|
I'd like to ask a really stupid question. I'm trying to get into learning Linux by using non-gui terminals and entering a bunch of commands to get around the file system. My question is, are GUIs pretty popular now with most Linux distros or do users still find themselves using non-gui terminals to do filesystem maintenance and all that stuff?
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Accipiter posted:You don't learn Linux by using a GUI. You learn the GUI. This is what I figured for the most part. It seems Linux is starting to crop up more and more in business environments so its probably a good idea to get going on learning the OS in and out. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 02:30
|
|
|
I've decided to go ahead and install Fedora 11 to get started on learning Linux. I want to do some maintenance tasks to get me up to speed with the command line interface. I would like to patch the kernel and install drivers; among the more basic stuff like mounting drives and what not. My stupid question (for now) is if I have Fedora 11 installed and Red Hat releases Fedora 12, how do I update this? Is it just a kernel update or am I installing a patch for the OS itself? Sorry, I know jack poo poo here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 05:17
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Technically, you can update the OS with a yum update or by popping in the CD, rebooting, and picking "Upgrade," but a lot of things will probably break. Fedora, especially on x86_64, isn't really known for clean upgrades and you're best off doing a fresh install when you can. Alright then. I am going to dedicate an entire hard drive to Linux, and I want to configure it so that the kernel will go on it's own partition (/boot?) and maybe even make a few other partitions just to help segregate the data incase I gently caress something up... which would make using the backup utilities a little easier. Advice?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Make /home and /boot their own partitions but forget about everything else. It's just unnecessary complexity and it substantially improves the chances of you screwing something up catastrophically right out of the gate. So 3 total partitions then. Also, I think I am going to use ext4 for all partitions except the /boot partition because GRUB won't work with ext4, right? You know, in the event I want to install another OS on that hard drive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 14:37
|
|
|
JHVH-1 posted:20GB-30GB / ext4 What is this for, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
Well I'm up and running successfully. To my suprise, Fedora automatically updates and installs mostly everything. I'm wondering if this is a bad thing. Also, I can't seem to enable desktop effects because I assume I don't have the newest ATI driver. Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is it okay to download straight from ATI? I'm not sure if there's 3rd party drivers that work better under fedora linux.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
I think I messed up something with my other hard drive that had Windows XP installed on it. Before I installed Linux I had a C:/ windows drive and an E:/ windows drive. The C drive had Windows Vista installed and the E drive had Windows XP installed. I decided to install Linux on the "C" drive, thus making the E: drive my only Windows hard drive. Well, GRUB has "other" listed on the boot loader, but when I select it nothing happens. I put in my Windows XP installation CD and ran the recovery console; only to find that my E drive somehow got switched to a "C" drive... which is probably why its not loading. I imagine I will have to fix an assload of things to get it to boot at this point. Can I somehow change the drive letter back to E:? edit - I can chkdsk and it did find errors and fixed them; but still no dice. Severed fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Sep 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:unfortunately you can't. windows boot drive has to be the C: drive. which means your probably going to have to reinstall the MBR for windows, then reinstall grub so grub can read your windows xp partition. Ah, that makes sense. Although I think my E drive got switched to a C drive somehow because when I ran chkdsk it defaulted to C:/windows and the date on which the drive was created was correct. edit - To clarify, I had one hard drive that had Vista and I had another hard drive that had XP. The vista hard drive was C:/ before I installed Linux on it. The E:/ drive had always been XP; which is for some reason not loading at all. Even if I bypass the GRUB loader and boot directly from the hard drive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
Wow, that was interesting. So I booted up the Windows XP recovery console and first ran chkdsk. It found errors and corrected them. I rebooted the computer and still no dice. Then I decided to run FIXMBR and that did its thing. I restart the computer, and now Linux refuses to load... saying that the kernel encountered an error. Then I booted up the linux install CD and used that recovery console... but since I didn't know jack poo poo about fixing a foobar'd linux install, I just restarted again and decided to reinstall Linux. And then I remembered that I could have used fsck but oh well. So here I am, brand new install of Linux (2nd time today!). I still want to figure out how to rescue my WindowsXP installation. I had no idea how this got so hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 03:51
|
|
|
Still trying to crack away at this XP boot problem I'm having. I did some digging in the grub.conf file and found that Linux and XP are in fact installed on completely seperate hard drives with nothing tying the two together, boot-wise. What I am proposing I should do next is to power down the computer, unplug the linux drive, and run the Windows XP recovery console one more time and try using fixboot on the XP drive to see if that remedies the problem. For those keeping score at home, the last time I did this with fixmbr it somehow hosed up my Linux install; which is why I'm unhooking the hard drive that it is installed on. edit -- Is there some sort of graphical utility I can install on Linux that will allow me to run these commands on my XP drive through Linux? Severed fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Sep 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 15:31
|
|
|
Zom Aur posted:If they're on separate drives you need to either configure which one should be the primary boot through the BIOS, or if they're older you need to configure them with jumpers. I've done this actually. I've tried setting the windows XP drive as the primary drive, thus ignoring GRUB and the linux drive altogether, and the problem is still there. edit - What I don't get is how did me installing Linux on a seperate drive altogether cuase boot problems for XP? Severed fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 15:59
|
|
|
Zom Aur posted:Oh yeah, you said so on the previous page. Sorry. Yeah, its really strange. Especially when you consider that when I tried to rescue my Windows install with fixmbr, it managed to gently caress up my Linux drive as well. I wonder if the first installation of Linux had the boot partition installed on the XP drive for some reason.... but I don't think I did that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 16:10
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Post your grub.conf I've tried to open it in the GUI as root but for some reason fedora tells me it is unable to authenticate the account when I login as "other". I'm able to view the grub.conf through a terminal no problem using the root account. So I don't know what to think of that. Is there a way I can open the grub.conf file in the gui as the root user similar to "run as admin" in xp? edit - Or failing that, can I atleast make the grub.conf read-only to my user account? I tried doing this with chmod u+r but that didn't do it. Severed fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 16:30
|
|
|
Alright, here's the grub.confcode:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 19:47
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:what's probably happening is windows is setting the mbr on hd(1,0). linux assumes that the mbr is on the first harddrive (i.e. hd(0,0)). which means when you reinstall grub you need to point the installation of grub onto hd(1,0). Um, but isn't it already doing that according to the grub.conf file? edit - Or, do you suggest putting the /boot partition (and thus grub) on hd1,0 ? How would I do that without loving stuff up? Sorry I'm a total newbie here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:it doesn't matter where grub is installed. what matters is what file the mbr points too. If linux is installed correctly it will point to grub and grub will modify the mbr to point to it, and therefore, let you boot multiple operating systems. Windows puts the mbr on its C: partition. I am beginning to understand this now. Is there a way I can repair my windows installation and have it point to drive e:/ ? Because I think what happened was that when I installed XP originally, the mbr was placed on the vista hard drive at the time since it was the C:/ drive. Then when I installed Linux onto the C:/ drive it subsequently overwrote the MBR for my E:/ Windows installation. This would also explain why fixmbr ruined my Linux installation yesterday since it was looking to put it on the "c:/" drive which happens to be my Linux hard drive now. So at this point, I need to put the MBR on the E:/ drive somehow. Hm.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 00:56
|
|
|
kcncuda71 posted:if your fedora install cd is a live-cd try in command line "grub-install hda" I'm not completely sure on this. If i'm understanding you, your windows is now working, but linux is not working anymore. What this will do is keep your fedora install, but reinstall grub back onto linux and point the mbr back to grub. This means when grub is reinstalled, it will re-evaluate your partition/hard drive table and rebuild them correctly. Actually, you have it the other way around. Linux works fine, XP doesn't work at all. What I did since the last post was this: I opened up my computer and physically unplugged my Linux drive completely. I then booted with the XP recovery CD. I used fixmbr on the only drive it detected in the system, which would be it. I then restarted the computer, no dice. So I went back into the recovery console, typed "fixboot" and I was given this error: code:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
Umph posted:Whats the difference between Gnome and KDE besides the way the interface is set up? It seems like you can change them both to look like each other anyway? (Move bars/buttons around). All things being equal whats the better choice for stability and things working correctly for a newbie? I've never used KDE, but Gnome is simple enough. Although I have heard that KDE is more "windows-like" supposedly, so you can give that a shot. Remember, you can switch between them at any time so its not like a long term commitment you have to make.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2009 14:37
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Thanks. I'm not looking for the You could also just experiment with other x-windows too. I'm not the guy to ask, but I was even thinking about trying out something new just to get me away from GNOME.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2009 15:19
|
|
Compiz Spinnin' Cube
|
So I'm trying to install Fedora off of a Live CD, and the installation goes fine until the very end when it has to finalize the partitions. It ends up hanging there until I eventually have to shut down the machine. Is this a known problem with Live CD installs or am I not being patient enough? It hung on that final screen for about 30 minutes before I canned it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2009 17:10
|
|
|
I'm trying to configure a static IP for my debian box. I've edited the /etc/network/interfaces file with the following info: code:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 03:57
|
|
|
ShoulderDaemon posted:What init daemon? There isn't really anything under /etc/init.d that you can use to reparse the interfaces file the way you probably want to. You probably want to use ifdown to bring the interface down, then ifup to bring it back up. The ifdown may not kill the already-running DHCP client daemon, though, as the interface description no longer refers to DHCP, so you might need to kill that manually. will a restart of the machine suffice? Also, for some very odd reason my router is saying that it has assigned a DHCP address to the Debian machine. But the Debian machine now reports that it is manually assigned and is not in any networks. I can't ping the static IP I setup for it, either. edit - Restart fixed it all. Severed fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Nov 7, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
Okay, now this is getting strange. I am able to connect to my debian box webhost at 192.168.0.6 like I wanted. I am also able to ping the box. However, my router's DHCP still says it has assigned it an IP address, when clearly it is not using that address. I can't FTP into my Debian box anymore since all of this started. I get this error message: "ECONNREFUSED - Connection refused by server" What the hell is going on?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 04:29
|
|
|
ShoulderDaemon posted:Your FTP daemon is not running. Check the logs to see why it didn't start. Hm, it says its running. I've also restarted it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
ShoulderDaemon posted:Did it leave any log messages? Does it work if you connect over localhost? I just typed in /etc/init.d/vsftpd start to which it responded that it was already started. So then I restarted it, and the console came back saying the daemon had restarted. Sorry I'm kinda green to all this. I have it working now so that I can FTP in on the local intranet, but if I give my public IP with a user/pass to a friend who wants to FTP in, he's getting that same error message I was getting back there. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 04:42
|
|
|
Alright, it's working fine now, thanks guys. If I want to limit my FTP access at work to just the /var/www/ directory, how would I do that? edit - I know I'm being a total pill and you guys are awesome, but, I've changed the vsftpd.conf file to allow users to write, yet I can't upload anything or download anything. Severed fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Nov 7, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
JHVH-1 posted:Easiest way, create a dedicated ftp user for it. Add it as a regular user (you can also set their shell to /sbin/nologin so you can ban ssh access if you want). Then in the vsftpd.conf set chroot_enable=YES, and set the path of the chroot users file. Put the name of the user in the file and restart vsftpd. Thank you, working like a charm now. I want to get rid of all the cords around this box, so I want to setup VNC to be able to log in using my main windows computer. I got vncserver up and running and I've set a password for it. I've tried connecting to the private static IP I've given the box and I've also tried the computers name; neither work. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 17:08
|
|
|
Twlight posted:Can you ping the box? Are you working through a router or anything like that? Is iptables on blocking the port, or if it's on are you enabling access? On the subject of VNC, I've found that http://www.nomachine.com/ works really well for these types of things, and it's a bit more "fire and forget" if you would. If you continue to have trouble with setting up VNC, give this a try. Well, the same linux box is hosting websites, which I can view just fine. I have port 5900 open, but I don't think it's required for local hosts. I have enabled the service and given a session. Still nothing. I'll give Nomachine.com a shot. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2009 02:03
|
|
|
covener posted:connecting to :1 / 5901 if you're running a "real" X server on that box? Well, in an interesting twist, it turns out I was activating the wrong service. I was using vncserver, when I should have been using tightvncserver. So I went and made the change. Now I can connect, but all I get is a gray screen with no errors. Now what?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2009 06:07
|
|
|
covener posted:edit ~/.vnc/xstartup or wherever in /etc/ the service-based one cares about and kick off an xterm/gnome-session/icewm. Sorry if this sounds stupid, but You are basically telling me to look for a string in a configuration file that specifies what kind of graphical environment I want to use upon connection, right? I don't know what xterm or icewm are, but I do use gnome. edit - when I use tightvnserver, it starts a session. :1
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
I've decided that I want to setup a dedicated Quake server on my Linux box. I've got my pak*.pak files setup in /home/quake/id1, all I need is a good recommendation for a stable source port that I can rely on to run 24/7 without hiccups. I really have no clue which one would work best -- I have no intention on actually playing Quake on this box.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Who here as experience running DRBL/ClonezillaSE in Debian? I'm using it at my place of work to clone many systems, but I'm running into some interesting problems. Basically, the DRBL server is setup to only give DHCP addresses to the MAC addresses of the computers that I've listed that are to receive the image via network boot. Obviously, the existing network has a DHCP server along with the DRBL server. This is probably causing some kind of issue but let me continue.... The issue that I am having is this: Some clients will boot from the network right away and receive the right IP address configuration in order to begin receiving the image. However, some clients need to be rebooted several times before they "catch" the IP address schema from the server. Other clients will not work at all no matter how much I reboot them to boot from network. Oddly enough, these computers will receive the wrong IP address from the regular DHCP server (not DRBL) - but when I boot into Windows normally on these machines and check ipconfig /all, the address assigned is the correct address that the DRBL server should be giving it during network boot (pxe). So, what I'm thinking of doing is temporarily dis-allowing the selected MAC addresses to be fed a DHCP address from the traditional DHCP server while I use my DRBL server to access those clients. But if that doesnt/can't work, then I'm screwed a bit. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2009 00:56
|
|