malcolm wrote:

On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:24, Joseph Loo wrote:

...

I just got my AMD 64 and tried to load SUSE 9.2. I started to pick all kinds of installation settings and started the isntall. I keep coming up with files not found e.g., libread-java.

Do you think I am running into problems with the DVD drive or do I have to be more selective in loading the system up. The small isntallation seems to have install 64 bit versions but I want to load the system up for development.

-- Joseph Loo jloo@acm.org

Joseph,

I have similar problems to you.

Yesterday I posted "9.2 package install failed".

I would be interested to know whether you have tried more than one install and whether you get the variations I get.

What is your DVD drive?

Malcolm.

Hi Malcom & Joseph, I was going to chime in here yesterday but had no time. I highly recommend you Google _A LOT_ using various combinations of your motherboard model numbers plus your CPU chip names and speeds combined with the words "Linux" "installation" "problem" "unstable" "crash" etc. You will be amazed at how many people experience these problems and are surprised by them. Frequent stability problems crop up with Linux (not just SuSE) when being installed and run on high end hardware. This is due to the high speeds and reduced margin for error. Linux, generally, works the system memory and all I/O subsystems very hard, i.e. it expects various critical components and subsystems to run flawlessly according to specification. If you even _think_ there could be 'cranky' hardware involved -- not failed components, but possibly marginal at the very top end of the specs claimed -- you will make a lot more progress and be a lot happier if you eliminate or solve those kinds of problems first. Run the memory test provided at the start of the installation process, select the most thorough test and run it for at least 36 hours, preferably 48. Or, spend the money on brand-name memory that comes with 24 hour advance replacement and a lifetime warranty. You simply cannot compromise on memory running Linux. Verify you've got an adequate film of high grade thermal conducting paste between the CPU and heat sink, not just the generic stuff shipped by AMD (this is common knowledge and they admit as much if you read between the lines on their website.) A high speed processor running at the very top end of it's thermal rating will sometimes get over-warm and unstable and corrupt data intermittently -- you know the old saying -- garbage in, garbage out. So you see, the cooling system and proper sizing of your PC chassis/case is important, too. (Don't forget how much heat is generated by main system & graphics memory, CD/DVD drives and high rpm (7,200+) hard disks, too., then think about all that heat combined into a single small enclosure. The problem is more intuitively understood this way.) Verify your power supply is adequately sized to sufficiently supply the power-on surge required at cold boot. You'd be amazed how often "bare bones" systems are supplied with undersized power supplies once all the extra drives, main memory and extra high-end graphics memory is added in. When these systems are fully built out, the power supplies get pulled into operating right at the very top end of their rated specs (which are also frequently overstated a bit by some manufacturers). Once power quality, thermal environment and component quality/stability issues have been attended to, _that_ is the time to start troubleshooting the OS & software/setup if problems arise. Good luck! - Carl -- C. E. Hartung Business Development & Support Services Dover Foxcroft, Maine USA 04426 carlh@cehartung.com http://www.cehartung.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/05

* Basil Chupin [01-27-05 10:13]:

So what you are suggesting is that people should tailor their systems to suit Suse/Linux rather than the other way around.

Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for Linux.

Duh, would you purchase a 68000 cpu to put into an ix86 mother-board? -- 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

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Basil Chupin [01-27-05 10:13]:

...

So what you are suggesting is that people should tailor their systems to suit Suse/Linux rather than the other way around.

Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for Linux.

Duh, would you purchase a 68000 cpu to put into an ix86 mother-board?

Do you respond to messages in this forum before or after you take your medication? If the former then I suggest that you take the medication first. If the latter than I suggest you ask your doctor to prescribe a new treatment. Or is it the case where you continually keep falling out of the tree? Cheers. -- "The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvellously."

On Thursday 27 January 2005 12:34, Basil Chupin wrote:

Carl Hartung wrote:

...

malcolm wrote:

...

On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:24, Joseph Loo wrote:

...

I just got my AMD 64 and tried to load SUSE 9.2. I started to pick all kinds of installation settings and started the isntall. I keep coming up with files not found e.g., libread-java.

<snip some discussion and lots of good ideas from Carl>

...

Once power quality, thermal environment and component quality/stability issues have been attended to, _that_ is the time to start troubleshooting the OS & software/setup if problems arise.

Good luck!

- Carl

So what you are suggesting is that people should tailor their systems to suit Suse/Linux rather than the other way around.

Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for Linux.

Cheers.

I don't think that's a bizarre way of doing things, Basil - Spec your applications, then your OS, then buy hardware that it will run on. Don't randomly go out and buy hardware and then try to get what you need to run on it. However, I would certainly agree that it's hard work trying to get accurate info on what current hardward *will* run well on a given distro. -- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk

Fergus Wilde wrote:

On Thursday 27 January 2005 12:34, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Carl Hartung wrote:

...

malcolm wrote:

...

On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:24, Joseph Loo wrote:

...

I just got my AMD 64 and tried to load SUSE 9.2. I started to pick all kinds of installation settings and started the isntall. I keep coming up with files not found e.g., libread-java.

<snip some discussion and lots of good ideas from Carl>

...

...

Once power quality, thermal environment and component quality/stability issues have been attended to, _that_ is the time to start troubleshooting the OS & software/setup if problems arise.

Good luck!

- Carl

So what you are suggesting is that people should tailor their systems to suit Suse/Linux rather than the other way around.

Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for Linux.

Cheers.

I don't think that's a bizarre way of doing things, Basil - Spec your applications, then your OS, then buy hardware that it will run on. Don't randomly go out and buy hardware and then try to get what you need to run on it. However, I would certainly agree that it's hard work trying to get accurate info on what current hardward *will* run well on a given distro.

While I hear what you are saying, it is not a practical approach to computing. How many people do you know who do this? Well, I did try this once but I very quickly found that with SUSE at least the database for "comptatible" hardware is less than absolutely useless not to mention that it is years out of date. The bottom line is that people buy a computer and then go looking for an operating system - and the first one they find which always works for them is M$. I've been running SUSE since v7.1. I have 3 computers of different "makes" and vintage. Minor changes to the h/ware over the years and they all ran SUSE without a hitch UNTIL 9.1 was unleashed. It only works reasonably well on 2 computers which ran v9.0 as the latest version without a single complaint. I tried to install 9.2 last Saturday (ie 6 days ago) and while it installs on one computer, v9.2 point blank REFUSES to install on another computer which ran 9.0 and 9.1: after selecting the partioning and the software to install (SUSE's default selection), the installation simply hangs after 10~15 seconds after it formats the partitions and starts the actual installation. I can look at all the "compatability charts" till I am blue in the face but you will have a hard time convincing me that it is my fault for v9.2 not installing after 9.0 and 9.1 ran OK on this same computer (v9.1 is still installed and I use it to surf the web using Firefox when the mood strikes me). To carry the suggested idea further, every copy of SUSE, and Linux overall for that matter, should then carry a WARNING stating to check out one's system for compatability with Linux and not to waste your money buying Linux unless each and every hardware component is compatible with SUSE/Linux. Do I see such a warning? No. Will I ever see such a warning? No. The only time I ever saw such a WARNING was before XP was released where people were warned that it may not be compatible with some hardware. There was even a self-check available which pointed out any problems when the program was run. A similar warning I believe wil come with Longhorn. But why should there be a warning with Linux anyway when Linux is supposed to work even on la owly 486 computer which is now "decades" (in computer terms) old? Cheers. -- "The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvellously."

On Friday 28 January 2005 12:32, Basil Chupin wrote:

Fergus Wilde wrote:

...

On Thursday 27 January 2005 12:34, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Carl Hartung wrote:

...

malcolm wrote:

...

On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:24, Joseph Loo wrote:

...

I just got my AMD 64 and tried to load SUSE 9.2. I started to pick all kinds of installation settings and started the isntall. I keep coming up with files not found e.g., libread-java.

<snip some discussion and lots of good ideas from Carl>

...

...

Once power quality, thermal environment and component quality/stability issues have been attended to, _that_ is the time to start troubleshooting the OS & software/setup if problems arise.

Good luck!

- Carl

So what you are suggesting is that people should tailor their systems to suit Suse/Linux rather than the other way around.

Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for Linux.

Cheers.

I don't think that's a bizarre way of doing things, Basil - Spec your applications, then your OS, then buy hardware that it will run on. Don't randomly go out and buy hardware and then try to get what you need to run on it. However, I would certainly agree that it's hard work trying to get accurate info on what current hardward *will* run well on a given distro.

While I hear what you are saying, it is not a practical approach to computing.

How many people do you know who do this? Well, I did try this once but I very quickly found that with SUSE at least the database for "comptatible" hardware is less than absolutely useless not to mention that it is years out of date.

The bottom line is that people buy a computer and then go looking for an operating system - and the first one they find which always works for them is M$.

I've been running SUSE since v7.1. I have 3 computers of different "makes" and vintage. Minor changes to the h/ware over the years and they all ran SUSE without a hitch UNTIL 9.1 was unleashed. It only works reasonably well on 2 computers which ran v9.0 as the latest version without a single complaint.

I tried to install 9.2 last Saturday (ie 6 days ago) and while it installs on one computer, v9.2 point blank REFUSES to install on another computer which ran 9.0 and 9.1: after selecting the partioning and the software to install (SUSE's default selection), the installation simply hangs after 10~15 seconds after it formats the partitions and starts the actual installation. I can look at all the "compatability charts" till I am blue in the face but you will have a hard time convincing me that it is my fault for v9.2 not installing after 9.0 and 9.1 ran OK on this same computer (v9.1 is still installed and I use it to surf the web using Firefox when the mood strikes me).

To carry the suggested idea further, every copy of SUSE, and Linux overall for that matter, should then carry a WARNING stating to check out one's system for compatability with Linux and not to waste your money buying Linux unless each and every hardware component is compatible with SUSE/Linux.

Do I see such a warning? No.

Will I ever see such a warning? No.

The only time I ever saw such a WARNING was before XP was released where people were warned that it may not be compatible with some hardware. There was even a self-check available which pointed out any problems when the program was run. A similar warning I believe wil come with Longhorn.

But why should there be a warning with Linux anyway when Linux is supposed to work even on la owly 486 computer which is now "decades" (in computer terms) old?

Cheers.

-- "The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvellously."

Check your dvd drive is ok .. and i mean ok just cause it runs dvd films dont mean it is any good at all .. I had hell installing 9.2 on this box the first time round no hope from the dvd's tried from the cd's and just about got it on , recently had a few Hdd problems had to reinstall but in the mean time fitted a new dvd drive it fewl on without a single hitch no other hardware changes at all Oh and that includes a semi frelled video card that can no longer run 3D without lockin up solid . Pete . -- If Bill Gates had gotten LAID at High School do YOU think there would be a Microsoft ? Of course NOT ! You gotta spend a lot of time at your school Locker stuffing underware up your ass to think , I am going to take on the worlds Computer Industry -------:heard on Cyber Radio.:-------