random crashes

[Patrick Bartek]

--- On Sun, 2/27/11, Andras Simon <szajmi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/27/11, Patrick Bartek <bartek047 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > TO: OP
> >
> > If you think it's specifically a Fedora problem (I
> don't), I would install
> 
> Me neither. It's just that I still think it's possible that
> it's not a
> HW problem.
> 
> > (a real dual boot install--not a LiveCD) distro other
> than Fedora that has
> > the same versions of kernel, GNOME, etc. to see if the
> problem persists.
> > Then try one that has different kernel, etc.
> 
> Is there a reason why a real install is better in this
> case? The disk
> can be exercised with a live cd, too. Of course, one is
> constrained to
> the applications that are on the cd, but still... And
> finding a distro
> with the same components is probably impossible.

Installing the "test" distro in the same "environment" as the purported problem distro is the better way to evaluate problems.  I've discovered by experience that live distros, Fedora's particularly, don't behave the same as if you install them to the hard drive.  For example, I had one Fedora LiveCD that was slow to boot (5 or 6 minutes), erred on some of the hardware, got the video wrong, too--I corrected it manually--etc., but when I installed it, it got everything correct.  Go figure.  BTW, the iso file and CD burn of that LiveCD checksummed good.

I use LiveCDs only for fixing broken installs or initially testing hardware compatibility.  For installation, I prefer the "Install" version of a distro, if it has one, rather than installing the Live version.

> BTW, I'm running a 32 bit live cd now and it's been
> chugging along
> under heavyish load (load avg above 4)  with no
> problems. Doesn't mean
> a thing, of course... But if it goes on like this, then
> trying the 64
> bit live cd or installing the 32 bit version of F14 will
> probably make
> sense.

Hope everything turns out well.

B