Fedora 7 : Fresh Install, defaulted to Runlevel 3

[Arthur Pemberton]

I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
defaulted to runlevel 3.

When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
/ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.

The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.

[Tim]

On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 00:49 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> defaulted to runlevel 3.
>
> When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.

That shouldn't affect it, it's a service by itself.  I've even
encountered it while booting up in text mode (there was a text version,
though I can't recall if that was when I installed FC 6 or 7).

/etc/init.d/firstboot

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/4/07, Tim  wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 00:49 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> > defaulted to runlevel 3.
> >
> > When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> > /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
> >
> > The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.
>
> That shouldn't affect it, it's a service by itself.  I've even
> encountered it while booting up in text mode (there was a text version,
> though I can't recall if that was when I installed FC 6 or 7).

There is no real textmode firstboot, their is just 'setup' which is
far from equivalent to firstboot.

Firstboot only runs at runlevel 5
> /etc/init.d/firstboot
>
> --
> [tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
> 2.6.22.1-41.fc7 i686 i386
>
> Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5.  Today, it's FC7.
>
> Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
> I read messages from the public lists.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Tim]

On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 02:26 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> There is no real textmode firstboot, their is just 'setup' which is
> far from equivalent to firstboot.

Hmm, it seemed to ask me the same sorts of things.  It has been quite
some time since I saw it, though.

[Mikkel]

Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> defaulted to runlevel 3.
>
> When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.

Did you do a text install? From what I remember, if you do a text
install, the installer will set the system to boot in run level 3
instead of run level 5.

Mikkel

[Jim Cornette]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> > defaulted to runlevel 3.
> >
> > When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> > /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
> >
> > The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.
>
> Did you do a text install? From what I remember, if you do a text
> install, the installer will set the system to boot in run level 3
> instead of run level 5.
>
> Mikkel

Not to mention the installation in text mode installs packages 
completely different than the packages that were selected. Just a 
caution. I ran a text installation yesterday which broke that way.

Jim

[Tim]

On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 14:44 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> Not to mention the installation in text mode installs packages 
> completely different than the packages that were selected. Just a 
> caution. I ran a text installation yesterday which broke that way.

I get something similar with graphical installs.  You remove some things
you don't want, they get put back in.  They're not all dependencies, as
you can individually remove the post-installation.

On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 14:44 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> > Not to mention the installation in text mode installs packages
> > completely different than the packages that were selected. Just a
> > caution. I ran a text installation yesterday which broke that way.
> I get something similar with graphical installs.  You remove some

things
> you don't want, they get put back in.  They're not all dependencies,

as
> you can individually remove the post-installation.

The problems for me seemed to be that the optional packages did not que 
up properly.
The displayed package was not the actual package which was installed.
Also, packages like mc and k3b were listed as optional packages but 
were not on the install cd.
The installer gave me the option to pick a host of games but not even 
the kde or gnome games were installed.
There seem to not be care to the text installer. I expected the same 
for text as with the GUI, minus the GUI eye candy.
Eventually I got the system tailored to my desired install choices via 
yum, but not as smooth as a correct acting installer would have 
resulted in.
Anyway, we have another Linux user, not by choice but because of 
experimental adaptation because she destroyed her XP installation and
the "support department" (free of charge of course) installed Fedora to 
get her back on the net.
The reason that I even used the text installer was because the GUI 
installer could not open rpms at certain points in the installation. I 
then decided to try the text installer which completed but with chance 
packages vs. desired.

Anyway, the tools for Linux post-install launched SMART which revealed 
3 bad sectors on the drive. I take it the bad sectors was on xp since 
there was a mini-dump when the computer needed attention. Also, she had 
93% usage on the disk which was ntfs and Linux flagged this. I really 
like all the information Linux provides to the user.

Thanks to having ntfs-3g, transferring all docs from the xp install to 
the Linux install was not a hard task to accomplish. The transfer of 
bookmarks was a bit tricky from seamonkey xp bound onto seamonkey Linux.

Anyway don't expect the text installer to provide exactly what the GUI 
installer provides. It is usable if you get weird errors when using the 
GUI installer.

Sorry for the rambling and netscape.net formated mail.

Jim

--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.22.1-41.fc7 i686 i386

Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5.  Today, it's FC7.

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[Kam Leo]

On 8/4/07, [e-mail]  wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 14:44 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> > > Not to mention the installation in text mode installs packages
> > > completely different than the packages that were selected. Just a
> > > caution. I ran a text installation yesterday which broke that way.
> > I get something similar with graphical installs.  You remove some
>
> things
> > you don't want, they get put back in.  They're not all dependencies,
>
> as
> > you can individually remove the post-installation.
>
> The problems for me seemed to be that the optional packages did not que
> up properly.
> The displayed package was not the actual package which was installed.
> Also, packages like mc and k3b were listed as optional packages but
> were not on the install cd.
> The installer gave me the option to pick a host of games but not even
> the kde or gnome games were installed.
> There seem to not be care to the text installer. I expected the same
> for text as with the GUI, minus the GUI eye candy.
> Eventually I got the system tailored to my desired install choices via
> yum, but not as smooth as a correct acting installer would have
> resulted in.
> Anyway, we have another Linux user, not by choice but because of
> experimental adaptation because she destroyed her XP installation and
> the "support department" (free of charge of course) installed Fedora to
> get her back on the net.
> The reason that I even used the text installer was because the GUI
> installer could not open rpms at certain points in the installation. I
> then decided to try the text installer which completed but with chance
> packages vs. desired.
>
> Anyway, the tools for Linux post-install launched SMART which revealed
> 3 bad sectors on the drive. I take it the bad sectors was on xp since
> there was a mini-dump when the computer needed attention. Also, she had
> 93% usage on the disk which was ntfs and Linux flagged this. I really
> like all the information Linux provides to the user.
>
> Thanks to having ntfs-3g, transferring all docs from the xp install to
> the Linux install was not a hard task to accomplish. The transfer of
> bookmarks was a bit tricky from seamonkey xp bound onto seamonkey Linux.
>
> Anyway don't expect the text installer to provide exactly what the GUI
> installer provides. It is usable if you get weird errors when using the
> GUI installer.
>
> Sorry for the rambling and netscape.net formated mail.
>
> Jim

I have used text mode installation many times in the past because
Anaconda would select the disabled on-board video instead of the
add-on slot mounted video. I had no problem selecting the packages
that I wanted installed. Perhaps that's because I'm used to having to
dig/click past the first settings to get the underlying choices. Note:
Like some on this list I sure do miss the install everything option.

[Tim]

On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:19 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> Anyway, the tools for Linux post-install launched SMART which revealed
> 3 bad sectors on the drive. I take it the bad sectors was on xp since 
> there was a mini-dump when the computer needed attention. Also, she
> had 93% usage on the disk which was ntfs and Linux flagged this. I
> really like all the information Linux provides to the user.

A proper format may be required when you get bad sectors.  If the system
can write to the drive and clear the blocks (well, the drive pretends,
in the background), and the warnings go away, you'll probably be okay.
If you keep on seeing error warnings, I wouldn't trust the drive, at
all.  Those bad blocks could have been the demise of your XP
installation.

I like the information Linux provides much more than Windows, too.  I
had a cheap box that wasn't very reliable, but Windows gave no clues as
to why.  Linux did, however, give me warnings that I could use to
diagnose the fault.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/4/07, Tim  wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:19 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Anyway, the tools for Linux post-install launched SMART which revealed
> > 3 bad sectors on the drive. I take it the bad sectors was on xp since
> > there was a mini-dump when the computer needed attention. Also, she
> > had 93% usage on the disk which was ntfs and Linux flagged this. I
> > really like all the information Linux provides to the user.
>
> A proper format may be required when you get bad sectors.  If the system
> can write to the drive and clear the blocks (well, the drive pretends,
> in the background), and the warnings go away, you'll probably be okay.
> If you keep on seeing error warnings, I wouldn't trust the drive, at
> all.  Those bad blocks could have been the demise of your XP
> installation.
>
> I like the information Linux provides much more than Windows, too.  I
> had a cheap box that wasn't very reliable, but Windows gave no clues as
> to why.  Linux did, however, give me warnings that I could use to
> diagnose the fault.

I've come to the conclusion that it's Microsoft's policy to not
provide useful information when there is a problem. Just yesterday I
had Windows getting into an infinite loop between login and logout,
with no information provided.

> I've come to the conclusion that it's Microsoft's policy to not
> provide useful information when there is a problem. Just yesterday I
> had Windows getting into an infinite loop between login and logout,
> with no information provided.

I had that problem too which was the effect from the boot drive 
changing from C: to D:
No idea as how to correct the problem though.

Jim

--
Fedora Core 6 and proud

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/5/07, [e-mail]  wrote:
> > I've come to the conclusion that it's Microsoft's policy to not
> > provide useful information when there is a problem. Just yesterday I
> > had Windows getting into an infinite loop between login and logout,
> > with no information provided.
>
> I had that problem too which was the effect from the boot drive
> changing from C: to D:
> No idea as how to correct the problem though.

Already fixed that. As far as Windows problems go, i twas fairly easy.

[Tim]

jimacornette:
> > I had that problem too which was the effect from the boot drive
> > changing from C: to D:
> > No idea as how to correct the problem though.

Arthur Pemberton:
> Already fixed that. As far as Windows problems go, i twas fairly easy.

Let me guess, you used Linux to clean off your Windows, and you now have
a sparkling PC...  ;-)

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/6/07, Tim  wrote:
> jimacornette:
> > > I had that problem too which was the effect from the boot drive
> > > changing from C: to D:
> > > No idea as how to correct the problem though.
>
> Arthur Pemberton:
> > Already fixed that. As far as Windows problems go, i twas fairly easy.
>
> Let me guess, you used Linux to clean off your Windows, and you now have
> a sparkling PC...  ;-)

No, not really. Fedora is my primary desktop OS.

> A proper format may be required when you get bad sectors.  If the

system
> can write to the drive and clear the blocks (well, the drive pretends,
> in the background), and the warnings go away, you'll probably be okay.
> If you keep on seeing error warnings, I wouldn't trust the drive, at
> all.  Those bad blocks could have been the demise of your XP
> installation.

I assume the error is indicating an end to the life of the hard disk. I 
did not know about the errors until after completing the Fedora install 
and reading system mail. I'll have to check the system out more when 
I'm down that way again.
> I like the information Linux provides much more than Windows, too.  I
> had a cheap box that wasn't very reliable, but Windows gave no clues

as
> to why.  Linux did, however, give me warnings that I could use to
> diagnose the fault.

Lack of info or not making the errors obvious is what I suspect. I'll 
know if there are any informative errors if I try to recover the XP 
installation. The user is bound to want it working again. I see hints 
of this already.

Jim

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/4/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson  wrote:
> Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> > defaulted to runlevel 3.
> >
> > When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> > /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
> >
> > The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.
>
> Did you do a text install? From what I remember, if you do a text
> install, the installer will set the system to boot in run level 3
> instead of run level 5.
>
> Mikkel

As I stated in my original post, it was a graphical install.

[Andrew Parker]

On 8/4/07, Arthur Pemberton  wrote:
> I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> defaulted to runlevel 3.
>
> When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.

I've done a lot of NFS/HTTP installs for F7, and they have all
defaulted to run level 3.  Some of the test versions did the same
thing too.

I don't install KDE until later, so it isn't that that is causing it.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/4/07, Andrew Parker  wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Arthur Pemberton  wrote:
> > I installed F7 graphically via NFS, and on first bootup of F7 got
> > defaulted to runlevel 3.
> >
> > When I changed this to runlevel 5, I got no firstboot. Had to edit
> > /ets/sysconfig/firstboot to get it.
> >
> > The only thing I can think of is that I chose KDE instead of Gnome.
>
> I've done a lot of NFS/HTTP installs for F7, and they have all
> defaulted to run level 3.  Some of the test versions did the same
> thing too.

I guess that's the issue then. Not sure why a net install would be
automatically associated with runlevel 3 though.