Re: Catharsis - slowly my FC4 world crumbles around me

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Thank you for your responses. It's nice to get a little support, both technical and in the form of a little encouragement.
Some specific responses.

Was this as clean install?
I would define it as "clean", yes. I did not upgrade of take over any older versions of Linux. I created a new partition and installed fresh. The machine dual boots with WinXP, which I hate and would like to stop using. But can I...?

You can mount them but cannot copy from them!!?
So it would seem. Experimentation has taught me that I can put a CD-ROM in and it will read fine. And I can burn both DVDs and CD-ROMs. But, if I put a DVD in any of my internal drives, it spins and spins and usually just gets stuck in there. Sometimes I have to force an eject by inserting a pin into the small manual eject hole. Other times it comes up, but if I copy things, it goes super slow (the copy window says over an hour to copy) and then fail. The external driver always mounts DVDs just fine. But it has the same slow down then die problem if I actually try to copy data from it.


config-system-packages? Very strange. What error are you getting?
Someone else on this thread said that config-system-package shouldn't work after the first install. And other people said it's just fine. In any case, I'm not sure if we're talking about config-system-packages. I'm talking about the Add/Remove Packages that is available in the Desktop menu, and has a GUI. Surely *that* should work after the first install. Otherwise why have a GUI for it?

Does the sound card otherwise work?
I have an external USB Kenwood stereo system that works great. I can play MP3s, AVIs in Xine, and system sounds come up fine. The only place I have noticed sound not happening is when something gets launched from Firefox, mainly Flash.

Which app?
Gnome Pilot. I have to admit, I didn't have high hopes for getting my Palm Pilot to work under Linux, so I didn't crack my head against this problem too long. I'm more concerned about getting my DVD drives working and my Tablet configured.

How did you add ntfs support?
http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora4.html
Worked great when I first installed, and for the first few reboots. In fact, it was the one RPM that went completely problem free and as the installation instructions said it would. And then one day I notice the NTFS partition didn't mount, and no longer auto-mounts at boot, despite me not having configured anything...


What were you running before?  How about trying a multi-boot environment
with a more stable version such as FC3 or CentOS4, and leave the FC4
stuff to age a bit before giving up entirely.
In another thread I was lead to understand that there was "no downgrade path" to FC3. I would assume that switching to any other Linux distro at this point would mean wiping things out and a new fresh install. This may sound like I'm just whining, but at this point if I have to wipe things out, back them up, and do the whole thing over again, I think I'll probably just give the partition back over to Windows. I mean, I'm really rooting for Linux here, but I'm not sure if I'm rooting for it enough to keep installing the OS until I get it right. Is that unreasonable of me?

That is an oxymoron.  Hard core computer users are not deterred by new
software distributions.  They live for the challenge of breaking in a
new distro.
I think you misread me. That's exactly what I mean. I am *not* a hard core computer user. I'm sort of "medium-core". So therefore I do not want to break in new distros. I'm contemplating throwing in the towel and leaving the new distros for people who have cores that are more hard than mine.

On the other hand, a rational computer user would install FC3.  There
is less anguish.  You benefit from the suffering of other early
adopters.  And with the delayed release of FC5 there is the added
bonus of getting Fedora Core software support for a longer time span
than any of the releases to date.

This is the part that threw me. I don't get this system of numbering for FC releases. People talk about this like it's normal or something, and maybe it is and it's the way software companies like Adobe and MS that are doing it wrong, but I would have thought that version 4 would replace and be better than version 3, which would be better than version 2... By "better" I just mean bugs and issues in the previous release are fixed, and if there are new bugs, they are a part of new features. If FC4 had the words "beta" or something to indicate that it was *less* stable than FC3, I would have gone with FC3. How was I supposed to know that FC4 was the least stable version? As I wrote this, I rechecked the web site, and I didn't see anything that clearly states "this is less stable than FC3". It seems to indicate that FC4 is a wonderful thing and it's the one you want if you're making a fresh install of FC.

Dave


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux