prompt, enter the following: [code] mv /dev/disk/by-label/ACTUAL_NAME_OF_DISK /dev/disk/by-label/ARCH_201005 exit [/code] The name of your drive is not ARCH_201005 so the installer cannot find the installation media. Renaming it to ARCH_201005 will solve the problem. If you do not remember the name of the drive, just double tap the tab key when you have entered the first /dev/disk/by-label/ part.[/QUOTE] I am also getting this, The only thing in /dev/disk/by-label is "System\x20Reserved" which is part of my Windows 7 install. What do I do now? I have nothing to move to ARCH_201005. [editline]10:18PM[/editline] [url]http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Install_from_a_USB_flash_drive#UNetBootin[/url] That'll be why. [editline]11:46PM[/editline] Okay, so I got Arch installed fine... installed gnome using pacman using the wiki guide. Then this happens when I start gnome. [img_thumb]http://imgur.com/dvNEC.jpg[/img_thumb] Any ideas?

Anyone got experience setting up Samba as the primary server? I can't get any of my PC's to authenticate with the server.

I think I'm gonna blast Windows off my computer once and for all. I got Fedora 13 set up in a 30gb partition of free space I had sitting around and I put the proprietary ATI drivers on it (because I don't want it tarnishing my gentoo setup) and it's capable of doing all the gaming I care about. I'll still have to dual boot, but I'm not going to have to deal with a shit OS anymore. [editline]09:40PM[/editline] Oh, only problem was for some reason I can't my second monitor to work with fglrx.

Quick question: Wanted to use Unetbootin on my sister's XP computer to give Arch another shot (was using it on a VM before) - was wondering if I need to give it a partition of its own or if it will work like Wubi, where I can install it to the Windows partition without destroying shit.

[QUOTE=Sonicfan574;25188705]Quick question: Wanted to use Unetbootin on my sister's XP computer to give Arch another shot (was using it on a VM before) - was wondering if I need to give it a partition of its own or if it will work like Wubi, where I can install it to the Windows partition without destroying shit.[/QUOTE] Fuck Wubi. And no, Arch does not have anything similar to it, thank god.

[QUOTE=Ca5bah;25189783]Fuck Wubi. And no, Arch does not have anything similar to it, thank god.[/QUOTE] Answer the question, not complain about Wubi.

[QUOTE=Sonicfan574;25189931]Answer the question, not complain about Wubi.[/QUOTE] I will say whatever I damn well please, including answering the question.