It isn't just Mandrake 8.2

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 8

It isn't just Mandrake 8.2

Author:

anti filidor

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

May 08, 2002

Comments:

Yesterday I allowed myself to be convinced that Mandrake 8.2's abysmal performance was aberrant, and that Red Hat 7.3 might be able to succeed where Mandrake failed.

I was woefully mistaken.

More diaries by anti filidor

	Polyurethane Condoms?
	more kuro5hin bashing
	Windows 2000 and the joys of a healthy computer.
	Alcoholic Beverages.
	Gentoo Linux
	osnews
	Covert Mold
	excellent [REDACTED] post on slashdot.

Sure, the install went over fine, but that's nothing new. KDE 3 seems to be nice, and I really wanted it to be nice. However, once you get past the apparent speed increase and some silly eye candy luxuries, it's really nothing to write home about.

To be honest, I don't know where the problem lies; that is, it could be KDE or it could be Red Hat. Either way, one of them is causing this install to be disgustingly unstable and generally inadequate. Perhaps if I were more of a computer dork I would be able to diagnose the root of this problem, but the main symptom is that after a bit of light use, the system suddenly clenches like a spasmatic sphincter.

While Red Hat 7.2 elicited its fair share of grievances from me, none of them were so bad as this one. I strongly encourage people who are considering the most well known Linux distribution to reconsider and stick with Windows.

	wait a minute (none / 0) (#1)
	by detikon on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 04:42:28 PM PST

	That's nice but exactly is it doing? What exactly is going on? How did you install it (stand alone or multi boot or something else)? Did you play around with the system during the install and use Partition Magic all over the place like the last guy? What were you doing when it messed up? Are you screwing around while logged in as root all the time or are you suing? Amazingly enough these are not difficult questions. Any schmuck could answer them. I find the lack of any real detail to be amazing. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	here: (none / 0) (#5)
	by anti filidor on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 05:26:13 PM PST

	I didn't include more detail because I naively thought that nobody could be dorky enough to give a shit. Since I was wrong: I'm fairly computer literate and I've got a year or so of experience using Linux on and off. I didn't do any repartitioning for this install because my disk was already partitioned so as to accommodate Linux's rather baffling limitations (yes, the swap partition is my niggle). Anyway, I wasn't complaining that Linux messed with my windows partitions or something. I'm posting from windows right now, interestingly, because it actually works. The system was practically idle when it started floundering. I was running two or three unintensive processes that never caused problems on my 7.2 install. Don't you think that if I had been doing something crazy I wouldn't have blamed the OS? I don't know what you mean about screwing around logged in as root. Of course I wasn't logged into KDE as root, but obviously I was suing as root to install packages. I confess to not being a "s00p3r L1NUX h4x0r," but I do know the basics. There was no need for you to be a dicknose about this, though. I wasn't posting for technical support; I was posting because I was offended at the lack of QA that went into Red Hat 7.3. I'm not a rabid anti-linux fellow in theory, but lately the major distributions have been letting me down most ingraciously. In the past I've been willing to overlook the hostility that people like you display towards those you perceive as nay-sayers, but I find myself increasingly displeased with Linux's performance and so far less inclined to put up with its proponents.

	a few things (1.00 / 1) (#7)
	by detikon on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 08:30:59 PM PST

	1. Using the term computer literate really doesn't help when you're trying to convince people you "know what you are doing". Computer literate means nothing more than you know how to turn the computer on/off, use a word processor, surf the web and send/receive email. The last two were only included recently. It by no means is meant to give the impression you know how to install/configure an operating system. 2. Choosing a particular linux distro is a choice made by a user. Just like any other OS (ie Windows) people shouldn't use it because it's popular. They should pick the one that best fulfills their needs and offers what they want. 3. Red Hat Linux 7.3 is still fairly new. Hell I still can't find it in many stores. However, I can find 7.1 and 7.2. The trick is to never buy/download an operating until you have done some research and read the pros and cons. Hell I won't even touch a new version of Windows (if I actually plan to buy it) until at least 6 months after its release. Unless you're willing to deal with porblems (big and small), download patches (just to get it run stable), and configure the system to where you want it, then you should always wait. 4. As far as linux distro consider that the version you download for commercial distros are never perfect, may be dev/unstable releases (most stupid people download these by mistake) and are likely not full featured. Remember that despite what retards tell you there is nothing in the GPL that says you must make your distro and source availble for download from your website. It [simply] states that with the binaries you must provide the source. There are many companies in which the only way you can get the source is to purchase the binaries. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	i'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by anti filidor on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 09:00:36 PM PST

	I wasn't aware that you were an asshole. I'll fashion this response accordingly. Something that you either missed or chose to ignore: Red Hat Linux 7.3 did not function properly. This has nothing to do with whether its stated functions met my operating criteria, because it didn't function in any capacity. Moreover, according to its spec sheet, Red Hat is the only distribution that meets my needs/wants and is easy to find and download. That said, you are deluded or dishonest if you seriously think that Linux distributions usually function as advertised (this is in response to your claim that I should do research before trying a distribution). Relying on second-hand accounts is no good, because it's all a bunch of elitist shitheads (yes, like you) who choose to overlook glaring performance problems so as to save face in front of your brethren. The only way for me to really know whether a given Linux distribution is going to have any value for me is to actually try it myself. If nothing else, this is so because some distributions do not properly detect my hardware (Mandrake would be a good example of this; it naturally configures my monitor at 1024x768, and I don't care if this is fixable by doing all sorts of kooky adjustments to my Xf86config whatever whatever, this is the sort of thing that should just WORK). Anyway, there's no reason to cut Red Hat slack. If Microsoft were to release a version of windows that simply did NOT work properly to this extent, it would be considered completely unacceptable. Sure, I got Red Hat for free, but that only goes to show that you get what you pay for. If Red Hat (or any other Linux company) wants to be considered comparable to windows on the desktop, they need to do better than this. They would certainly be fools to covertly make the downloadable version somehow less functional than their "real" product. That leads to the sort of bad publicity that usually only criminals receive. Finally, I don't give a flying fuck what the term computer literate means to you. You obviously knew what I meant; the first sign of a weak argument is that sort of nitpicking, particularly coming from someone who can't be bothered to string together coherent sentences. If you don't think I know what I'm doing then that's your oversight. Anyway, I chose Red Hat because whether or not I know how to configure/install a Linux distribution, I really don't fucking feel like being more involved in the process than I am in a Red Hat type install, especially since most of the ones I try don't even work. I notice that you were so strident in your demands for richer detail, but refused to incorporate any of the information I dutifully provided for you into your tirade. Then again, I shouldn't have been surprised by the thickness of someone who takes people like Yoshi entirely at face value.

	I beg to differ (none / 0) (#9)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:11:11 AM PST

	I claim to have read spec sheets yet you go and download and install various other distros. It seems more to me that you were looking more for a user friendly linux rather than a powerhouse distro. As for research you need to look for objectionable unbiased research. I don't appreciate your stereotypical comment amount elitism. It shows a lack of intelligence on your part. You want further proof that I'm no 100% pro-this 100% MS? Just look at comments by The Mad Scientist. He speaks in favor (most times) of open source software. Get it OSS. Yet everyone runs around screaming Linux communist hacker criminal and such. OSS doesn't literally mean linux. He has stated many times that BSDs in many cases are btter. You want more? Fine. Some linux distros are shit. They're nothing more than a me-too distro taken from Red Hat with a different name. Yes you get what you pay for. If you download a distro do you expect it to work 100% of the time in all cases? Windows doesn't. That's what the hardware compatibility list and Upgrade Advisor and all that other crap are for. One more thing letting Mandrake do everything for you probably isn't a good idea. Why not simply select a different screen resolution when you installed it? When you download a distro you can't be certain (even with stable releases) that every little thing is included (in commercial distros). The draw to linux is not that it's free (cost). I have linux installed because it give new life to computer only a couple years old that run like crap after patching and configuring the hell out of Windows and cleaning the registry every week to get the thing to run stable. Linux is for PCs MS tells people are too old and for Macs that won't, can't and shouldn't run OSX. Spending $50-60 for Red Hat (or whatever distro) is far more attractive than $200-300 for XP. As for understanding your usage of the term computer literate, yes I and others knew what you meant because you go on and on trying to further convince people. However, your incorrect use of the term and lack of any real detail in your argument against Red Hat is questionable. Almost there. As for MS making a version of Windows that was shitty how about these: Windows 95 fixed with 95 Official Release 2 Windows 98 fixed with 98 Second Edition Windows Me consumer oriented version of W2K that is regarded as an abomination Hell WindowsXP is rather funny. Especially Home Edition. Empty promises of great backwards compatibility. Let's not forget that the default Administrator pass is...well...blank. The only way to fix this according to MS is to boot into Safe Mode and fix it there. Talk about a security hole waiting to be exploited. Finally as for Yoshi (and osm) I'm still trying to figure him out. He's either a huge fucking moron or a comedian that drags it out for far too long. It's was sort of funny the first time but the IP token/iMac address/fear of hyperlinks/etc crap has gotten really annoying. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	I hate you. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 01:07:50 AM PST

	No really- you're a jerk. A real dick. "Oh, look at me, I'm so l33t with my mad lunix skillz." Shut up. Just shut up. I mean, PotatoError was often moronic, but he was never a jerk about anything. And Mad Scientist has an insane amount of knowledge, but unless he's dealing with 'Slave or Elenchos he was never hit the level of assitude that you have. And fix your grammar, damn it- people like you shouldn't be allowed to speak English. Look, just face it. Unix is a great, stable server OS (much better than the MS offerings, but not as fast or stable as the flavors that Sun offers). One can also argue that MacOSX (which is just Unix prettied up by the brilliant interface designers at Apple) is a pretty kickass consumer-level OS. WindowsXP also turned out to be pretty damn good, much better than all of you Lunatix have made it out to be. But Linux, no matter which distro it's going through, is complete shit as a desktop/consumer level OS. If the majority of the computer-using population were no-life computer geeks like you, than yes, Linux would be the OS of choice. But they aren't. Much of us have better things to do than fiddle around with our partition tables- we just want to turn the computer on, get our work done, and maybe play a couple of games. And like it or not, MS has succeeded in developing a user-friendly OS that's easy to work with. God, I hate people like you. Maybe if you were an Apple freak advocating the Mac over MS I'd understand a little. But you... you folks just don't understand that normal people don't want to spend more than five minutes fiddling around with their computers, don't you? I want to put my head through my monitor. I hate you. I really, really hate you.

	Let's clear this up once and for all. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by dmg on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:50:36 AM PST

	Nobody needs to replace the perfectly functional Microsoft operating system provided by their PC vendor. However some people like to fiddle around with their PCs in much the same way that some Easterners enjoy fiddling with worry beads. It gives them something to do with their hands other than masturbating, and therefore helps them to avoid sin. So, given that there are some teenagers out there who would otherwise be out stealing or taking drugs were it not for "OS Experimentation", I say we should encourage this behaviour, since the alternative is worse. If you ban Linux, the Linux lunatics will have to find something else to do, which may involve criminal acts against your person. To minimise the impact of this OS experimentation, I have devised a chart of "alternative OSs" or "semi-legal hacker tools" in order of quality. If you stick with the OSs near the top of the list, you will be fine. And if the worst comes to the worst, you can always reinstall Windows from the media which came with your PC. In order of quality then: BeOS R5.04 Developer Edition Solaris8 for Intel OpenBSD NetBSD FreeBSD QNX Linux time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I must disagree. (none / 0) (#15)
	by because it isnt on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 05:36:14 AM PST

	I didn't know you got a free copy of Windows with a PC. When I bought my case, CPU, motherboard, etc, etc, they only supplied driver disks for those components. I didn't get an OS at all. But anyway, my personal choice of OSes for the IA32 architecture would be (in order of preference): AROS on top of any of the below. QNX / AtheOS / BeOS -- they're all the same really. BeOS loses points for being based on the abomination of a language called "C++", and it uses the stupid and backward features of that language instead of coming up with a good API design. And the fact that basically all new BeOS software is ported from UNIX with a GUI slapped on the front of it. GNU/Linux once you've disabled the VM task-killer and other stupid decisions made by teenagers. Don't sully your ethics with sold-out "Linux", demand untainted "GNU/Linux" (apart from the NVIDIA drivers). FreeBSD if you have a circa-1990 PC, otherwise there won't be any drivers for your hardware. NetBSD if you think FreeBSD has too much software available for it and you would prefer less. NetBSD's goal is to run on every computing architecture in the world equally badly. OpenBSD if you like killing Jews and blacks. Also a good OS for security. By default, it checks for insecure peripherals like keyboards, mice, network connections, or anything that could allow someone to type a command, therefore breaching security. If it detects an insecurity, it turns itself off, unplugs the computer and transports it to a concrete and steel safe surrounded by guards. Solaris8 for Intel if you are employed by Sun or need an exact Solaris environment for training purposes. This supports so little hardware, it's just not funny. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I must disagree (none / 0) (#23)
	by DG on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 03:34:48 PM PST

	some of your list is good, but i disagree on a few things, FreeBSD - some things need to be updated, but soundblaster lives and newer soundcards work. They have the latest drivers for scsi and ide, as well as many nics and such.. about the only thing not working right now is nvidia drivers and someone is working on it Solaris - you think people use the intel version? you must be joking, the intel one was so neglected by sun it's sad, i'm glad they are shooting it, the sun version is one of the best unices i've ever seen.. well that works on their hardware, the intel one is why people mockingly refere to it as "slowaris" � 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	sloooowwwwwwwww (none / 0) (#25)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:45:20 PM PST

	Oddly enough dmg (I believe) suggested that we should use it. Amazingly Sun Microsystems gave x86 version of Solaris the boot. Sun does offer a version of unix for the x86 platform. It's called Linux. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	nope (none / 0) (#28)
	by anti filidor on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 08:34:59 PM PST

	They still offer Solaris 8 for intel. They're just not planning to make a Solaris 9 for intel. And even that they might be reconsidering, it seems. Its hardware support is abysmal, though, so I'm not sure it's worth using.

	i be to differ (none / 0) (#29)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 10:44:13 PM PST

	Sun Microsystems already announced that it will no longer support Solaris x86 and that no future version of Solaris will be available for the Intel platform. Sun is however planning to make blades based on x86 compatible processors. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	ok, i'll try this one more time. (none / 0) (#21)
	by anti filidor on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 11:49:18 AM PST

	It really seems to me that you didn't even bother to read the post to which you were responding. This wouldn't exactly be a new tactic for a Linux zealot, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply misunderstood what you read. I consider this to be a possibility because it is clear that you have a lot of trouble with the written word. Some of your points don't make sense at all, so don't be disappointed that I haven't taken the time to respond to them directly. If I haven't addressed something you said, assume that it's because it was completely incomprehensible. First, Mandrake wouldn't detect my monitor's hardware properly. That's why it wouldn't allow for a resolution higher than 1024x768. Obviously I tried to jiggle the setting, to no avail. If you are certain that the downloadable ISOs provided by Linux distributors do not function as advertised (that is, as well as the boxed product), then you have nailed another nail into Linux's coffin, so far as I'm concerned. That's a completely unacceptable business practice from a company whose livelihood is made repackaging other people's code. Those versions of Windows you mentioned may not have had all the features you wanted (though you were not very detailed in listing their shortcomings), none of them were as broken as Red Hat 7.3 or Mandrake 8.2. Hell, I'm running Windows 98 first edition right now, and it's quite alright. Furthermore, you're a moron if you think that ME is a dumbed down version of 2K. They use a completely different kernel. If you're going to make baseless claims, at least root them in some semblance of reality. I provided you with more than enough detail about 7.3, detail which you continue to ignore. You really are an idiot. Of course I'm looking for a user-friendly Linux distribution. I'm beginning to realize that that's just another holy grail in realistic terms. I got a formkeys error (I don't know why), so if this is a dupe, sorry.

	now allow me (none / 0) (#22)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 02:16:09 PM PST

	Downloaded Linux ISOs not function as advertised? Yes actually they do. In fact they arte not advertised. They are generally for the purpose of getting to know the distro. They "advertise" them "as is" with no support of guarentee. Commercial Linux providers are in it to make money. I don't know why everyone seems to believe that the draw to open source software is that it's free (cost). You are more than able to charge for OSS include GPL'd software. If MS allowed you to download Windows for free do you think it would be full featured and run the same as a copy you bought in the store? What does your monitor's hardware have to do with selecting the screen resolution? Sounds more to me like something to do with the video card. Windows has problems with devices too don't forget that. HCL says one thing, the Upgrade Advisor tells you another. The only way to see if it works is to install it. Ever wonder why they say that it's better to install XP on a separate partition or upgrade it? It's easier to go back to your old version. I too am running Windows 98 (first edition). It's taken patch after patch and downloading and purchasing third party tools to clean up the mess MS left. It now runs much like it did when I first installed it. EasyCleaner (PCWorld.com) found 30MB(a majority were empty TMP files) or unnecessary files and countless unnecessary registry keys that every MS tool provided in Windows and from MS tools I picked up later missed. Now Windows Me was the consumer based version of W2K (not literally though). W2K Professional was designed for businesses yet many people bought it for everyday use. Windows Me was meant to offer the features that lead people to W2K while maintaing backwards compatibility with legacy versions of Windows. Yes it is designed around the same kernel as Win 9x but the comparsions can be found in the UI. You really haven't provided squat. At least not origianlly. You pointed out some flaws in Madrake but failed to list anything along the lines of the Red Hat distro you installed. It became unstable I don't know if it was KDE or Red Hat Wow that's a lot of info. This sounds like a tech support call. Caller: My computer don't work good. Tech Support: What exactly is it doing? C: I told you it don't work good! Finally if you want a Joe Schmo user friendly version of Linux then stay away from Red Hat and even Mandrake. Try Desktop LX from Lycoris. I don't know why people who want a Windows-like experience download Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, etc. Also if you want an office suite and are one of those that bitch about StarOffice and OpenOffice then I suggest AbiWord and ThinkFree. www.lycoris.com -- for product info, screenshots, etc www.lycoris.org -- for info, discussion, etc Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	how did you get like this? (none / 0) (#27)
	by anti filidor on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 08:11:23 PM PST

	Who abused you? Open source companies have a service-based business model. This means that they are not expecting to make money off of purchases alone. If MS offered Windows for free to download and didn't tell me that it was crippled in some way, I would assume that it was fully featured. It would also be a drastically different product. Probably a much shittier one, like a Linux product. It most definitely is my monitor. My video card (GeForce2 MX) is detected appropriately and plays nice with every other Linux distribution. Moreover, it was quite clear from the poking around that I did that Mandrake didn't recognize my monitor. If you don't believe me then don't fucking believe me. There's no way that I can prove this to you: just swallow it. I found it just as hard to believe as you did, since my monitor is one that I would have thought would be considered quite standard. Windows doesn't have flawless hardware support built in, that's true. But it's much easier to install drivers for unsupported hardware in windows than it is in Linux. I don't have the time or the interest to apply kernel patches. Just because ME was made to look in some respects like the contemporary Windows 2000 does not mean that it was intended to be a "consumer version" of Windows 2000. You'd do well to drop that argument before it gets off the ground, because it only demonstrates how little you actually know. Windows XP is the legitimate consumer version of 2000. Why on Earth did you quote from my original diary entry to try to show that I hadn't provided enough detail. I addressed your request for detail in my first response in this thread; I provided you detail, and I also told you why I hadn't done so originally. If this somehow was not clear to you, I recommmend that you turn off your computer now, forever, as a service to us all. In one of my posts I said that one of my criteria for my Linux desktop was that it be easy to find and download. I guess I shouldn't have expected you to know this, but Desktop LX is hard to find and download. I tried to obtain it, but the mirrors are always saturated, whereas Red Hat maintains fast and stable mirrors aplenty. What you're doing is tantamount to trolling at this point. I recommend you stop before one of the editors notices.

	I had no trouble... (none / 0) (#30)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 10:45:29 PM PST

	...accessing either one of the 2 ftp servers. I suggest using the New Jersey Mirror. If you access it during later hours it's much easier. Don't use IE as it sometimes as difficulty with some ftp servers. Access it through a command prompt (don't forget to switch to binary), Mozilla/Opera/Netscape, or third party ftp client. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Or. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by anti filidor on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 11:08:57 PM PST

	I could just save myself some trouble and continue to use Windows.

	I tried Lycoris, it sucked. (none / 0) (#32)
	by dmg on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 07:13:42 AM PST

	Desktop LX from Lycoris is just as bad as Mandrake. I managed to get it to recognize my Alps desktop glidepoint after having to resort to tabbing around the install screen, but then when it finished the install the damn thing rebooted and instantly froze up. Life is too short for this kind of bullshit. BeOS on the other hand, worked like a dream. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Moreover, (none / 0) (#33)
	by anti filidor on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 11:16:24 AM PST

	I hate licorice, and to be reminded of it is to be offended by it anew. I still use BeOS. Even with community drivers and some unsupported hardware the performance walks all over any Linux desktop I've ever had to endure. If only...!

	BeOS (none / 0) (#34)
	by detikon on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 11:22:20 AM PST

	Too bad it's dead and pretty musch buried. Almost every apps has been ported to something else like Linux, AtheOS or OpenBeOS. Most of the developers have turned away from it and gone on to other project like creating an open source be or developing projects for AtheOS. Who knows maybe one of the days someone will actually by the rights to it from Palm. By then we'll see the new Amigas and everyone will forget about it. To me the real strendth behind BeOS that people will remember are low resource usage and an excellent file system. Of course they forget about the second one soon enough. Why? Because Microsoft is trying to implement a similar fs in Windows. Quote from some MS bigwig "This has never been done in a commercial operating system before" Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Beos (none / 0) (#35)
	by DG on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 11:24:51 AM PST

	I agree BeOS is good, sad that more people don't pick it up though. I'd like new drivers for it, my soundcard and such works, but sounds pretty bad. Where as in windows and linux it sounds fine. I think someone needs to redo the soundblaster live driver, otherwise I would use it since it is really clean looking and stable. sad they killed it for the most part I really did enjoy it, even bought 4.5, I do not normally buy an os unless it comes with the pc � 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	yeah (none / 0) (#36)
	by detikon on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 10:02:27 PM PST

	BeOS would have likely made a great little multimedia OS (that's what it was designed for) in the absence of the Amiga. If you want driver I suggest taking a stroll over to BeBits. I'm sure you could probably find something there. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Been there, done that.. (N/T) (none / 0) (#37)
	by DG on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 01:45:10 PM PST

	� 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Monitors (none / 0) (#24)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 03:42:02 PM PST

	Seems Mandrake hadn;t managed to autodetect your monitor and plays safe. There are two signal lines on the monitor connector now, used for talking between the monitor and the computer; also known as DDC bus, a version of I2C. Maybe Mandrake doesn't know your monitor. Maybe something failed at the DDC level itself. So Mandrake plays low-risk and doesn't let you use high-enough sync frequencies to possibly damage the monitor. I never played with DDC as I have too many monitors here and a monitor switch that doesn't handle DDC signals (which I designed back when DDC wasn't common). Possible solution: Run Xconfigurator, and select the monitor manually. If it fails, select Custom (or Unknown, don't remember how it is called off-hand), and set the maximum frequencies there.

	all auto is bad (none / 0) (#26)
	by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:58:50 PM PST

	I never like an installer doing everything for me. With linux it's the same. When I install SuSE I let it detect my NIC (Intel, RealTek, and 3Com usually do ok here). I like to be able to confirm any choices that it makes. I might let it try to detect hardware on its own but if it can't I like being able to fix it during the installation rather than later like with another OS I won't mention. If my montior can't be found I just input the refresh rates and everything turns out pretty much ok. I still can't get past why having an unsupported montor would keep you from selecting the resoultion for your video card. I'm sure that if I were to take a look at the latest version of MAndrake I could likely find 2 or 3 easy things that could fix the problem. A missed check box here a text box there... Manual versus Auto. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Serves you right! (none / 0) (#2)
	by theantix on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 04:49:13 PM PST

	Really, you should leave the hacking to the trained experts at this site instead of endangering your computer by messing with semi-legal hacker products. You deserve whatever problems you get, friend.

	He's right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by iat on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 05:04:24 PM PST

	Really, you should leave the hacking to the trained experts at this site instead of endangering your computer by messing with semi-legal hacker products. Thank you for your endorsement of my technical prowess, which is often underestimated by the Lunix-loving Inadequates I'll give a little piece of advice to any readers who may be considering experimenting with semi-legal hacker products (or "Alternative OSes" to use a more flattering euphemism) - Never install Linux on a machine that you intend to do anything productive with, for it will render your computer useless. I always test Linux out on my old Gateway 486, thus ensuring that my shiny new Dell Optiplex Pentium (TM) PC isn't damaged by inferior Open Source code. Other readers would be wise to follow my advice. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	ummm ok? (none / 0) (#6)
	by detikon on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 08:11:36 PM PST

	First off you might want to be careful when copying. Don't want RobotSlave deleting your post now do you? Second how would linux or any other alternative OS render your computer useless? You're not gonna get into the whole MBR deal again are you? You think that someone with you "technical expertise" would be able to figure out how to use utilities like FDISK and FDISK/MBR or use programs like Paritition Magic to remove Linux or what not and install whatever OS they planned to use. Hopefully you're not trying to tell us "oh great one" that making a DOS boot disk or using the utilities on the Linux disc you burned is too difficult for you. If you can't figure out how to make one of these may I suggest you visit www.bootdisk.com Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Partial agreement (none / 0) (#4)
	by budlite on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 05:09:40 PM PST

	Despite having newer software than 7.2, the assorted bits of Red Hat 7.3 just doesn't seem to hang together quite as with 7.2. It still works (almost) like a dream. My only real niggles are the fact that CD playing no longer works, linuxconf has vanished, and kppp no longer appears to be able to connect to Blueyonder's dialup.

	In other words... (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:59:21 AM PST

	You can't use a standard piece of hardware, you no longer have a convenient way to configure your OS, and you can't connect to the internet, but otherwise, it's OK?

	Not quite (none / 0) (#12)
	by budlite on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:05:39 AM PST

	The hardware's fine. I feel it has something to do with the extremely lacking sound architecture in Linux. I can play music in just about any form except from an audio CD - although the CD appears to be playing, there's nothing from the speakers. linuxconf was merely that - convenient. But, the fact is I rarely used it other than to add and remove partitions from /etc/fstab. Now I know just how easy it is, I no longer really need linuxconf, which was extremely bloated anyway. Finally, internet. I feel the problem has more to do with the fact that my computer contains a winmodem, rather than a hardware one. Conexant have made drivers available, but installing them was much less seamless on RH7.3 than 7.2. It works, but not always. Pity, really, it performed flawlessly under RH7.2.

	You seem remarkably calm. (none / 0) (#13)
	by dmg on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:37:46 AM PST

	You seem remarkably calm for someone who is having to deal with a piece of shit operating system. I mean, were some other operating system to demonstrate such flaws you would be ranting and raving about monopolies and the "lameness" of "windoze". But because the product was written by Communist Hippies from Europe you seem to judge it by a different set of criteria. Anyone spot a double standard here ? Anyone who really feels the need to experiment with alternative OSs for their PC is urged to check out BeOS R5.04 Developer Edition. Its free as in beer, and it is probably the most stable and fast general purpose x86 OS out there. Linux users may also be interested to know that the BeShare network of IP thieves seems to have slipped under the regulatory radar, and therefore Korn and Limp Bizkit mp3s are available in ample abundance, and due to BeOS's superior design, you can actually play them without your machine locking up. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Re: (none / 0) (#16)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 05:48:34 AM PST

	The sound architecture really sucks. I'd need a set of virtual /dev/dspx, with software mixing controlled through /dev/mixer, but the only thing I was able to find that does so was a commercial closed-source something. I would even be willing to shelve those $40 or whatever they want, but then I'd have a module dependent on version 2.4.x, and would have problems in case of substantial upgrade. (Always think about the future, and the problems you can lock yourself in.) It seems I will have to write it myself. :( The audio CD is usually playing via a cable between the CDROM itself and the sound card. If it doesn't play, there are two possibilities (not thinking about CDROM DAC failure or soundcard input failure): disconnected or improperly connected cable, and faulty setting of the mixer. For winmodem problems, I suggest Linmodems.org site. If it works once it should work always. What are the symptoms, what it is dependent on? I had such problem with a TV card - sound was occassionally working properly - which got traced to a faulty hardware, after exchange of the card it started working reliably. Just yesterday I managed to get Linux to listen and send remote control signals. I had to tweak the output electronics a bit, as I wanted to get it operate over longer distance than original LIRC serial hardware was designed to, but now it operates happily. Only time will tell if reliably. However, I am running out of serial ports (too many gadgets?) and don't have where to connect my soon-to-be GSM gateway. Anyone knows about a cheap thing that can be connected to a computer and offers at least 8 of COMs?

	I'm not sure (none / 0) (#19)
	by budlite on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 07:50:57 AM PST

	Audio CD playing works fine under WinXP, and was working fine under RH7.2 just two days ago. I have the official Linux winmodem drivers from Conexant, which also worked like a dream under RH7.2. I eventually managed to get them to compile on 7.3, and was able to make the modem dial. However, when it reached the point at which protocol is specified, a load of garbage appeared in the log and the carrier signal was lost.

	Suggestion: open up your PC. (none / 0) (#17)
	by because it isnt on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 06:35:38 AM PST

	You will find your CD-ROM drive has an "audio out" connector. You will find a "CD Audio in" connector on your sound-card or motherboard. Connect them. Play a CD. You might be surprised. If you're not surprised, run `gmix` and turn the CD audio volume up. If this doesn't work, try the Line and Video volumes as well. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Ah, no. you don't understand (none / 0) (#18)
	by budlite on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 07:46:41 AM PST

	As I think I said, I used to be able to play CDs when I was using RH7.2. Never thought to check the volumes, but I'll see. Not expecting it to work though.

	Ah. So, in other words... (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 09:44:49 AM PST

	Thanks for clearing that up. With your helpful explanation, I can now see that you were saying: You can't use a standard piece of hardware, you no longer have a convenient way to configure your OS, and you can't connect to the internet, sometimes. That's totally different than what I thought at first.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.