gOS 3.1 won't install - goes to blackscreen - initramfs


Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: gOS 3.1 won't install - goes to blackscreen - initramfs

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5

    gOS 3.1 won't install - goes to blackscreen - initramfs

    Somewhat new to linux but not computers. Have used Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Suse, and Mint. Downloaded gOS 3.1 and tried to boot the livecd on my Compaq CQ60 laptop.

    The cd works on other computers - so let's eliminate a bad iso as the problem before we begin.

    When the cd is loaded and a reboot is done, the operating system tries to start. It goes to gOS screen with a status bar and the cd is accessing the disk for about a minute. The cd stops accessing the disk and then the graphical gOS screen goes away and a black screen appears. It says (initramfs) at the prompt and everything stops.

    Did some research and found several possible solutions....
    1. boot in safe mode - doesn't work!
    2. add pci=nomsi to the startup options - doesn't work!
    3. add all_generic_ide to startup options - doesn't work!
    4. add floppy=off to the startup options - doesn't work!
    5. add irqpoll to the startup options - doesn't work!

    I found most of my solutions from the ubuntu forums. The gOS help and support forum is USELESS! I posted the issue on their site and received no response - also saw that others were having the same issue - and NO SOLUTIONS were provided. Their support forum really sucks.

    I saw several suggestions after google searching the issue, but have yet to find a way to successfully get the livecd to boot. These additional suggestions were as follows:

    1. update the bios on my laptop (really?)
    2. download the iso from a different website and try burning at slower speeds
    3. use different burning software to write the iso
    4. scrap gOS - it sucks! (I found this one to be quite amusing!)

    So... this is not something that is unique to the gOS distro. The solutions I was finding were coming from ubuntu and other distross. Again, the disk I have is good - in fact, I made 9 different versions of the iso image - using Power ISO, Magic ISO, and Nero at burn speeds of 4X up to 16X just to make sure it wasn't a bad iso image. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I was able to boot the disk on my desktop without any issues. I would very much like to try this distro on my laptop, but I can't get past the (initramfs) screen - even with the additional startup parameters metioned above.

    Does anyone have a solution to this problem, or should I take the advice given at the gOS forum (scrap gOS - it sucks!).

    My laptop has 2gb memory and is currently a dual boot machine running linux mint kde and vista ultimate (32 bit). Every other distro of linux I have run on this laptop worked fine (except for the atheros wireless issue - but I know how to solve that, so its not an issue for me).

    Any suggestion that may actually solve this issue would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Montreal Canada
    Posts
    383
    How new is your laptop (motherboard), and how old is the kernel of gOS 3.1. Sounds like its not supported by the kernel. I had something similar on a Asus PQ5 Pro motherboard and an older kernel, i had to wait for 2.6.26 to come out to install my favorite distro.
    Just a thought
    Last edited by Davno; 05-24-2009 at 05:51 PM.

    Linux Counter


    Debian "Lenny"
    Mandriva 2010.2

    "Where am I?" "In the Village." "What do you want?" "Information.""Whose side are you on?" "That would be telling.... We want information. Information! INFORMATION!"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,984
    This is the common problem with distros in that you cannot configure the Xwindows during the initial boot up. If a wrong driver has been selected for the installer that there very little you can do. There is nothing wrong with the distro except the hardware detection gets it wrong on your particular macine.

    If you want Gos desparately you can install it on another PC and shift the the partition to the current machine. Once installed you can re-configure xorg. Or you wait for a new release that may have a better or more up to date hardware detection procedure.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5
    to saikee and davno....

    thanks for your comments. solutions to the problem would have been appreciated more. The gOS version is 3.1 - which is supposed be based on Ubuntu 8.something and uses the 2.something kernel. My thoughts on gOS are the same as my thoughts on linux in general. It is not a "fun" operating system. Fun occurs when something works and can be productive. Linux out of the box seldom works without having to spend significant time researching stupid issues involving hardware. Personally, for those who think that this is fun, my advice is simple - GET A LIFE!

    I have tried many distros of linux. Never and I mean NEVER has any of them worked right from the start. These distros have been run on various desktop and laptop computers and in every instance - hardware issues had to be resolved. Linux appears to be just a hobbiest's wet dream even today. Some idiot will always point out the virtues of linux and always refer to the fact that it is free. So what! It should be free - it doesn't work for many people right off the bat. It is like getting buggy software and beta testing it for free. All of these users download and install the various distros and then as they run into problems, the chatter gets going on the internet to try and solve the problem. The really crappy thing is then trying to figure out what advice or solutions to the problems may actually be of some value. Most of it is just b.s.

    Linux newbies almost always go back to windows or something else because of the frutrating endeavor to get linux working with their particular hardware. Linux geeks, while potentially able to get the software working properly, have no ability to explain things to the newbies in a format or verbiage that is understandable - so inevitably - newbies go back to windows.

    I am back to the mindset that linux will never be anything but a third rate operating system mostly because the normal computer user won't ever figure it out.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,984
    linuxrocks2009,

    I am sorry you feel Linux this way. As far as I am aware gOS uses a pretty old kernel of 2.6.24. Ubuntu 9.10 RC is currently on 2.6.28 kernel and the 2.6.24 kernel belongs to version 8.04 or at least 3 versions earlier.

    Distros sticking with older kernels is for the purpose of stability. I have 32 distros installed in my newest PC and only two of them have kernel older than 2.6.26. One is Asterisk which is a text mode Linux and the other is CentOS, both using 2.6.18 kernel. I can only remember 2 to 3 Linux that failed to get installed in my current PC. Your view of Linux not getting installed and work first time is 3 to 4 years old and not representative of the current state. This is based on Dec 2006 I wrote a thread here reporting booting 154 systems. It certainly wasn't a problem to get Linux installed then but since Linux has improved considerably.

    I also downloaded Vista and Win7 when they were free and on a like to like basis the M$ systems have a long way to go unless drivers are provided.

    You should look at sites like Distrowatch.com, find out the ones that are most popular and try their current versions.

    I am fairly confident that gOS can run on your PC. It is only an installer problem. This is not unique to Linux. The famous Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) can be seen almost daily reported in the Internet by some M$ Windows users. I had to cure mine recently by slipstreaming the latest Service Packs into my Win2x and Xp installation discs when installing them into a PC with Intel i7 CPU, yet none of the Linux has a problem with it.

    From my 30 years of using M$ systems and only 5 years on Linux I would say the former is a third rate system myself. You will know this immediately if you ever try to install all of them in a PC, or try to see if you can get a M$ Windows creating 130 partitions in hard disk in less than 15 seconds.
    Last edited by saikee; 05-24-2009 at 09:31 PM.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5

    Well thought out response

    Saikee -

    Your response was very well spoken and seemingly well thought out. To be fair to you and to linux, the major distributions, Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, PCLinuxOS and Mint have all installed on my compaq cq60-211dx laptop without any significant issue aside from the wireless card.

    Do I think M$ is the answer? Hell no! If I did, I wouldn't keep looking at different linux distros. When I look at linux, I see a beautiful thing for different reasons than you may however. And my point about it being a 3rd rate operating system is valid in my mind. Who do I blame for this?

    Let's start with the people who release the different distros? why don't they test their version of the kernel with more hardware? I also blame developers -not enough of them are supporting linux and writing software applications for linux. A good case in point? How about naming a good accounting software program for linux? Guess what? There isn't one! There is no great plains, mas 90, etc. equivelent for linux. That is just one segment and one type of program.

    Yes... there are some really cool programs available for linux - like gimp, for example. But there are way more available for M$ and MAC. I beleive that my opinion is shared by many - and I know for a FACT after reading countless hours of forum bull**** that my frustration is SHARED by many others. Does M$ have frustrated posts filling various forums on the web? Absolutely! Does that mean I should cut linux any slack? NO! Just because one operating system has problems doesn't mean that other operating systems should use that as an excuse for mediocre or crappy performance.

    In my opinion, it is harder to find solutions to linux issues than it is for M$ or MAC. Largely this is due to the many variations of the operating system. In a perfect world - linux would just install without all of the hardware b.s. - but we don't live in the perfect world huh?

    Well - thanks again for your response - you make some good points. I wouldn't want to debate you on the merits of linux - you would win hands down. I just wish you had a solution to my problem instead of insightful commentary on the merits of linux.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,984
    OK This is what I have done to test gOS.

    I downloaded version 3.1 from Distrowatch.com and burnt it into two copies in bootable CD to test a number of PCs that I could lay my hand on.

    I then tried to boot it up in the following PC

    6 Desktops (all self assembled)

    (1) Abit AW9D mobo, Intel E6700 Dual core CPU, 4Gb of ram and a XFXgeforce 7600GT PCI express video card.

    (2) Asus A8V-E deluxe mobo, AMD 64 Fx 939 3200+ CPU, 2x512 Mb PC3200 ram (400Hz), Gigabyte geforce 6200 PCI video card

    (3) Asus A7N8X-E mobo, Althlon 2800 CPU, 512 ram @ 333Mhz, Radeon 9200 SE 128Mb video PCI card

    (4) Asrock 939NF4G mobo, AMD 3200 CPU socket 939, onboard video integrated NV44graphics DX9 VGA

    (5) Asus M3A78-T mobo, Phenom 9950 Quad core, 4Gb ram at 1066 MHz, onboard Ati Radeon HD 3300 video graphics.

    (6) Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 socket LGA 1366, Intel i7 920 Quad core, 6Gb DDR3 ram 1066 Mhz, PCI express geforce 9800 GTX

    3 Laptops

    (7) Dell Latitude 0620 - Intel Centrino Duo CPU - standard onboard video - my work's laptop

    (8) HP Pavilion Entertainment PC Intel Centrino Duo, on board standard Nivdia graphic

    (9) Advent 7003 Intel Pentium CPU, standard onboard graphics - Oldest laptop belonging to the daughter who since has used up another 2 laptops.

    The only PC that does not fire up gOS is No.6 with the newest equipment. It booted to a Busybox terminal which is an indication of having a problem of its Xorg set-up.

    I believe the failure of No. 6 to boot up gOS is possibly because of the graphic card or the socket 1366 CPU (using triple channel memory technology) both of which are the most expensive ones I have bought so far. gOS just booted to an Busybox terminal. All the other 8 PC were booted to the graphic desktop ready as an installable Live CD session. The No. 6 PC has 32 Linux already installed inside.

    I am not here to defend gOS failing to boot up in certain PC but I believe gOS is one of the first major Linux shipped as the installed OS for some computers because the earlier version actually has a boot-up entry for the OEM. To be fair gOS could have been "rigged" or simplified for the hardware sold with a certain computer models and is not really a Linux for the general public usage.

    However being a Ubuntu-based distro I would say it is not bad for able to boot up successfully in 8 of my 9 PC I tried and failed on the one that has equipment came out after gOS was launched.

    It is really on the above basis I cannot agree with its failure to get installed in one machine to be representative of all Linux to the point of being labeled as a "third rate" operating system. To me this is unfair.

    I admit that I do not know how to cure the problem because I do not consider the time spent in the investigation worthy of my effort. It could be a bug or the gOS was never written to go into certain type of equipment. In any case the person who choose this system may not have truly standardised equipment. This problem could disappear in the next release of gOS. So all in all I think we should move on to a distro that works for the equipment we have got.
    Last edited by saikee; 05-25-2009 at 12:21 PM.
    Linux user started Jun 2004 - No. 361921
    Using a Linux live CD to clone XP
    To install Linux and keep Windows MBR untouched
    Adding extra Linux & Doing it in a lazy way
    A Grub menu booting 100+ systems & A "Howto" to install and boot 145 systems
    Just cloning tips Just booting tips A collection of booting tips

    Judge asked Linux "You are being charged murdering Windoze by stabbing its heart with a weapon, what was it?" Replied Linux "A Live CD"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    1) Wrong "installation" forum.

    2) When you get dumped into an extremely basic system, it's because the script that was included couldn't find something that it thinks it needs. (Whether it actually *does* need it is a different question; there's nowhere near enough information provided here to tell for sure. )

    Saikee -- it's actually nothing to do with xorg (...well, most likely). The initramfs has one job: to find the root filesystem and mount it somewhere, then delete itself and chroot into the real root FS. (Since it's loaded into memory, "delete itself" really just means "get the kernel to free that memory". But you do that by deleting the files. It's a ramfs...)

    Generally if it fails at some point along the way in this process, it'll give you the reason it failed (in the form of an error message), and this type of prompt. The idea is, if you know what went wrong, you can fix it manually and continue the boot process, then fix the system so that whatever happened doesn't happen again. Of course, if you don't know what went wrong, it's kinda hard to do that.

    General advice -- several initramfs setups accept a "rootdelay=X" parameter, where X is in seconds. This gives the system a bit of a delay to allow disk devices to show up, so if the problem is that it can't find the root FS because the disk isn't there (yet), but it is there by the time you get dumped to the prompt, then rootdelay might help. (There may be another similar option that this initramfs uses, but I don't know how each distro sets up their initramfs and which parameters they all accept.)

    (It's also possible that the distro has decided that xorg failures are actually critical, and has included an entire X server inside the initramfs, and therefore gives you this prompt when xorg fails -- but I think this is unlikely. For one, the X server is *huge*. For two, there are easier ways to give a graphical screen if you absolutely need to. For three, it's really really dumb to treat pretty graphics as critical when you're in a minimalized setup like an initramfs...)

    Specific advice -- get the error message that's printed before this prompt.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •