Just installed FC5 - Page 2


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Just installed FC5

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126
    When you get your internet connection going, try this
    you may also want to scroll through the page, I found it very helpful!

    Justbill

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    I'm thinking of upgrading from Mandriva to Fedora Core 5 myself, especially with everything that's going on with Mandriva right now.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    2,978
    FC5 is the leader of the pack at the moment.
    I know Red Hat family has a big audience but I am not comfortable with the above statement.

    Already got FC2 to FC5 installed but my FC5 was the first test 1 version so for the sake of it I downloaded the Bordeaux version just came out and installed it in an empty slot of hdc56 in my second hard drive.

    Installation took 30 minutes as I recorded my steps. Booted first attempt as I put Grub inside hdc56 and have another Grub in MBR which has
    Code:
    title Empty in hdc56
    chainloader (hd1,55)+1
    ready if I put any OS in hdc56.

    Problem 1 - It picked "nv" for my video card. Only 75% screen displayed and no mouse pointer. No problem just do a ctrl+alt+backspace to drop to the command line but it didn't work. I had to do ctrl+alt+F1 to edit xorg.conf and reboot. The "vesa", which works for all other distros, put right the screen and mouse pointer.

    Problem 2 - I still don't know why the Red Hat family runs the "fdisk" that truncates all partition above the 15th
    Code:
    fdisk -l
    Warning: omitting partitions after #15.
    They will be deleted if you save this partition table.
    
    Disk /dev/hda: 300.0 GB, 300090728448 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36483 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
    
       Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
    /dev/hda1   *           1         122      979933+   6  FAT16
    /dev/hda2             123         244      979965    6  FAT16
    /dev/hda3             245         366      979965    6  FAT16
    /dev/hda4             367       36483   290109802+   5  Extended
    /dev/hda5             367         609     1951866   82  Linux swap / Solaris
    /dev/hda6             610        1217     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda7            1218        1825     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda8            1826        2433     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda9            2434        3041     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda10           3042        3649     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda11           3650        4257     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda12           4258        4865     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda13           4866        5473     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda14           5474        6081     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hda15           6082        6689     4883728+  83  Linux
    Warning: omitting partitions after #15.
    They will be deleted if you save this partition table.
    
    Disk /dev/hdc: 300.0 GB, 300090728448 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36483 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
    
       Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
    /dev/hdc1               1         122      979933+  1b  Hidden W95 FAT32
    /dev/hdc2   *         123         730     4883760    b  W95 FAT32
    /dev/hdc3             731        3162    19535040   93  Amoeba
    /dev/hdc4            3163       36483   267650932+   5  Extended
    /dev/hdc5            3163        3770     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc6            3771        4378     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc7            4379        4986     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc8            4987        5594     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc9            5595        6202     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc10           6203        6810     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc11           6811        7418     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc12           7419        8026     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc13           8027        8634     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc14           8635        9242     4883728+  83  Linux
    /dev/hdc15           9243        9850     4883728+  83  Linux
    I have 60 and 57 partitions in hda and hdc. FC5 itself has been installed in hdc56! How can a LInux can't even display the partition it is residing in fdisk????
    FC5 can mount high-number partitions, which wasn't possible with earlier versions, and so this proves its ability
    Code:
    [root@localhost ~]# mkdir /mnt/hdc57
    [root@localhost ~]# mount /dev/hdc57 /mnt/hdc57
    [root@localhost ~]# ls /mnt/hdc57
    bin   dev  home  lost+found  mnt  proc  sbin  success  tmp  var
    boot  etc  lib   media       opt  root  srv   sys      usr
    But it also proves its fdisk program is faulty because the existence of hdc57 substantiates my assertion that I have installed FC5 in hdc56. If Fedora doesn't want to support an IDE disk with up to 63 partitions why bothers to mount it?

    In Red Hat family distros, as far as I am aware all of them do it, fdsik doesn't display or operate on an IDE partition higher than 15 (some times 16) I don't even know if this is a fault needed to be reported because of its consistency. The implication is no user can use fdisk on a partition higher than 15 as though such thing never exists. All other distros that I installed DON'T do this truncation. May be Red Hat family isn't *****ious to anticipate there could be 63 partitions in an IDE or they prefer to treat all IDE disks as SCSI disks that cannot have more than 15 partitions. That feature cannot make FC5 the leader of the pack, can it?

    I am typing this post with FC5 Bordeaux, listening to the CD music and so it is pretty slick in kick-starting the hardware even though I still can't make it play MP3 yet. The problem 1 in the above is trivial too. However saying it is the leader of the pack is stretching the imagination too far because other distros like Suse, Mandriva... don't have such problems many versions back.
    Last edited by saikee; 03-25-2006 at 07:20 AM.
    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. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    I would agree that Fedora Core 5 isn't perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. I don't think the MP3 issue is ever going to be resolved, as they state in the wiki that MP3 support is left out on purpose in order to make the OS truly free.

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#he...925234df3c2232

    However, it is easy enough to get MP3 support. For instance, just go to the xmms website and download the Fedora Core binary plus whatever plugins you want, and you have MP3 support.

    As for myself, I'm still waiting until the new kernel is released that fixes the issue where Fedora Core 5 can't run any non-GPL kernel modules. The kernel is in the testing repository right now, so I'm just waiting for it to be moved to the update repository.

    However with all that being said, I'm still keeping my eye on Suse, as it looks like they're trying to do some interesting things as well, and they're also trying to be the leader in desktop Linux.
    Last edited by APwrs; 03-26-2006 at 01:43 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    517

    can upgrade using CD without doing reinstall

    Quote Originally Posted by Grathrax
    Im a newb, so when i do the FC5 upgrade you guys are saying it can be done with rpm files instead of a fresh install?
    I'm not using fedora now, but I upgraded from 3 to 4 using the CD. Don't need to do a fresh install. It did seem to take awhile.

    At that time, I heard that doing the upgrade using yum could cause problems if you were using LVM, and the CD upgrade method was encouraged. They were trying to get yum to work in the future. Don't know if that is working now.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126
    The last thing I heard (I don't follow it that closely though), way that it was "recomended to do a clean install". So take that for what its worth. I am sure there are people who have upgraded, personally, I went with the clean install.

    Justbill

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    In general, a clean install is always the, well, cleanest way to do it.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126

    After a week of FC5

    I find myself not quite as enthused! I still am impressed with the improved speed, and the package manager is nice. Having some trouble with yumex, still not quite sure how to straighten that out!

    My biggest issues with FC5 at this point is hardware problems! I HAD a "Soundblaster" in this machine with FC4, that worked well. In FC5, I gave up on it! Nothing I did seemed to work, never could get sound with the soundblaster, and had to go back to onboard sound. So I settled for "second best"! This afternoon I purchased a GeForce FX 5200 video card. Again nothing I did worked getting the video card working. Initially I downloaded the NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-8178-pkg1.run installer from nvidia, and saved it to my home. After some experience installing this same card on Ubuntu 5.10 successfully, and knowing the card had to be installed for the installer to work, I installed the card, and FC5 would not boot! To make this painfully long story a little shorter, I ended up exhuasting severall options, to discover this:


    "The kernel that ships with the Fedora Core 5 release iso images is not compatible with third party 3D graphics acceleration drivers. You should immediately update your kernel upon installation to get a newer kernel that is compatible. ("yum -y update" as root.) At the moment a compatible kernel is not available via yum"

    So on that I figured it was time to settle for "second best" again, and go back to the onboard graphics. So, do two second bests make a fourth best? I never did understand that math :-).

    Maybe I expext too much! I would think the support would be there for common hardware! I am beginning to wonder if this release wasn't rushed out a little premature! I mean the apps, and the speed , and the fresh new look, are all great, but its all cosmetic if the hardware doesn't work!

    Just (some random thoughts) Bill

    dual booting
    win XP & FC5
    on a
    Compaq Presario SR1426Nx
    2.93Ghz Pentium 4
    1.5GB Pcr-3200 DDR2 SDRAM
    160Gb 7200RPM Serial ATA hard drive

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    Love all the exclamation points. I pointed out the kernel issue in one of my earlier posts in this thread. You can currently grab the updated kernel manually through FTP if you so desire, and then install it manually.

    As far as the sound card issue goes, if you weren't getting any sound, the first place to check would be alsamixer from the command line. It very well could have been that the volumes were turned down, or the sound channels were muted.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126
    I should have mentioned that, that was the first thing I checked (been down that road with fc4), and I did need to bring up the volumes. Still no sound! How do I unmute sound channels? I thought that was what I was doing when I brought the volumes up.

    Thanks
    Justbill
    Last edited by justbill; 03-28-2006 at 08:15 AM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    Did you use the actual alsamixer command line tool, or did you use the volume mixer of whatever desktop you're using?

    If you used alsamixer itself, then when you have the sound channel highlighted that you want to work with, hitting m mutes and unmutes it.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126
    I did use alsamixer from command line. I did not know about hitting "m" , I did not try that. I will give it a try a little later, and post back. Thanks!

    Justbill

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126
    well, that didn't work. If I'm not mistaken, in FC4 it detected my card as a different card, and a different driver (it worked in fc4). I believe it was the emu10k1 driver in fc4. I tried to download that driver, but had no luck installing it. Back to onboard sound.

    Justbill

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo. USA
    Posts
    126

    time to UNINSTALL FC5!

    I just installed the new kernel, this thing is still buggy, in my mind.

    I've got Ubuntu 5.10 on an older machine, and everything just works, nvidia works, soundblaster works, apt-get works.....................yum seems to be having some problems, and if I start talking about nvidia and the soundblaster on this piece of cr@p, well the mods will have to bleep out the strong language.

    I put a test release of Ubuntu 6.04 on a buddy of mines computer that worked better than this!

    I have really lost my high opinion of fedora after this experience.

    Just (disheartened, disillusioned, & disfedora'd) Bill

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    312
    Actually, there are ways to fix all of the issues you're experiencing with Fedora Core 5, it's just far too late for me to be able to think clearly enough to explain them all right now. But it looks like you've already made up your mind anyhow.

    But, just because something doesn't work for you in Linux doesn't necessarily mean that the software is buggy. It just means you don't have the knowledge of how to get it to work the way you want it to work. You should be careful about declaring things a bug, when really you just need to learn more.

Posting Permissions

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