Very Computer

by **Alistair Hamilto** » Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:00:00

My Linux system was based on RH5.1. I decided to go for 6.1, since a
lot has happened over the past couple of years and it is only GBP2
from the Linux Emporium. Although a new user to Linux, I was deeply
involved with Unix many years ago.

First, the default graphic install did not work, and I had a
non-trivial time getting X to run on my IBM ThinkPad 760. Strange,
because 5.1 ran "out of the box". Luckily, I first got X up and
running about 11 years ago, so I am used to this sort of thing.

Next thing to note. If you are thinking about using their "upgrade"
install, my advice is to forget it. The main failing is that it looks
for free disc space in a dumb sort of way. Unless it can install all
of its packages as if none had been installed before, it will bomb
out. It does not realise that some (many?) files will be over-written,
so the disc space required might be much less. Worse, you cannot
override its decision and say "Well, try it anyway!"

Then, the customised install profiles ("KDE Workstation", etc.) are
100% non-configuable. Not only was I not asked which packages to
install, I was not even asked about which HDD I wanted to install on,
nor where lilo should go. Win NT users BEWARE!!!

Now why don't they install the K stuff in /opt/kde. That's where every
other 3-rd party kde RPM will try to install to. I've set up a soft
link (an enanthema to an old Unix mind!) to try to sort the problem,
but this could really mess up a new user's day!

The warning is that my 5.1 install was as a complete Linux newcomer
(and did not need my old Unix knowledge), and since then I have become
a bit more knowledgable about most things Linux including kernel
building. Until I looked at the default RH6.1 configuration, I had not
realised just how un-optimised a "universal" kernel had to be. The
warning is; if you are in any way interested in optimising performance
and resource management, build your own kernel. It is not just for the
experts, as the manual might suggest.

Apart from that, not a bad effort. Still, if I had paid GBP70ish for
the "boxed" version, I would be wanting to know why I could not just
accept all the defaults, and end up with a perfect installation, just
like I have done with Windows 98 (although, not on my computer! ;-)

Regards,
Alistair.

by **Leonard Even** » Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:00:00

> My Linux system was based on RH5.1. I decided to go for 6.1, since a
> lot has happened over the past couple of years and it is only GBP2
> from the Linux Emporium. Although a new user to Linux, I was deeply
> involved with Unix many years ago.

> First, the default graphic install did not work, and I had a
> non-trivial time getting X to run on my IBM ThinkPad 760. Strange,
> because 5.1 ran "out of the box". Luckily, I first got X up and
> running about 11 years ago, so I am used to this sort of thing.

> Next thing to note. If you are thinking about using their "upgrade"
> install, my advice is to forget it. The main failing is that it looks
> for free disc space in a dumb sort of way. Unless it can install all
> of its packages as if none had been installed before, it will bomb
> out. It does not realise that some (many?) files will be over-written,
> so the disc space required might be much less. Worse, you cannot
> override its decision and say "Well, try it anyway!"

> Then, the customised install profiles ("KDE Workstation", etc.) are
> 100% non-configuable. Not only was I not asked which packages to
> install, I was not even asked about which HDD I wanted to install on,
> nor where lilo should go. Win NT users BEWARE!!!

> Now why don't they install the K stuff in /opt/kde. That's where every
> other 3-rd party kde RPM will try to install to. I've set up a soft
> link (an enanthema to an old Unix mind!) to try to sort the problem,
> but this could really mess up a new user's day!

> The warning is that my 5.1 install was as a complete Linux newcomer
> (and did not need my old Unix knowledge), and since then I have become
> a bit more knowledgable about most things Linux including kernel
> building. Until I looked at the default RH6.1 configuration, I had not
> realised just how un-optimised a "universal" kernel had to be. The
> warning is; if you are in any way interested in optimising performance
> and resource management, build your own kernel. It is not just for the
> experts, as the manual might suggest.

> Apart from that, not a bad effort. Still, if I had paid GBP70ish for
> the "boxed" version, I would be wanting to know why I could not just
> accept all the defaults, and end up with a perfect installation, just
> like I have done with Windows 98 (although, not on my computer! ;-)

> Regards,
> Alistair.

There is now an update to the installer for RH6.1, and it may
fix some of the problems you describe.

--

Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

by **Dan Sawye** » Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:00

> > My Linux system was based on RH5.1. I decided to go for 6.1, since a
> > lot has happened over the past couple of years and it is only GBP2
> > from the Linux Emporium. Although a new user to Linux, I was deeply
> > involved with Unix many years ago.

> > First, the default graphic install did not work, and I had a
> > non-trivial time getting X to run on my IBM ThinkPad 760. Strange,
> > because 5.1 ran "out of the box". Luckily, I first got X up and
> > running about 11 years ago, so I am used to this sort of thing.

> > Next thing to note. If you are thinking about using their "upgrade"
> > install, my advice is to forget it. The main failing is that it looks
> > for free disc space in a dumb sort of way. Unless it can install all
> > of its packages as if none had been installed before, it will bomb
> > out. It does not realise that some (many?) files will be over-written,
> > so the disc space required might be much less. Worse, you cannot
> > override its decision and say "Well, try it anyway!"

> > Then, the customised install profiles ("KDE Workstation", etc.) are
> > 100% non-configuable. Not only was I not asked which packages to
> > install, I was not even asked about which HDD I wanted to install on,
> > nor where lilo should go. Win NT users BEWARE!!!

> > Now why don't they install the K stuff in /opt/kde. That's where every
> > other 3-rd party kde RPM will try to install to. I've set up a soft
> > link (an enanthema to an old Unix mind!) to try to sort the problem,
> > but this could really mess up a new user's day!

> > The warning is that my 5.1 install was as a complete Linux newcomer
> > (and did not need my old Unix knowledge), and since then I have become
> > a bit more knowledgable about most things Linux including kernel
> > building. Until I looked at the default RH6.1 configuration, I had not
> > realised just how un-optimised a "universal" kernel had to be. The
> > warning is; if you are in any way interested in optimising performance
> > and resource management, build your own kernel. It is not just for the
> > experts, as the manual might suggest.

> > Apart from that, not a bad effort. Still, if I had paid GBP70ish for
> > the "boxed" version, I would be wanting to know why I could not just
> > accept all the defaults, and end up with a perfect installation, just
> > like I have done with Windows 98 (although, not on my computer! ;-)

> > Regards,
> > Alistair.

> There is now an update to the installer for RH6.1, and it may
> fix some of the problems you describe.

> --

> Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Please explain what the installer update will fix. Does 6.1 have to be
reinstalled?

Dan

by **nustar** » Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:00

I read this review and I can understand, hopefully this will help correct
the problem for others. The update that was previouly talked about in the
previouse post is located at

http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/errata/rh61-errata-bugfixes.html

Basically from what they say, the problems that happened to our ranting
friend occured because he was upgrading. The correction is to create a new
boot disk for doing the install. There is a link to it from the link above.

Take care.

P.S. If you plan on doing an upgrade or install always check the web site
for the latest info on bugs and work arounds. Best of Luck

Nustar1

--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/

by **Timothy Murp** » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00

>The update that was previouly talked about in the
>previouse post is located at
>http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/errata/rh61-errata-bugfixes.html
>Basically from what they say, the problems that happened to our ranting
>friend occured because he was upgrading. The correction is to create a new
>boot disk for doing the install.

As a matter of interest,
how is one meant to use the update.img diskette at that site?
I used the new boot.img but was never asked to put in the update diskette.

--
Timothy Murphy

tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

by **Jacek M. Holecze** » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Quote:> I used the new boot.img but was never asked to put in the update diskette.

You HAVE TO say "linux updates" at the "boot:" prompt and then it will ask
for the "update" disk.
Jacek.

by **patl..** » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Quote:> My Linux system was based on RH5.1. I decided

to go for 6.1, since a

Quote:> lot has happened over the past couple of years
and it is only GBP2
> from the Linux Emporium. Although a new user

to Linux, I was deeply

Quote:> involved with Unix many years ago.

> First, the default graphic install did not
work, and I had a
> non-trivial time getting X to run on my IBM

ThinkPad 760. Strange,

Quote:> because 5.1 ran "out of the box". Luckily, I
first got X up and
> running about 11 years ago, so I am used to
this sort of thing.

> Next thing to note. If you are thinking about

using their "upgrade"

Quote:> install, my advice is to forget it. The main

failing is that it looks

Quote:> for free disc space in a dumb sort of way.

Unless it can install all

Quote:> of its packages as if none had been installed

before, it will bomb

Quote:> out. It does not realise that some (many?)

files will be over-written,

Quote:> so the disc space required might be much less.
Worse, you cannot
> override its decision and say "Well, try it
anyway!"

> Then, the customised install profiles ("KDE

Workstation", etc.) are

Quote:> 100% non-configuable. Not only was I not asked
which packages to
> install, I was not even asked about which HDD I

wanted to install on,

Quote:> nor where lilo should go. Win NT users BEWARE!!!

> Now why don't they install the K stuff

in /opt/kde. That's where every

Quote:> other 3-rd party kde RPM will try to install

to. I've set up a soft

Quote:> link (an enanthema to an old Unix mind!) to try

to sort the problem,

Quote:> but this could really mess up a new user's day!

> The warning is that my 5.1 install was as a

complete Linux newcomer

Quote:> (and did not need my old Unix knowledge), and

since then I have become

Quote:> a bit more knowledgable about most things Linux
including kernel
> building. Until I looked at the default RH6.1

configuration, I had not

Quote:> realised just how un-optimised a "universal"

kernel had to be. The

Quote:> warning is; if you are in any way interested in

optimising performance

Quote:> and resource management, build your own kernel.

It is not just for the

Quote:> experts, as the manual might suggest.

> Apart from that, not a bad effort. Still, if I

had paid GBP70ish for

Quote:> the "boxed" version, I would be wanting to know

why I could not just

Quote:> accept all the defaults, and end up with a

perfect installation, just

Quote:> like I have done with Windows 98 (although, not
on my computer! ;-)

> Regards,
> Alistair.

I am currently in the process of trying to get
RH6.1 installed on my IBM Thinkpad 760 and am
having the same difficulty with getting X to
work. Did the new install disk fix the X
problem? If not, can you give me some insight
about what you had to do?

Thanks,
Patrick

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Very Computer

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning

RH6.1 -- Rant and Warning