Ubuntu Linux

[WanderingKnight]

@WanderingKnight,

maybe it is related to:

http://www.winehq.org/site/status_todo
(seems like a not so well supported feature in Wine)

Well, it's probably related to that. Though it's strange since the game is listed in the AppDB as Gold or something like that, though there weren't any comments on it (maybe the maintainer was using a Japanese-based install for his system). Seems eroges aren't very popular among the Linux community -_-;

[hobbes_fan]

Now I need help for my pc. I've just bought an 32" LCD TV/Monitor. My PC has an ECS NVidia GEforce 7300gt. As far as I can see my Nvidia Drivers are working fine under Ububtu, but I'm sure that I can get 1366x768 with my card. But I can only get 1024x768. I'm connected by s-video to the monitor. (should I be using either the DVI or VGA out instead?).

I was also planning on getting one of those HDTV USB dongles as well. But I'll hold off until I can figure out what to do.

[WanderingKnight]

Have you tried changing the resolution via nvidia-settings? If not, type that in the console and change it from there. GNOME's default tool for managing resolution was buggy the last time I tested it.

[Ledgem]

Worst case scenario, you can access the X settings and add the resolution there. I don't think it should cause problems with the nVidia drivers. I had to do it that way when running Kubuntu under a virtual machine on my 1440x900 Macbook Pro. Scary process, but worked perfectly.

You may be able to do it more easily by editing the xorg.conf file, located in /etc/x11/ - I presume there are resolutions listed there, and you can type your desired one in. It should then become a selectable resolution.

I think the way I did it was by opening a terminal and typing

sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

It'll give you a screen with options unrelated to resolutions, just keep blowing through the screens without changing any of the settings (unless you know what you're doing) until you reach a resolution list. It has a long list of preset resolutions, and you just go through and mark the ones you want available. Worked for me. I still have my Kubuntu VM (but Parallels has garbage support for Linux, so I don't use it often) so I can verify this for you if you like.

Final note, those were the recommended instructions for people running Linux in a VM, largely under Parallels, where the graphics card is only emulated. I don't think it should make a difference whether it's a VM or not, but be aware.

I also noticed: switching to DVI or HD15 instead of using S-Video might help with the computer's auto-detection, but if you set the resolution manually, there'd be no need to bother with it.

[WanderingKnight]

Okay, I just returned from my friend's house, after unsuccessfully trying to install Ubuntu. Here's the deal, and let me check if I'm right in my assumption:

My friend's PC is a crappy, premade PC, with only 256 MB of RAM. HOWEVER, it also has an onboard Intel graphics card, which draws 32 MBs from the RAM, which gives a total of 224 MB of effective RAM. Now, as the Ubuntu homepage advises, you need a minimum of 256 MB of RAM to run the graphical GUI install. The GUI ran without problems (other than clunkiness due to the low amount of RAM available), however, it hanged whenever it reached the 15% of the install (Detecting file system, if I remember correctly). I tried it three times, but no avail. Windows XP, on the other hand, got installed perfectly without a single problem. So may I be right in my assumption and guess that what killed the install was the low RAM? I once installed Ubuntu on another machine with 256 MB of RAM, but it had an Nvidia graphics card.

I'm gonna go with my instinct and bring tomorrow to my friend's house the lighter version of the Ubuntu installation CD, which runs in a command-line fashion. I just wanted to know what you guys think about this issue.

[Phantom-Takaya]

What I used is:

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

You literally have to "teach" Ubuntu that your video card is capable of certain resolutions.

Now, as a pre-warning to those who don't use terminal too much and/or don't quite understand what it is you're getting into once you enter that into terminal, don't change much of the settings it goes through with you. If the hardware terminal is showing is fine as it is, then just hit enter or tab to "<ok>" and hit enter. Don't bother changing the values or selecting a different type of hardware connection type. It can render Ubuntu unstable.

Also, in a similar note, once you've selected all the resolutions your video card is capable of, don't bother messing with the refresh value. Just hit enter until the configuration choices are over. Ubuntu automatically recognizes the necessary refresh rate each resolution needs to display on the screen properly.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Okay, I just returned from my friend's house, after unsuccessfully trying to install Ubuntu. Here's the deal, and let me check if I'm right in my assumption:

My friend's PC is a crappy, premade PC, with only 256 MB of RAM. HOWEVER, it also has an onboard Intel graphics card, which draws 32 MBs from the RAM, which gives a total of 224 MB of effective RAM. Now, as the Ubuntu homepage advises, you need a minimum of 256 MB of RAM to run the graphical GUI install. The GUI ran without problems (other than clunkiness due to the low amount of RAM available), however, it hanged whenever it reached the 15% of the install (Detecting file system, if I remember correctly). I tried it three times, but no avail. Windows XP, on the other hand, got installed perfectly without a single problem. So may I be right in my assumption and guess that what killed the install was the low RAM? I once installed Ubuntu on another machine with 256 MB of RAM, but it had an Nvidia graphics card.

I'm gonna go with my instinct and bring tomorrow to my friend's house the lighter version of the Ubuntu installation CD, which runs in a command-line fashion. I just wanted to know what you guys think about this issue.

I was going to advise trying to install without the GUI, but you've already thought to do it. I wasn't aware of the 256 MB limit, actually... I have a super old Pentium II laptop, not sure how much RAM is in there but it can't be over 512. I just wanted to load the LiveCD to make sure all hardware was supported, but it got stuck. Not frozen, but it spent a few hours loading and didn't get anywhere.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Syaoran

You mean like running precompiled binaries for firefox, thunderbird, k3b, ... on a self-defined-useflags-build base system & xorg?

I mean if you use a Gentoo Installation disk, choose wisely (I'ld take the stage3 tarball - the only supported one )
And well... as you figured out, nobody forces one to use emerge... (and I've read so many problem reports for the 2007.0 installer that I think the whole emerge e-builds repository needs some cleaning or lets say revision).

[WanderingKnight]

Ubuntu validates as Genuine Windows.

Man, that one got me cracking.

(PS: Shouldn't it be "Wine validates as Genuine Windows?" )

EDIT: Another one, for the kicks of it

[grey_moon]

@WK - LOL thanks for sharing

[grey_moon]

I am lacking in the Jedi skills of apt.... With rpm, if I want to check if something is installed I do:

rpm -qa | grep {app name}

What is it with apt please?

[WanderingKnight]

What is it with apt please?

I don't have the particular command for that, but if you ask for the package with apt-get install, if it's already installed, it will tell you and won't install it again.

[grey_moon]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I don't have the particular command for that, but if you ask for the package with apt-get install, if it's already installed, it will tell you and won't install it again.

I had a good look at the man files and did asked Google sensei, but I couldn't see anything that was what I wanted. I thought I'd asked on somewhere where I am familiar with before I brave the big bad world of an OS forum (although the Ubuntu one does seem rather friendly)

Now here is another one. Anyone gotten past the issue of an app not being 100% Ubuntu compatible and you can't save to or load from a network place? Two good examples are Firefox and Comix (I need my comix!!!!), the only way I have gotten around it is by mounting the network drive via CLI.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Strange and crazy thought. I dual-boot with Ubuntu and XP. Now, everyone should already know by now that on Ubuntu, you can read most (if not all) partition formats and mount them so that you can read/write to them. Now, if you flip back to Windows, the Linux partition is invisible. Is there any way to get around that? Possible at least as a read-only ability?

[WanderingKnight]

Strange and crazy thought. I dual-boot with Ubuntu and XP. Now, everyone should already know by now that on Ubuntu, you can read most (if not all) partition formats and mount them so that you can read/write to them. Now, if you flip back to Windows, the Linux partition is invisible. Is there any way to get around that? Possible at least as a read-only ability?

That is due to the ext3 format of the Linux partition. I believe there are some ext3-read drivers for XP around there somewhere... or if not, at least ext2 (I don't know if it creates too many incompatibilities... I heard it was pretty experimental yet).

Here. It is mainly an ext2 driver, but here there is some info about accessing ext3 formatted drives.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Wow. That was easier than I thought. That's quite the surprise. Thanks WK.

[Ledgem]

Just a note I discovered about accessing the Linux partition from Windows: if you don't unmount the partition cleanly (say, if the computer crashes, and you load straight into Windows) then Windows will say that the partition is corrupt, and won't let you access the partition(s). Loading back into Linux and shutting it down cleanly fixes this issue.

I use OpenSUSE and had this issue once (it was a bit frightening). I presume it'd be the same across all Linux distros, though.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Yeah. That's a back and forth thing with the two OSes. Even when I don't cleanly shut down Windows, Ubuntu refuses to mount the drives, but at least it explains why. Windows in the other hand... Well, you explained it, so at least everyone else now know what to do.

[WanderingKnight]

Just a note I discovered about accessing the Linux partition from Windows: if you don't unmount the partition cleanly (say, if the computer crashes, and you load straight into Windows) then Windows will say that the partition is corrupt, and won't let you access the partition(s). Loading back into Linux and shutting it down cleanly fixes this issue.

Well, according to that site I linked to in my previous post, it has to do with the journaling capabilities of the ext3 format (which allow them to bypass unclean dismounts like a system crash). When using an ext2 driver to mount an ext3 partition, you can't make use of the journaling. Linux distros run the command to dismount the partition correctly at startup, in case of a system crash.

[Ledgem]

Ah, so that's one of the features of journaling...

Not to side-track this too far, but is anyone familiar with ZFS (the partition type)? Any comments on it? It sounds pretty exciting, but all of the nuances and problems never come out until it hits the masses. The features that Sun has been trumping up sound pretty neat, though. The big selling point being that data is always recoverable...