---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Suse 9.2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 -0500 From: C Hamel <yogich@sc2000.net> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com <snip> I sympathize with your installation problems. I *finally* learned to wait until I get plenty of feedback from this list before attempting anything. I tried both 9 & 9.1 and only 9 mostly worked. (Found out I had a bad CD-RW/DVD drive & that didn't help, of course.) I finally FTPd the 9.1 this past week and it seems the bugs have been mostly squashed, thank goodness. Less problems, but still not problem-free. ...Nor is Windoze. <G> __________________ Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;) don -- Web Developer Matheteuo Christian Fellowship webdev@matheteuo.org http://matheteuo.org/ Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!
* Web Developer <webdev@matheteuo.org> [10-29-04 18:41]:
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
My Oly5050Z *is* recognized, but I have only plugged it in one time for curiousity's sake. I utilize a usb2 card reader which is much faster transfer than the camera, usb1, and doesn't load the camera's battery. mc /media/sdc1/dcim/100olymp/ ~/Documents/pix/2004/<date>.context usb2 cardreaders are available for free to us$25.00. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos
On Friday 29 October 2004 7:47 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
My Oly5050Z *is* recognized, but I have only plugged it in one time for curiousity's sake. I utilize a usb2 card reader which is much faster transfer than the camera, usb1, and doesn't load the camera's battery.
mc /media/sdc1/dcim/100olymp/ ~/Documents/pix/2004/<date>.context
usb2 cardreaders are available for free to us$25.00.
I have an Olympus C750 Zoom. I got a Dazzle card reader ( mainly for the slide show software) and I never got it to work in Windows XP. I wonder if SUSE will recognize it. I haven't tried to read any pictures in yet, I'm still getting used to Linux.. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Friday 29 October 2004 16:47, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Web Developer <webdev@matheteuo.org> [10-29-04 18:41]:
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
My Oly5050Z *is* recognized, but I have only plugged it in one time for curiousity's sake. I utilize a usb2 card reader which is much faster transfer than the camera, usb1, and doesn't load the camera's battery.
As a professional photographer....I have NEVER hooked my camera to the computer. And I can do a lot with my camera hooked up (Canon 1D). Look at why you are wanting to hook your camera directly to the computer. If it's to transfer images... Get a card reader. I have 7 of them: external Firewire, external USB, and internal USB. Obviously not being used all at once :) Each has their use. I prefer the external lexas firewire readers, then the internal USB ones. the little external USB ZIO cardreader is my travel reader and it used mostly on my laptop (SuSE 8.2 right now. I have the 9.1 DVD from the Novell tech kit, but 9.2 should be arriving soon) Although I need to work out the dependency issues with the digital workflow app that I wrote. Doesn't seem to want to work on the newer OS's :( If image transfer is what's keeping windose around....take Paul and my suggestion and get yourself a carreader, you'll be happier ;-D brian -- Brian Jackson Photo Sports ~ Editorial ~ People ~ Travel ~ Events http://www.BrianJacksonPhoto.com 650-218-5082
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:40, Web Developer wrote:
---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Suse 9.2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 -0500 From: C Hamel <yogich@sc2000.net> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
<snip>
I sympathize with your installation problems. I *finally* learned to wait until I get plenty of feedback from this list before attempting anything. I tried both 9 & 9.1 and only 9 mostly worked. (Found out I had a bad CD-RW/DVD drive & that didn't help, of course.) I finally FTPd the 9.1 this past week and it seems the bugs have been mostly squashed, thank goodness. Less problems, but still not problem-free. ...Nor is Windoze. <G> __________________
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2,
I've got a Kodak CX6200 recognized under 9.1 Don, using gtkam.
I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
Let us know how it goes.
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:40, Web Developer wrote:
<snip>
I've got a Kodak CX6200 recognized under 9.1 Don, using gtkam.
I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
Let us know how it goes.
Well, you've got my camera, which just missed the SUSE 8.0 cut, I believe. Oddly though, SUSE 9.2 doesn't seem to recognize my Win98 partitions (???). Anyway, I'm moving my data over before the trial install goes any further - just to be safe. Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
Don Parris wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:40, Web Developer wrote:
<snip>
I've got a Kodak CX6200 recognized under 9.1 Don, using gtkam.
I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
Let us know how it goes.
Well, you've got my camera, which just missed the SUSE 8.0 cut, I believe. Oddly though, SUSE 9.2 doesn't seem to recognize my Win98 partitions (???). Anyway, I'm moving my data over before the trial install goes any further - just to be safe.
Don
Pete Nikolic had to install XP to create a NT partition before it would let him install - ye gads! On my x86_64 laptop with just 9.1 x86_64, it kept telling me it couldn't mount my HD, I'd booted from DVD and selected the upgrade option. After may tries and checking all the modules (mainly reiserfs) were loaded, all looked OK and this time the upgrade started - may be 9.2 is a slow learner, packages up to xorg being installed so far, 1:52:20 estimated time to go. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====
On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 07:30, Don Parris wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:40, Web Developer wrote:
<snip>
I've got a Kodak CX6200 recognized under 9.1 Don, using gtkam.
I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
Let us know how it goes.
Well, you've got my camera, which just missed the SUSE 8.0 cut, I believe. Oddly though, SUSE 9.2 doesn't seem to recognize my Win98 partitions (???). Anyway, I'm moving my data over before the trial install goes any further - just to be safe.
Open up YAST and use the partition tool, click on the Win98 partitions and select edit from the bottom option, set the mount point, probably /windows/C etc. That should do it Don. Mike
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 07:30, Don Parris wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:40, Web Developer wrote:
<snip>
I've got a Kodak CX6200 recognized under 9.1 Don, using gtkam.
I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
Let us know how it goes.
Well, you've got my camera, which just missed the SUSE 8.0 cut, I believe. Oddly though, SUSE 9.2 doesn't seem to recognize my Win98 partitions (???). Anyway, I'm moving my data over before the trial install goes any further - just to be safe.
Open up YAST and use the partition tool, click on the Win98 partitions and select edit from the bottom option, set the mount point, probably /windows/C etc. That should do it Don.
Mike
During the install, there was a single partition labelled hda1. The problem with that is that Yast should have seen two Windows partitions. Never mind though. I've already dispensed with the Windows partitions (I was looking to ditch them anyway), and have a pure SUSE 9.2 box right now. It's beautiful, with two exceptions: (1) I didn't get the DSL configured. SUSE 8.0 did this automagically, once I set up another box with a working NIC. However, my primary box has a working NIC, as demonstrated by my ability to use scp to xfre a file across to it from one of the SUSE 8.0 boxes. I just didn't get the DSL working yet. I'll look into it further. (2) gtkam locks the whole box when I try to run it. It gives a message in the status bar that it is loading drivers, and then freezes. Interestingly, I can't even use [Ctrl]+[Alt]+[F-#] to switch consoles. It forces a hard reboot. Ouch! Say, isn't that one of the things we all hate about Windoze? :) As for the installation, mine took some time due to the blooming interruptions - figures! - and the fact that I pretty much selected everything - other than some miscellaneous utils. I installed from the DVD without a hitch. I wish I knew what motherboard I have, but it's an AMD processor. Yast correctly detected - and setup - all my hardware - even my printer! I mean, literally, I did nothing other than set the NICs with IP addresses. I spent some time dillydallying with the DSL connection, per above, but otherwise, it was a totally painless install! I can even watch an old (mpeg) video that my wife likes. GNOME & KDE both look good so far, but I'm coming from the dark ages. I'm about to look at the othe desktops/window managers. One other things. I'm not sure what happened to the Summary view in Evolution. If someone can tell me how to get that back, I'd love to know. At least tell me how to get the news feeds in Evolution. That what made it so cool! Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
On Saturday 30 October 2004 7:21 pm, Don Parris wrote:
GNOME & KDE both look good so far, but I'm coming from the dark ages. I'm about to look at the othe desktops/window managers. One other things. I'm not sure what happened to the Summary view in Evolution. If someone can tell me how to get that back, I'd love to know. At least tell me how to get the news feeds in Evolution. That what made it so cool!
Hi Don, I'm kinda new here and I did order 9.2, so I'll be right behind you installing it:) are you running gnome and KDE at the same time? or did you just try both? Isn't Evolution to gnome what KDEPIM is to KDE ? is evolution any better than KDEPIM? thanks,
Don
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Saturday 30 October 2004 7:21 pm, Don Parris wrote:
GNOME & KDE both look good so far, but I'm coming from the dark ages. I'm about to look at the othe desktops/window managers. One other things. I'm not sure what happened to the Summary view in Evolution. If someone can tell me how to get that back, I'd love to know. At least tell me how to get the news feeds in Evolution. That what made it so cool!
Unfortunately, the summary view is gone. I don't know why. It just is.
Hi Don, I'm kinda new here and I did order 9.2, so I'll be right behind you installing it:) are you running gnome and KDE at the same time? or did you just try both? Isn't Evolution to gnome what KDEPIM is to KDE ? is evolution any better than KDEPIM?
thanks,
Don
-- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Saturday 30 October 2004 7:21 pm, Don Parris wrote:
GNOME & KDE both look good so far, but I'm coming from the dark ages. I'm about to look at the othe desktops/window managers. One other things. I'm not sure what happened to the Summary view in Evolution. If someone can tell me how to get that back, I'd love to know. At least tell me how to get the news feeds in Evolution. That what made it so cool!
Hi Don, I'm kinda new here and I did order 9.2, so I'll be right behind you installing it:) are you running gnome and KDE at the same time? or did you just try both? Isn't Evolution to gnome what KDEPIM is to KDE ? is evolution any better than KDEPIM?
thanks,
Don
I typically install pretty much every graphical desktop I can. That may not be "the correct" way to do it, and on the rest of the systems, I may choose to install a single desktop. However, I playing with the features of the different desktops. Kontact and Evolution are equivalents. Now that Evolution has done away with its Summary page, I'm totally miffed. When it gets where it's nearly perfect, they screw it up. This means I'll have to consider it against Kontact, based on other features. I would have preferred Evolution. It's Summary page was a step up from Outlook. I'm also not a big KDE fan. I use it, and it runs nicely - just not my taste. I like GNOME. That's the advantage of GNU/Linux - choice. And that choice can be simply a matter of taste. I should say that K3B did a great job of burning on my HP CD Writer 9500. While it was possible under SUSE 8.0, it was really easy last night. Frankly, I still can't get over the automation of the installation. I've heard Xandros may be simpler (3-click install), but Yast managed my sound card, video card & montior, and my HP 970Cse inkjet printer (with duplex module). I did test my monitor (Cybervision C70) and sound card (on-board), as well as print a test page. But I'm so used to having to select my monitor, and the correct printer driver (from about 3 possiblities), that I was totally blown away by the auto-configuration. I've had more difficulty with Win98/XP. I know not everyone's experience will be as easy as mine, but some may have it even easier. I just couldn't decide on the partitioning scheme. :) I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to? I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how? Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 17.42, Don Parris wrote:
I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to?
Yep, have a look at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYS...
I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
It has little to do with security, I think the main thing is that the data served by web servers, ftp servers and other such things don't fit very well into any of the other directories. /usr/local perhaps, or /var are the most likely candidates. The rationale doesn't really make it clear why they settled on creating a new root directory
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 17.42, Don Parris wrote:
I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to?
Yep, have a look at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYS...
Good URL for FSH Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib? and then called it ooo-1.1. What was wrong with /opt/OpenOffice? According to your URL /opt is where they should have put the Addon Application. -- 73 de Donn Washburn __" http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 Dump Microsoft Software - Stop virus email Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org " http://counter.li.org " #279316
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 23.21, Donn Washburn wrote:
Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib?
It's in /usr/lib ? Even the executables? That's not nice at all. I took deep exception to their placing the firefox executable in /opt/MozillaFirefox/lib too, I don't know where this trend of placing executables in /lib comes from. I don't like it one bit
and then called it ooo-1.1. What was wrong with /opt/OpenOffice?
Well, open office 2.0 is right around the corner (slated for January IIRC), so adding the version number to the directory is probably a good idea to avoid collision, but /opt/OpenOffice-1.1 would be better
According to your URL /opt is where they should have put the Addon Application.
Yes it is, I agree
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 23.21, Donn Washburn wrote:
Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib?
It's in /usr/lib ? Even the executables? That's not nice at all. I took deep exception to their placing the firefox executable in /opt/MozillaFirefox/lib too, I don't know where this trend of placing executables in /lib comes from. I don't like it one bit
and then called it ooo-1.1. What was wrong with /opt/OpenOffice?
Well, open office 2.0 is right around the corner (slated for January IIRC), so adding the version number to the directory is probably a good idea to avoid collision, but /opt/OpenOffice-1.1 would be better
According to your URL /opt is where they should have put the Addon Application.
Yes it is, I agree
And another complaint is the waste of time chasing around links created because of the use of /etc/alternatives. Why waste so much effort when a single link has worked for years. I guess SuSE is trying to become a Debian clone. This is the first time I have seen SuSE alter so many obvious things. I would guess Novell may be the problem. -- 73 de Donn Washburn __" http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 Dump Microsoft Software - Stop virus email Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org " http://counter.li.org " #279316
On Monday 01 November 2004 00:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 23.21, Donn Washburn wrote:
Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib?
It's in /usr/lib ? Even the executables? That's not nice at all. I took deep exception to their placing the firefox executable in /opt/MozillaFirefox/lib too, I don't know where this trend of placing executables in /lib comes from. I don't like it one bit
/usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages Purpose /usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts. [22] Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib. If an application uses a subdirectory, all architecture-dependent data exclusively used by the application must be placed within that subdirectory. [23] Putting OOo in /usr/lib makes some sense, because you don't call soffice directly, but with a wrapper. Actually, lots of wrappers. There is stuff for OOo is in /usr/bin and /usr/X11R6/bin I don't think it's a bad thing, it's just better integrated. I never saw SUSE do something more complex for gratuitous reasons. If they do it, there's a good purpose, even if I don't know much about it yet. But I can always find out what the purpose is, if I need.
Donn Washburn wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 17.42, Don Parris wrote:
I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to?
Yep, have a look at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYS...
Good URL for FSH
Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib? and then called it ooo-1.1. What was wrong with /opt/OpenOffice? According to your URL /opt is where they should have put the Addon Application.
I just had a look in /usr/lib. All I found was libraries for OOo. I found the launch scripts in /usr/X11R6/bin. I don't understand why they didn't keep it where it was before. I have to agree that /opt or /usr/local would seem the better choices. But I just thought I would mention that the libs are in /usr/lib. Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
Don Parris wrote:
Donn Washburn wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday, 31 October 2004 17.42, Don Parris wrote:
I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to?
Yep, have a look at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYS...
Good URL for FSH
Question I have is why SuSE 9.2 put Open Office in /usr/lib? and then called it ooo-1.1. What was wrong with /opt/OpenOffice? According to your URL /opt is where they should have put the Addon Application.
I just had a look in /usr/lib. All I found was libraries for OOo. I found the launch scripts in /usr/X11R6/bin. I don't understand why they didn't keep it where it was before. I have to agree that /opt or /usr/local would seem the better choices. But I just thought I would mention that the libs are in /usr/lib.
Don
O.k., I see what's happening. Even in the Admin Guide, they mention that it's installed in /usr/lib. Whatever! -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
Can anyone tell me what the default httpd.conf file looks like in SuSE 9.2? In SuSE 9.1, the default httpd.conf file was simply a bunch of includes. The docs said it was to help make things simpler, however, the reverse happened. I found that this setup made SuSE 9.1 incompatible with a lot of third-party programs that installed and worked just great using the standard httpd.conf file (without the includes). I was able to get my own program to work once I figured out where everything I needed was and adjusted the config settings accordingly, but it would have been MUCH easier if the httpd.conf file was normal. For those of you who have a copy of 9.2, I'd appreciate your insight. This will greatly effect our purchase decision with SuSE 9.2. -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ jordan@viviotech.net
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:04:21 -0800 Jordan Michaels <jordan@viviotech.net> wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the default httpd.conf file looks like in SuSE 9.2?
Most likely it's similar to 9.1.
In SuSE 9.1, the default httpd.conf file was simply a bunch of includes. The docs said it was to help make things simpler, however, the reverse happened. I found that this setup made SuSE 9.1 incompatible with a lot of third-party programs that installed and worked just great using the standard httpd.conf file (without the includes). I was able to get my own program to work once I figured out where everything I needed was and adjusted the config settings accordingly, but it would have been MUCH easier if the httpd.conf file was normal.
Hmm.. I think that file IS "normal" esp. for Apache 2.0x. that came with popular distros. (Could be different if you compile it yourself...) Perhaps, you're referring to the one that came with Apache 1.3x.
For those of you who have a copy of 9.2, I'd appreciate your insight. This will greatly effect our purchase decision with SuSE 9.2.
You can change the httpd.conf file to suit your taste. -- - E - on SUSE 9.1 | blackbox 0.65 | copperwalls was here ;) "Look! I am making all things new." - Revelation 21:5
- Edwin - wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:04:21 -0800 Jordan Michaels <jordan@viviotech.net> wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the default httpd.conf file looks like in SuSE 9.2?
Most likely it's similar to 9.1.
Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this?
In SuSE 9.1, the default httpd.conf file was simply a bunch of includes. The docs said it was to help make things simpler, however, the reverse happened. I found that this setup made SuSE 9.1 incompatible with a lot of third-party programs that installed and worked just great using the standard httpd.conf file (without the includes). I was able to get my own program to work once I figured out where everything I needed was and adjusted the config settings accordingly, but it would have been MUCH easier if the httpd.conf file was normal.
Hmm.. I think that file IS "normal" esp. for Apache 2.0x. that came with popular distros. (Could be different if you compile it yourself...)
Perhaps, you're referring to the one that came with Apache 1.3x.
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
For those of you who have a copy of 9.2, I'd appreciate your insight. This will greatly effect our purchase decision with SuSE 9.2.
You can change the httpd.conf file to suit your taste.
I know, and I did. It would just save us many, many hours if we didn't have to talor it for every server that we set up. Time is money and SuSE is starting to take more of it! *NOT* cool! I'm a big fan of SuSE and have been for a long time - but this bothers me. It'd be nice to have the option of the default install being just one file. -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ jordan@viviotech.net
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 19:27, Jordan Michaels wrote:
- Edwin - wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:04:21 -0800
Jordan Michaels <jordan@viviotech.net> wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the default httpd.conf file looks like in SuSE 9.2?
Most likely it's similar to 9.1.
Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this?
I could send you a tarball of 9.2's /etc/apache2, right after installation (i.e. pristine) if you like.
In SuSE 9.1, the default httpd.conf file was simply a bunch of includes. The docs said it was to help make things simpler, however, the reverse happened. I found that this setup made SuSE 9.1 incompatible with a lot of third-party programs that installed and worked just great using the standard httpd.conf file (without the includes). I was able to get my own program to work once I figured out where everything I needed was and adjusted the config settings accordingly, but it would have been MUCH easier if the httpd.conf file was normal.
Hmm.. I think that file IS "normal" esp. for Apache 2.0x. that came with popular distros. (Could be different if you compile it yourself...)
Perhaps, you're referring to the one that came with Apache 1.3x.
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
That is just a point of view. If one installs a package that involves a configuration change in Apache2, what would be more simple that just drop a file in the right place? (needs a 'SuSEconfig --module apache2 && rcapache2 restart' afterwards)
For those of you who have a copy of 9.2, I'd appreciate your insight. This will greatly effect our purchase decision with SuSE 9.2.
You can change the httpd.conf file to suit your taste.
I know, and I did. It would just save us many, many hours if we didn't have to talor it for every server that we set up. Time is money and SuSE is starting to take more of it! *NOT* cool! I'm a big fan of SuSE and have been for a long time - but this bothers me. It'd be nice to have the option of the default install being just one file.
Maybe you can leave SuSE's httpd.conf for what it is, and use your own: put the location in /etc/sysconfig/apache2, variable 'APACHE_HTTPD_CONF' on line 29. Cheers, Leen
Leendert Meyer wrote:
I could send you a tarball of 9.2's /etc/apache2, right after installation (i.e. pristine) if you like.
That would be great. =) Thank you.
In SuSE 9.1, the default httpd.conf file was simply a bunch of includes. The docs said it was to help make things simpler, however, the reverse happened. I found that this setup made SuSE 9.1 incompatible with a lot of third-party programs that installed and worked just great using the standard httpd.conf file (without the includes). I was able to get my own program to work once I figured out where everything I needed was and adjusted the config settings accordingly, but it would have been MUCH easier if the httpd.conf file was normal.
Hmm.. I think that file IS "normal" esp. for Apache 2.0x. that came with popular distros. (Could be different if you compile it yourself...)
Perhaps, you're referring to the one that came with Apache 1.3x.
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
That is just a point of view. If one installs a package that involves a configuration change in Apache2, what would be more simple that just drop a file in the right place? (needs a 'SuSEconfig --module apache2 && rcapache2 restart' afterwards)
Agreed, the simplicity part is a point of view. However, our problems come when trying to install thrid-party programs. Most of the third-party programs expect everything they need to modify to be readily available in the httpd.conf file itself, not in some include. This makes configuration a pain in the next for these thrid party programs. That's all I'm saying.
For those of you who have a copy of 9.2, I'd appreciate your insight. This will greatly effect our purchase decision with SuSE 9.2.
You can change the httpd.conf file to suit your taste.
I know, and I did. It would just save us many, many hours if we didn't have to talor it for every server that we set up. Time is money and SuSE is starting to take more of it! *NOT* cool! I'm a big fan of SuSE and have been for a long time - but this bothers me. It'd be nice to have the option of the default install being just one file.
Maybe you can leave SuSE's httpd.conf for what it is, and use your own: put the location in /etc/sysconfig/apache2, variable 'APACHE_HTTPD_CONF' on line 29.
Cheers,
Leen
Yeah, depending on the other benefits of 9.2, that's probably what we'll end up doing. We'll simply replace the httpd.conf file that came default with our own, pre-made one. A pain in the neck, but it works. Thanks, JM -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ jordan@viviotech.net
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 19:27, Jordan Michaels wrote:
Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this?
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
I know, and I did. It would just save us many, many hours if we didn't have to talor it for every server that we set up. Time is money and SuSE is starting to take more of it! *NOT* cool! I'm a big fan of SuSE and have been for a long time - but this bothers me. It'd be nice to have the option of the default install being just one file.
You really need a deep look into the apache documentation for both apache 1.3 and apache 2.0. You need to understand that this is no *fault* from suse, nor a bug or a *feature* that the httpd.conf is different from what you knew on suse 9.0. It is simply apache2 and *exactly* that is the way httpd.conf should look. If you dislike apache2 for the way it handles configuration, you are free to install binaries/whatever for apache 1.3.x and play with the httpd.conf you are used with. But please understand that SuSE is just trying to offer you the latest releases and they are not inventing configuration files for most common services. Learn it or change it to something you know, but don't blame suse for trying to give you latest stuff. Josephine
Josephine wrote:
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 19:27, Jordan Michaels wrote:
Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this?
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
I know, and I did. It would just save us many, many hours if we didn't have to talor it for every server that we set up. Time is money and SuSE is starting to take more of it! *NOT* cool! I'm a big fan of SuSE and have been for a long time - but this bothers me. It'd be nice to have the option of the default install being just one file.
You really need a deep look into the apache documentation for both apache 1.3 and apache 2.0. You need to understand that this is no *fault* from suse, nor a bug or a *feature* that the httpd.conf is different from what you knew on suse 9.0. It is simply apache2 and *exactly* that is the way httpd.conf should look. If you dislike apache2 for the way it handles configuration, you are free to install binaries/whatever for apache 1.3.x and play with the httpd.conf you are used with. But please understand that SuSE is just trying to offer you the latest releases and they are not inventing configuration files for most common services. Learn it or change it to something you know, but don't blame suse for trying to give you latest stuff.
Josephine
My Apologies. I meant no offense. SuSE is and has been my favorite distro for several years now. I think they do excellent work. I was unaware that this was the default apache standard. Now that I know that (you learn something new every day!), I'm sure more and more third-party applications will be able to use the new configuration structure. I guess I was just a little frustrated that they don't already. =\ Thanks for understanding. -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ jordan@viviotech.net
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:04:46PM +0100, Josephine wrote:
You really need a deep look into the apache documentation for both apache 1.3 and apache 2.0. You need to understand that this is no *fault* from suse, nor a bug or a *feature* that the httpd.conf is different from what you knew on suse 9.0. It is simply apache2 and *exactly* that is the way httpd.conf should look. If you dislike apache2 for the way it handles configuration, you are free to install binaries/whatever for apache 1.3.x and play with the httpd.conf you are used with. But please understand that SuSE is just trying to offer you the latest releases and they are not inventing configuration files for most common services. Learn it or change it to something you know, but don't blame suse for trying to give you latest stuff.
Josephine
Not really true -- the apache 2.0 default ("example" !) configuration file from upstream is not so much different from the apache 1.3 one. But as I said in the other mail, while SuSE split it some time ago a very similar splitting will happen upstreams as well, in the future. Peter
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:27:35AM -0800, Jordan Michaels wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the default httpd.conf file looks like in SuSE 9.2?
Most likely it's similar to 9.1.
Can anyone give me a definitive answer on this?
I can. The configuration in 9.2 resembles the one of 9.1 very closely, plus minor fixes or adjustments. I understand your point but from feedback I know that most people are happy with the split because it makes life easier. It makes life _much_ easier especially when it comes to updates, have you ever merged httpd.conf{,.rpmnew} after a system update (or even security update) when httpd.conf is thousands of lines long? We are living in RPM land and you must be aware of the situation. BTW, a nearly identical configuration split into multiple files is currently happening upstreams (see recent discussions on httpd-dev). Thus, in some time all distributions might use the same multi file scheme (although some might stick to their own invention). Interestingly, the hight degree of similarity of what the apache developers came up with in comparison to SuSEs apache configuration shows how logically the configuration can be structured, i.e. the structure _does_ make a lot of sense. :-)
Perhaps, but not that I've seen. We do a lot of work with CentOS 3.1 because of it's compatibility with RHEL and it's httpd.conf is NOT broken up in to thousands (yes, I'm exaggerating) of includes. It's just one file, which, honestly, seems simpler to me then the hordes of includes.
Any problem with adding your one custom configuration file by simply dropping it into /etc/apache2/conf.d? Or include custom files via /etc/sysconfig/apache2? For building modules, use apxs2 -c, or apxs2-prefork -c to build a MPM specific module. Please tell me about _specific_ problems you are having. Complaining generically is not able to elicit improvements. :-) Peter
I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
It has little to do with security, I think the main thing is that the data served by web servers, ftp servers and other such things don't fit very well into any of the other directories. /usr/local perhaps, or /var are the most likely candidates. The rationale doesn't really make it clear why they settled on creating a new root directory
They are doing exactly what I did when I created the /data directory for my user/server data files. IMHO the existing directory structure really didn't have a good place to put a server's data files. I'll probably use this in the future. Jeff
On Monday 01 Nov 2004 01:27, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
It has little to do with security, I think the main thing is that the data served by web servers, ftp servers and other such things don't fit very well into any of the other directories. /usr/local perhaps, or /var are the most likely candidates. The rationale doesn't really make it clear why they settled on creating a new root directory
They are doing exactly what I did when I created the /data directory for my user/server data files. IMHO the existing directory structure really didn't have a good place to put a server's data files. I'll probably use this in the future.
Jeff
This is now getting silly not only have i lost my scsi drives cus someone decieded that the Advansys driver that had never missed a beat is borken the Nvidia stuff supplied is a complete waste of time i have had to chase around deleting all the so called nvidia drivers just to get the proper nvidia to install and run , Now the complete structure of sus of going down the pan . who the hell sticks applications in /usr/lib what is wrong with /opt itś a sign someone is trying to make yet another INCOMPATIBLE DISTRO . We still have this darn silly keyboard bug as well i see , I an in England there fore i need English keyboard settings now i have set everything up during the install and when running KDE for the English keyboard as in en-GB not en-US , So why is it that every single time i have to logout of KDE i have to re run yast when i log back in again to get the correct keyboard again is to get " when i press shift-2 and ' when i press the '@ key if i leave it i have to press shift-2 twice and get something sort of similar but in italic form that does not do the job and similar with the other key plus quite a few others this has been around since 9.0 it is about time it was cleared up get the apps out of /usr/lib please suse /opt is the place maybe a a very tight squeeze /usr/local but /usr/lib definatley NOT i may have to move to Slackware the way things are going .. Pete very dissapointed so far with 9.2 . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
I had the same problem peter Nikolic had. It would lock up at random places during the install. I did a ctrl-alt-f5 or was it f4, and there were a bunch of ata timeouts. I have a seagate sata hard drive. I finally got it to install, but it was just constant trying. Not sure how to fix the problem. I tried all three install methods everyone was the same thing, a random lock up. Sean On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:31:05 +0000, peter Nikolic <p.nikolic1@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Monday 01 Nov 2004 01:27, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
It has little to do with security, I think the main thing is that the data served by web servers, ftp servers and other such things don't fit very well into any of the other directories. /usr/local perhaps, or /var are the most likely candidates. The rationale doesn't really make it clear why they settled on creating a new root directory
They are doing exactly what I did when I created the /data directory for my user/server data files. IMHO the existing directory structure really didn't have a good place to put a server's data files. I'll probably use this in the future.
Jeff
This is now getting silly not only have i lost my scsi drives cus someone decieded that the Advansys driver that had never missed a beat is borken the Nvidia stuff supplied is a complete waste of time i have had to chase around deleting all the so called nvidia drivers just to get the proper nvidia to install and run , Now the complete structure of sus of going down the pan .
who the hell sticks applications in /usr/lib what is wrong with /opt itś a sign someone is trying to make yet another INCOMPATIBLE DISTRO .
We still have this darn silly keyboard bug as well i see , I an in England there fore i need English keyboard settings now i have set everything up during the install and when running KDE for the English keyboard as in en-GB not en-US , So why is it that every single time i have to logout of KDE i have to re run yast when i log back in again to get the correct keyboard again is to get " when i press shift-2 and ' when i press the '@ key if i leave it i have to press shift-2 twice and get something sort of similar but in italic form that does not do the job and similar with the other key plus quite a few others this has been around since 9.0 it is about time it was cleared up
get the apps out of /usr/lib please suse /opt is the place maybe a a very tight squeeze /usr/local but /usr/lib definatley NOT i may have to move to Slackware the way things are going ..
Pete very dissapointed so far with 9.2 .
-- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Sunday 31 October 2004 11:42 am, Don Parris wrote:
I typically install pretty much every graphical desktop I can. That may not be "the correct" way to do it, and on the rest of the systems, I may choose to install a single desktop. However, I playing with the features of the different desktops. Kontact and Evolution are equivalents. Now that Evolution has done away with its Summary page, I'm totally miffed. When it gets where it's nearly perfect, they screw it up. This means I'll have to consider it against Kontact, based on other features. I would have preferred Evolution. It's Summary page was a step up from Outlook. I'm also not a big KDE fan. I use it, and it runs nicely - just not my taste. I like GNOME. That's the advantage of GNU/Linux - choice. And that choice can be simply a matter of taste.
still, can I run Gnome without uninstalling KDE ?? I remember gnome, but it was almost 10 years ago, I'd like to see the difference between it and KDE right now..
I should say that K3B did a great job of burning on my HP CD Writer 9500. While it was possible under SUSE 8.0, it was really easy last night. Frankly, I still can't get over the automation of the installation. I've heard Xandros may be simpler (3-click install), but Yast managed my sound card, video card & montior, and my HP 970Cse inkjet printer (with duplex module). I did test my monitor (Cybervision C70) and sound card (on-board), as well as print a test page. But I'm so used to having to select my monitor, and the correct printer driver (from about 3 possiblities), that I was totally blown away by the auto-configuration. I've had more difficulty with Win98/XP.
I just bought a new Epson Scanner, 4180. xsane says there are no devices available. I installed K3B, the new update, but I haven't tried a CD today, I'm really concerned about the scanner. I bought it specifically because of the resolution, and the fact it does slides and negatives ( not to mention 4800 DPI). I wonder if 9.2 will recognize it..
I know not everyone's experience will be as easy as mine, but some may have it even easier. I just couldn't decide on the partitioning scheme. I'm looking to add a /home partition myself.
:) I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to? I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
did it prompt you during the 9.2 install to create one, or how did you learn about it?? -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Sunday 31 October 2004 11:42 am, Don Parris wrote:
I typically install pretty much every graphical desktop I can. That may not be "the correct" way to do it, and on the rest of the systems, I may choose to install a single desktop. However, I playing with the features of the different desktops. Kontact and Evolution are equivalents. Now that Evolution has done away with its Summary page, I'm totally miffed. When it gets where it's nearly perfect, they screw it up. This means I'll have to consider it against Kontact, based on other features. I would have preferred Evolution. It's Summary page was a step up from Outlook. I'm also not a big KDE fan. I use it, and it runs nicely - just not my taste. I like GNOME. That's the advantage of GNU/Linux - choice. And that choice can be simply a matter of taste.
still, can I run Gnome without uninstalling KDE ?? I remember gnome, but it was almost 10 years ago, I'd like to see the difference between it and KDE right now..
Both can run. Under the KDE menu, you can Start New Session and login using Gnome. You should also be able to start gnome on the initial login.
I should say that K3B did a great job of burning on my HP CD Writer 9500. While it was possible under SUSE 8.0, it was really easy last night. Frankly, I still can't get over the automation of the installation. I've heard Xandros may be simpler (3-click install), but Yast managed my sound card, video card & montior, and my HP 970Cse inkjet printer (with duplex module). I did test my monitor (Cybervision C70) and sound card (on-board), as well as print a test page. But I'm so used to having to select my monitor, and the correct printer driver (from about 3 possiblities), that I was totally blown away by the auto-configuration. I've had more difficulty with Win98/XP.
I just bought a new Epson Scanner, 4180. xsane says there are no devices available. I installed K3B, the new update, but I haven't tried a CD today, I'm really concerned about the scanner. I bought it specifically because of the resolution, and the fact it does slides and negatives ( not to mention 4800 DPI). I wonder if 9.2 will recognize it..
If it doesn't, vuescan from www.hamrick.com will handle most scanners, it has been able to handle some that have not been listed as supported.
I know not everyone's experience will be as easy as mine, but some may have it even easier. I just couldn't decide on the partitioning scheme.
I'm looking to add a /home partition myself.
:) I would like to ask if anyone is familiar with the new /srv
directory. Is that partt of the FSH/LSB or whatever standard the Linux vendors agreed to? I see it contains apache and somthing else. I was just curious as to hown new it is, and how it came to be. Does it help to provide better security? If so, how?
did it prompt you during the 9.2 install to create one, or how did you learn about it??
It's the directory where SuSE places the apache stuff. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 10:42, Don Parris wrote:
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Saturday 30 October 2004 7:21 pm, Don Parris wrote:
GNOME & KDE both look good so far, but I'm coming from the dark ages. I'm about to look at the othe desktops/window managers. One other things. I'm not sure what happened to the Summary view in Evolution. If someone can tell me how to get that back, I'd love to know. At least tell me how to get the news feeds in Evolution. That what made it so cool!
Hi Don, I'm kinda new here and I did order 9.2, so I'll be right behind you installing it:) are you running gnome and KDE at the same time? or did you just try both? Isn't Evolution to gnome what KDEPIM is to KDE ? is evolution any better than KDEPIM?
thanks,
Don
I typically install pretty much every graphical desktop I can. That may not be "the correct" way to do it, and on the rest of the systems, I may choose to install a single desktop. However, I playing with the features of the different desktops. Kontact and Evolution are equivalents. Now that Evolution has done away with its Summary page, I'm totally miffed. When it gets where it's nearly perfect, they screw it up. This means I'll have to consider it against Kontact, based on other features. I would have preferred Evolution. It's Summary page was a step up from Outlook. I'm also not a big KDE fan. I use it, and it runs nicely - just not my taste. I like GNOME. That's the advantage of GNU/Linux - choice. And that choice can be simply a matter of taste.
That being the case, I'm going to order the Forte Agent upgrade and run it under Wine. I really like the Summary Page in Evolution.
I should say that K3B did a great job of burning on my HP CD Writer 9500. While it was possible under SUSE 8.0, it was really easy last night. Frankly, I still can't get over the automation of the installation. I've heard Xandros may be simpler (3-click install), but Yast managed my sound card, video card & montior, and my HP 970Cse inkjet printer (with duplex module). I did test my monitor (Cybervision C70) and sound card (on-board), as well as print a test page. But I'm so used to having to select my monitor, and the correct printer driver (from about 3 possiblities), that I was totally blown away by the auto-configuration. I've had more difficulty with Win98/XP.
You can download the "community" version of Xandros and try an install. It will require bittorrent in order to get, and if you do a vanilla install it may very well be three clicks. It wasn't for me, but then I wanted to see what the installer was capable of doing. {snip} Mike
I just bought an Epson Perfection 4180 USB scanner. Seems there is no/not much support for Epson scanners in Linux. From what I read the 4180 is similar to the 3170, does anyone have either of these working in SUSE 9.1 ?? 9.2 maybe?? I downloaded the sane-backend for epson, but all it is, is a directory with a epson.c and epson.h file, and I'm lost as to what to do. any help is greatly appreciated! -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Sunday 31 October 2004 5:25 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I just bought an Epson Perfection 4180 USB scanner. Seems there is no/not much support for Epson scanners in Linux. From what I read the 4180 is similar to the 3170, does anyone have either of these working in SUSE 9.1 ?? 9.2 maybe??
update, I did a hardware scan, and after I did that, under the USB tab (YAST) there was an Epson scanner. Yet when I went to the scanner tab, and tried to install a USB scanner, it didn't give me any choices for a manual install. there were no entries available, not even a generic. SUSE 9.1 -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Sunday 31 October 2004 05:25 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I just bought an Epson Perfection 4180 USB scanner. Seems there is no/not much support for Epson scanners in Linux. From what I read the 4180 is similar to the 3170, does anyone have either of these working in SUSE 9.1 ?? 9.2 maybe?? I downloaded the sane-backend for epson, but all it is, is a directory with a epson.c and epson.h file, and I'm lost as to what to do. any help is greatly appreciated!
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 ============
Paul, Epson equipment is probably one of the "best" supported hardwares in Linux, but sometimes even the good guys drift a bit. If you go to this page, you will find the list of scanners sane presently supports and doesn't support. The 4180 was not listed and the 3170 was "unsupported"! One of those times Epson wandered off the standards path. The 3170 seems to have a driver from the Epson epkowa site though, as may the 4180. I've not had much luck with the newer rpms they offer, but then my 1650 Photo works nicely with kooka & xsane. Here's the site: http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html From this info, it sounds like you might have wanted to do a bit more research, before purchasing your unit. Lee
On Sunday 31 October 2004 5:40 pm, BandiPat wrote:
path. The 3170 seems to have a driver from the Epson epkowa site though, as may the 4180. I've not had much luck with the newer rpms they offer, but then my 1650 Photo works nicely with kooka & xsane.
I could live with the 3170 driver if I could get it working ( still working on it..)
Here's the site: http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html
thanks, I'll check it out after all the trick-and-treaters leave ;)
From this info, it sounds like you might have wanted to do a bit more research, before purchasing your unit.
I did research, I found this unit had the highest resolution, and it does slides and negatives. and I got a $50 rebate. Since I have XP installed, I can use it, and it will work, I would just rather get it working in Linux. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Sunday 31 October 2004 5:40 pm, BandiPat wrote:
path. The 3170 seems to have a driver from the Epson epkowa site though, as may the 4180. I've not had much luck with the newer rpms they offer, but then my 1650 Photo works nicely with kooka & xsane.
I could live with the 3170 driver if I could get it working ( still working on it..)
Here's the site: http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html
thanks, I'll check it out after all the trick-and-treaters leave ;)
From this info, it sounds like you might have wanted to do a bit more research, before purchasing your unit.
I did research, I found this unit had the highest resolution, and it does slides and negatives. and I got a $50 rebate. Since I have XP installed, I can use it, and it will work, I would just rather get it working in Linux.
Paul, Bandipat was suggesting you might have done more research on whether your desired scanner would, in fact, work with GNU/Linux. I use a lot of donated hardware in my minstry, so I'm stuck with what I get. However, when I buy hardware, I always check the hardware howto, and linux-hardware.org (or other sites. In your case, checking the sane project website before you purchased the scanner would have helped you make a more informed decision. Whatever kind of hardware you buy, be sure it's actually supported. It will save you lots of frustration later. Don -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
On Saturday 30 Oct 2004 00:40, Web Developer wrote:
---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Suse 9.2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 -0500 From: C Hamel <yogich@sc2000.net> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
<snip>
I sympathize with your installation problems. I *finally* learned to wait until I get plenty of feedback from this list before attempting anything. I tried both 9 & 9.1 and only 9 mostly worked. (Found out I had a bad CD-RW/DVD drive & that didn't help, of course.) I finally FTPd the 9.1 this past week and it seems the bugs have been mostly squashed, thank goodness. Less problems, but still not problem-free. ...Nor is Windoze. <G> __________________
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
don -- Web Developer Matheteuo Christian Fellowship webdev@matheteuo.org http://matheteuo.org/ Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime! Well i got it installed and running on it now but ye gads what a flippin game and two richard the thirds ,
It just kept crapping out at random places all the time the list of files became too long to type any more , Now bearing in mind this is an BRAND NEW HDD never before had anything on it this is how i had to get it to load and i still cant work out why . I at first thought i may be a duff drive so i blagged a windBloze 98se frisby of a mate tried that yes installed ok hum try 9,2 again all they setup procedure to get it to partition the drive format it and start the install and shure enough it went so far then bang dead , Hum right re try windBloZe 98se yep no problem so blagged his copy of windBloZe eXtra Plonkey installed that using ntfs yep all ok now heres where it starts to make NO sense what so ever rebooted the system on the 9.2 disc (btw it was the same for the CD or the DVD ) all thry the setup start the install bingo it goes all the way Hum . So just for the hell of it fdisked the drive again deleting all partitions re try the 9.2 and shure enought total failure install eXtra Plonkey again the boot the 9.2 setup and bingo it flattenes the eXtra Plonkey install knaffs orft and does a perfect install so i left it alone .. Now has anyone got even an fractional answer to that one cus i aint got the first idea an i been using/setting up Linux for 10 to 12 years now Oh i might add it is an 120 Gb Maxtor ide ata133 drive with 2Mb cache . Cheers Pete .
peter Nikolic wrote:
On Saturday 30 Oct 2004 00:40, Web Developer wrote:
---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Suse 9.2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 -0500 From: C Hamel <yogich@sc2000.net> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
<snip>
I sympathize with your installation problems. I *finally* learned to wait until I get plenty of feedback from this list before attempting anything. I tried both 9 & 9.1 and only 9 mostly worked. (Found out I had a bad CD-RW/DVD drive & that didn't help, of course.) I finally FTPd the 9.1 this past week and it seems the bugs have been mostly squashed, thank goodness. Less problems, but still not problem-free. ...Nor is Windoze. <G> __________________
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
don -- Web Developer Matheteuo Christian Fellowship webdev@matheteuo.org http://matheteuo.org/ Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!
Well i got it installed and running on it now but ye gads what a flippin game and two richard the thirds ,
It just kept crapping out at random places all the time the list of files became too long to type any more , Now bearing in mind this is an BRAND NEW HDD never before had anything on it this is how i had to get it to load and i still cant work out why .
I at first thought i may be a duff drive so i blagged a windBloze 98se frisby of a mate tried that yes installed ok hum try 9,2 again all they setup procedure to get it to partition the drive format it and start the install and shure enough it went so far then bang dead , Hum right re try windBloZe 98se yep no problem so blagged his copy of windBloZe eXtra Plonkey installed that using ntfs yep all ok now heres where it starts to make NO sense what so ever rebooted the system on the 9.2 disc (btw it was the same for the CD or the DVD ) all thry the setup start the install bingo it goes all the way Hum .
So just for the hell of it fdisked the drive again deleting all partitions re try the 9.2 and shure enought total failure install eXtra Plonkey again the boot the 9.2 setup and bingo it flattenes the eXtra Plonkey install knaffs orft and does a perfect install so i left it alone ..
Now has anyone got even an fractional answer to that one cus i aint got the first idea an i been using/setting up Linux for 10 to 12 years now
Oh i might add it is an 120 Gb Maxtor ide ata133 drive with 2Mb cache .
Cheers
Pete .
Peter, I believe I read somewhere about Mandrake having problems with Maxtor drives, and Maxtor not being very Linux friendly. Before I get too far with thought, I'll check it out, and get back to you. It may have some bearing on your situtation. -- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere."
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:06:17 -0500 Don Parris <webdev@matheteuo.org> wrote:
Peter, I believe I read somewhere about Mandrake having problems with Maxtor
drives, and Maxtor not being very Linux friendly. Before I get too far with thought, I'll check it out, and get back to you. It may have some bearing on your situtation.
My Maxtor drives seem OK. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/
rkimber@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:06:17 -0500 Don Parris <webdev@matheteuo.org> wrote:
Peter, I believe I read somewhere about Mandrake having problems with Maxtor
drives, and Maxtor not being very Linux friendly. Before I get too far with thought, I'll check it out, and get back to you. It may have some bearing on your situtation.
My Maxtor drives seem OK.
So do both of my 60 GB drives.
On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 17:06, Don Parris wrote:
peter Nikolic wrote:
On Saturday 30 Oct 2004 00:40, Web Developer wrote:
---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Suse 9.2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 -0500 From: C Hamel <yogich@sc2000.net> To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
<snip>
I sympathize with your installation problems. I *finally* learned to wait until I get plenty of feedback from this list before attempting anything. I tried both 9 & 9.1 and only 9 mostly worked. (Found out I had a bad CD-RW/DVD drive & that didn't help, of course.) I finally FTPd the 9.1 this past week and it seems the bugs have been mostly squashed, thank goodness. Less problems, but still not problem-free. ...Nor is Windoze. <G> __________________
Well, if things go well in tomorrow's install, and I can get my Kodak CX??00 camera working with 9.2, I'll be cleaning my Windoze - right off the hard drive. ;)
don -- Web Developer Matheteuo Christian Fellowship webdev@matheteuo.org http://matheteuo.org/ Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!
Well i got it installed and running on it now but ye gads what a flippin game and two richard the thirds ,
It just kept crapping out at random places all the time the list of files became too long to type any more , Now bearing in mind this is an BRAND NEW HDD never before had anything on it this is how i had to get it to load and i still cant work out why .
I at first thought i may be a duff drive so i blagged a windBloze 98se frisby of a mate tried that yes installed ok hum try 9,2 again all they setup procedure to get it to partition the drive format it and start the install and shure enough it went so far then bang dead , Hum right re try windBloZe 98se yep no problem so blagged his copy of windBloZe eXtra Plonkey installed that using ntfs yep all ok now heres where it starts to make NO sense what so ever rebooted the system on the 9.2 disc (btw it was the same for the CD or the DVD ) all thry the setup start the install bingo it goes all the way Hum .
So just for the hell of it fdisked the drive again deleting all partitions re try the 9.2 and shure enought total failure install eXtra Plonkey again the boot the 9.2 setup and bingo it flattenes the eXtra Plonkey install knaffs orft and does a perfect install so i left it alone ..
Now has anyone got even an fractional answer to that one cus i aint got the first idea an i been using/setting up Linux for 10 to 12 years now
Oh i might add it is an 120 Gb Maxtor ide ata133 drive with 2Mb cache .
Cheers
Pete .
Peter, I believe I read somewhere about Mandrake having problems with Maxtor drives, and Maxtor not being very Linux friendly. Before I get too far with thought, I'll check it out, and get back to you. It may have some bearing on your situtation.
-- DC Parris http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere." Hi ..
From what i remember it was Maxtor SATA drives that caused problems with certain chipsets .. I have used Maxtor drives a lot before with no problems apart from the fact that no HD is built to last these days they all go legs up fairly quickley i have found . Cheers Pete -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..
On Sunday 31 October 2004 11:06, Don Parris wrote:
peter Nikolic wrote:
On Saturday 30 Oct 2004 00:40, Web Developer wrote:
---------- Original Message -------------
Peter, I believe I read somewhere about Mandrake having problems with Maxtor drives, and Maxtor not being very Linux friendly. Before I get too far with thought, I'll check it out, and get back to you. It may have some bearing on your situtation.
Hi Guys, I've had 9.1 Pro on a Maxtor 160GB on an ABIT MB for a few months w/o probs. PeterB -- Using SUSE since 5.2 Loving SUSE 9.1 Pro My Blog: http://vancampen.org/blog --
participants (23)
-
- Edwin - -
Anders Johansson -
BandiPat -
Brian Jackson -
Don Parris -
Donald D Henson -
Donn Washburn -
James Knott -
Jeffrey Laramie -
Jordan Michaels -
Josephine -
Leendert Meyer -
Mike McMullin -
Patrick Shanahan -
Paul Cartwright -
Peter B Van Campen -
peter Nikolic -
poeml＠cmdline.net -
rkimber＠ntlworld.com -
Sean Montgomery -
Sid Boyce -
Silviu Marin-Caea -
Web Developer