I'm having a problem with the resolution. Yesterday, the power went out while the computer was on, when I turned it back on, it did it's fsck and started up normally except for the resolution. The computer normally goes into my screen resolution of 1280x1024, however this time it went into a 800x600 mode, but with 1280x1024 resolution. It then goes into Slim which places itself into an actual 800x600 mode, then after logging in, everything goes it's proper resolution except making windows maximise. When the windows maximise, it goes to a maximum of 800x600, then I have to move it in order for it to correct itself.
Basically, the computer is displaying 1280x1024, but outputting 800x600. Is there a fix to this?
So I've been using Ubuntu server 11.04 on my home server for a while and it's shit, I checked on it once and logging into ssh took ages and when I did, i noticed it was using over half a gig of ram (total 1 gb) running nothing more than samba and apache with barely any usage on either.
I'm looking for a new distro but I'm still rather new to linux so Arch seems out of my reach, suggestions?
[QUOTE=chipset;31453283]So I've been using Ubuntu server 11.04 on my home server for a while and it's shit, I checked on it once and logging into ssh took ages and when I did, i noticed it was using over half a gig of ram (total 1 gb) running nothing more than samba and apache with barely any usage on either.
I'm looking for a new distro but I'm still rather new to linux so Arch seems out of my reach, suggestions?[/QUOTE]
For a server I'd use CentOS or Scientific Linux. They're both based off RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), so they're pretty solid.
I prefer Scientific Linux just because the CentOS developers are douchebags.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31453442]For a server I'd use CentOS or Scientific Linux. They're both based off RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), so they're pretty solid.
I prefer Scientific Linux just because the CentOS developers are douchebags.[/QUOTE]
CentOS seems more popular, thus probably better maintained and more help will be available so I think I'll go with that. Just wondering which image I should download, there's a netinstall, minimal and liveCD. DVD is too big for my 1 gig flashdrive and I don't think I want/need most of what comes with it. Wanna keep the install as lightweight as possible.
[QUOTE=chipset;31454954]CentOS seems more popular, thus probably better maintained and more help will be available so I think I'll go with that. Just wondering which image I should download, there's a netinstall, minimal and liveCD. DVD is too big for my 1 gig flashdrive and I don't think I want/need most of what comes with it. Wanna keep the install as lightweight as possible.[/QUOTE]
Minimal.
[editline]31st July 2011[/editline]
As for support, Scientific Linux has two paid developers who work for CERN and Fermi Lab.
They actually had RHEL 6 support months before CentOS, because like I said CentOS is developed by douchebags.
Does anyone have any tips for installing Arch on a virtual machine?
I figured that if I wanted to learn more about computers, I would need to know how the internals of Operating Systems work. From what I gather, Arch has you pretty much setting up the entire thing.
I'm still pretty new to the entire Linux scene, and all I've done with it is install Ubuntu 11.04 on a separate hard drive. I know how to do general commands on the Terminal, such as installing packages, downloading things from websites, file operations, and such.
Would jumping into Arch, attempting to create an operating system simply for practice, be too much of a leap?
As much as people bash on Gentoo here and really love Arch, I'm going to go ahead and say you'll learn a lot more about Linux if you install Gentoo. Most of the Arch install is automatic, and only really teaches you how to use Pacman. And editing some config files.
[QUOTE=nos217;31457374]As much as people bash on Gentoo here and really love Arch, I'm going to go ahead and say you'll learn a lot more about Linux if you install Gentoo. Most of the Arch install is automatic, and only really teaches you how to use Pacman. And editing some config files.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Any tips for a newbie?
[QUOTE=nos217;31457374]As much as people bash on Gentoo here and really love Arch, I'm going to go ahead and say you'll learn a lot more about Linux if you install Gentoo. Most of the Arch install is automatic, and only really teaches you how to use Pacman. And editing some config files.[/QUOTE]
I would prefer Gentoo over Arch, but I just don't have the time.
[QUOTE=Chezhead;31457408]Okay. Any tips for a newbie?[/QUOTE]
Arch teaches you a bunch of things, but it also skips a lot to get you customising the front-end a lot quicker, whereas Gentoo teaches you a lot more about the structure of how Linux works, however it's a more steeper learning curve.
You really just need to follow instructions, read up on things you don't understand and you should be fine.
[QUOTE=Niteshifter;31457670]I would prefer Gentoo over Arch, but I just don't have the time.
Arch teaches you a bunch of things, but it also skips a lot to get you customising the front-end a lot quicker, whereas Gentoo teaches you a lot more about the structure of how Linux works, however it's a more steeper learning curve.
You really just need to follow instructions, read up on things you don't understand and you should be fine.[/QUOTE]
Thanks! You guys are a lot more helpful and less elitist than a [I]certain subforum[/I], thanks for the help!
Does anyone know why setting the background to a solid color in LXDE crashes to the login screen?
Any idea if it's possible to upgrade 32bit Ubuntu 10.04 to 64bit?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31463840]Any idea if it's possible to upgrade 32bit Ubuntu 10.04 to 64bit?[/QUOTE]
To change your arch would mean replacing the vast majority of your software. I'll bet it's possible, but whether or not it is I [highlight][i]STRONGLY[/i][/highlight] suggest a clean install.
You could. Everything is just a file and you would simply replace those files.
But it's not as simple as "sudo apt-get install 64-bit" or anything.
I think most Linux installs allow you to not format your partitions so you can reuse them. I don't know how well it would work for your / partition. You might have some config files overwritten at worst I think.
If you're looking for something more manual then Gentoo would be the way to go. I'd chroot in from a 64-bit live CD and edit /etc/make.conf to use amd64 and use the 64-bit Live environment to rebuild packages from system and rebuild the kernel.
I'm not 100% sure how you'd build 64-bit GCC, but I think you'd do it on the Live CD outside of your chroot and set the install prefix to your chroot. Or you could use a stage1 Gentoo install which I've never done. I don't think it'd be easy to pick out the required files from a stage3, and I wouldn't dump the stage3 into / because it'd probably overwrite stuff in /etc. But I guess you could just ignore the extracted /etc and preserve the old one. Yeah that sounds good.
[QUOTE=Chezhead;31457855]Thanks! You guys are a lot more helpful and less elitist than a [I]certain subforum[/I], thanks for the help![/QUOTE]
No problem. It takes patience for Gentoo though. Nobody will blame you if you get fed up of the compile times. Arch does teach you some things, but going through the installer for Gentoo taught me more than I'd learned from simply using the other distributions I've tried.
[QUOTE=nos217;31465460]No problem. It takes patience for Gentoo though. Nobody will blame you if you get fed up of the compile times. Arch does teach you some things, but going through the installer for Gentoo taught me more than I'd learned from simply using the other distributions I've tried.[/QUOTE]
Gentoo doesn't teach much beyond what you would learn from Arch.
You think so? Arch doesn't really teach anything other than what to install and how.
what else does gentoo teach
emerge compiling your packages does not mean you suddenly know hao 2 compile, for example
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
well, Portage
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
Now that I look at it, by the way, portage seems to operate very much like ABS.
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
With the difference that you can't do on-the-fly configuration with makepkg
[QUOTE=esalaka;31468272]what else does gentoo teach[/QUOTE]
How to manually create your partition table, chrooting, compile kernel, set up key files yourself.
KDE 4.7's been released ([url=http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.7/]clicky clicky[/url])...
[img]http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.7/screenshots/general-desktop.png[/img]
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
I can fap to this.
[i]*fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*[/i]
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;31473045]KDE 4.7's been released ([url=http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.7/]clicky clicky[/url])...
[img]http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.7/screenshots/general-desktop.png[/img]
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
I can fap to this.
[i]*fap fap fap fap fap fap fap*[/i][/QUOTE]
Any improvement on the whole "KDE-being-heavy-and-shit"-thing?
KDE: Shit lets be OSX edition
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;31473843]Any improvement on the whole "KDE-being-heavy-and-shit"-thing?[/QUOTE]
KDE is heavy by nature.
[QUOTE=esalaka;31473865]KDE: Shit lets be OSX edition
[/QUOTE]
Surely I'm not the only pillock who sort of likes the OSX UI?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
In fact, having the closing buttons on the left is the best thing ever. Ever since I swapped to that model on Linux, I've been wondering why Windows doesn't do the same.
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
Ie. There are aspects I like about the Mac UI
Gentoo definitely teaches much more. Have you tried? You have to set up loads of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love Arch, but Gentoo simply teaches more.
What are you even arguing about anymore
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
and why the disagree? Portage and ABS aren't really all that different at core. Both supply shell scripts to automate package building, one just is designed for this specific task whereas the other is designed to support a binary package repository.
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
Namely, one is designed to give the user flexibility in customizing their packages whereas the other is mostly just a source package repo, modifiable at will but requiring reconfiguration by hand
Huh? I'm not talking specifically about the package managers, I mean the distributions in general. Arch automates most of the setup, Gentoo doesn't. I found that I learned much more from Gentoo.
I was disagreeing with the implication that Gentoo doesn't teach more than Arch. I know it was a question but it just seemed like an implication.
I am getting a computer and I want to set up a small server (maybe minecraft) and I want to control the server from my desktop using PuTTY. But I have a question, say I go on vacation and need to control the server, can I use PuTTY over WAN or is it just LAN?
I'm really hoping Fedora will put the KDE 4.7 packages into the repos for Fedora 15 and I don't have to wait for F16.
If I was really desperate I'd install Gentoo again but I know that pykde4 isn't going to work like it always does on a new KDE release.
[QUOTE=toaster468;31476426]I am getting a computer and I want to set up a small server (maybe minecraft) and I want to control the server from my desktop using PuTTY. But I have a question, say I go on vacation and need to control the server, can I use PuTTY over WAN or is it just LAN?[/QUOTE]
If you portforward the ports you're using, and remember the IP (or set up something like dyndns.org), you won't have any trouble. Works for me anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
