12:49 a.m.
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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
2:19 a.m.
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
--
[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.
2:26 a.m.
On 8/4/07, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> 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
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
9:33 p.m.
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.
--
[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.
8:44 a.m.
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
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
1:44 p.m.
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
--
F.S. Fitzgerald to Hemingway:
"Ernest, the rich are different from us."
Hemingway:
"Yes. They have more money."
9:32 p.m.
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.
--
[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.
10:19 p.m.
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.
10:50 p.m.
On 8/4/07, jimacornette(a)netscape.net <jimacornette(a)netscape.net> 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.
11:07 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:19 -0400, jimacornette(a)netscape.net 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.
--
[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.
11:22 p.m.
On 8/4/07, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 23:19 -0400, jimacornette(a)netscape.net 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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
6:54 p.m.
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.
1:31 a.m.
On 8/5/07, jimacornette(a)netscape.net <jimacornette(a)netscape.net> 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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
3:03 a.m.
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... ;-)
--
(This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:14 a.m.
On 8/6/07, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> 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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
7:08 p.m.
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.
10:49 p.m.
On 8/4/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> 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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
10:41 a.m.
On 8/4/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> 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.
10:50 p.m.
On 8/4/07, Andrew Parker <andrewparker(a)bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 8/4/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> 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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
6169
days inactive
6171
days old
18 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Andrew Parker -
Arthur Pemberton -
Jim Cornette -
jimacornette＠netscape.net -
Kam Leo -
Mikkel -
Tim