Topic awaiting preservation: Mandrake: KDE doesn't start properly. (Page 1 of 1)

I installed Mandrake 10.1 three times allready, can't seem to get it working properly. Everything seems fine, but when I boot and login, all I see is the clock and my cursor I can't move on a blue screen.

Could I be doing something wrong?

Yes, you could. The first mistake, I think, is using Mandrake but that's another discussion.

Get on irc.freenode.net and join ##linux or #mandriva (or just /msg reisio if I'm on [/whois reisio]).

For a straightforward yet cool Linux setup, I recommend Suse.
Tried Redhat and Suse so far for my home setup: with a little experience, a Gentoo or Debian will most probably be the worthy choice,
but for a private usage or Linux beginner, I found Suse to be plain perfect: loads of built-in drivers, a very clever update system, the default applications are just great.

I've never been fond of Windows, but Linux was just "not reliable unless you know it by heart" to me, although I am proficient in bash, csh and tkl.
Redhat and it's lousy drivers disappointed me.
I've never tried mandrake, but at the moment, I am working 50% on Windows, 50% on Linux for about anything (example: I burn my cd/dvds exclusively on Suse, develop C stuff in a Windows IDE and compile it on Suse or on a minimal cygwin, etc..).

In my experience, if a so-said "easy to install" Linux is falling short of promises, and you aren't a Linux expert, there is little you can do aside trying another flavour: in this case, I'd be willing to bet "some" driver
is faulty, so unless you can isolate/replace and if needed recompile this thingie, you're screwed.

Now make my day, make your day, go get Suse, and tell me how you like it.

If you must use SUSE, at least make it openSUSE...but to me that's just as silly as using Fedora Core.

One ridiculously simple way of installing Debian is through Morphix. It comes as a livecd, so you know it works before you install it (and can use it while it's installing). Available preconfigured specifically for GNOME, KDE, Xfce, etc..

lmao... say I was amazed by the fact a Linux installer, for ONCE, had almost installed the proper device drivers on my system. Oh well.
May I ask a question?
Is there a reason for you to hate Suse aside the fact Novell owns it?

Focuses on RPMs, too, but the primary dislike is from the proprietary/commercial trend.

Is it possible to get Debian to show 1024x768? I tried the longest time to get it, but it only gave me 800x600 and 640x480. I think I'm going to stick with Debian (for now) since I know it best. I was wanting to try other flavors, but...

I think you have to change the monitor to.. well, it depends on your setup: for my Inspiron 8600 laptop, under Suse,
I had to use a 1920x1200 LCD display for instance.

quote:

---

zavaboy said:

Is it possible to get Debian to show 1024x768? I tried thelongest time to get it, but it only gave me 800x600 and 640x480. I think I'm going to stick with Debian (for now) since I know it best. I was wanting to try other flavors, but...

---

It's probably just a matter of altering your xorg.conf or XF86-Config-4 file in /etc/X11 - look for "Modes". Might need to check "DefaultDepth", too.

quote:

---

I've never been fond of Windows, but Linux was just "not reliable unless you know it by heart" to me

---

quote:

---

It's probably just a matter of altering your xorg.conf or XF86-Config-4 file in /etc/X11 - look for "Modes".
Might need to check "DefaultDepth", too.

---

That's exactly what I was talking about. Sparing myself the hassle of "tweaking" my OS, I want to spend my time actually using and
enjoying it, go figure...

I have to agree - one of the main reasons Windows gets chosen over Linux, is the simplicity of use (the other being amount of SW available, and the agressive nature of M$ marketing, of course).

I would switch to Linux immediately, if it was simple to use (without such as the example above).

Let us take FF, for example - I switched from IE to FF, because it was simple and better. Easy to install, easy to use, nice plug-in support, Tabbed browsing (which has hooked me - I now find it impossible to go back to the "old way" of surfing), and security.

If Linux was as simple to install and use from Windows, as FF compared to IE is, then I think there would be a significant move towards Linux. I know I would use it.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-05-2005 10:46)

On the other hand, the fact a Linux is highly configurable, for experts, make it a great choice: everything can be made to fit your exact needs.
But this requires experience.

Suse got me because I started the CD, and the partitionning, formatting, device drivers detection,
internet connection setup and updates were done in a couple of clicks, and it has OpenOffice, Kopete, NTFS support,
likes my DVD drive, and has Yast which acts as an update/configure your hardware/software central. Like the Windows device manager,
with a lot more control.

As I said, though, I am "not" the default user, I am a programmer, with skills in bash, csh, C, C++, Java and a variety of other languages,
now even reaching oddities like Prolog or functional languages (Lisp or ML) : I "could" spend the time to tweak a gentoo, a debian,
and have it run smoothly for my exact needs.

But I don't want to, I am not a sysadmin.
Plus as a graphics developper, I have to complain about the lack of good ATI drivers
for Linux, but I blame it on ATI.

As I've already said, WebShaman; installing Linux is as simple as downloading a copy of Knoppix or Morphix and popping in the LiveCD. It should be a fully functional system without even installing - to install you just open the control panel and hit the install button.

Changing resolution in popular Linux desktop environments is as simple as in Windows - just pop open the control panel (or even a little dialog embedded in the system tray) and pick the resolution you want.

The config file is merely the source of the matter (and, I must say, the absolutely simplest path of instruction - most people understand how to use a text editor).

What you don't seem to get (and I can't blame you, if you've been raised on Windows), is that for most operating systems (including Linux), the OS is not part of the graphical interface. Most any system using X11 (and there are tons) will have a config file around /etc/X11 or the like, but the usage for any frontend GUI resolution-picking software can vary tremendously.

Ooohhh... getting cocky on that one, hm? I am not picking on Linux, but this:

quote:

---

Most any system using X11 (and there are tons) will have a config file around /etc/X11 or the like, but the usage for any frontend GUI resolution-picking software can vary tremendously.

---

Echoes this perfectly:

quote:

---

I "could" spend the time to tweak a gentoo, a debian,
and have it run smoothly for my exact needs.

But I don't want to, I am not a sysadmin.

---

I know how to use a text editor quite well, thanks. I don't want to.
Picture the basic user, Sir John Doe himself, starting a KDE for the first time and seeing a resolution of 800x600
on a superb 21" monitor.

John Doe does barely know how to setup an email client: he is unlikely to want to "know" the GUI part
is independent from the OS itself, he does not give a damn and should not have to worry about the system being composed of a kernel,
a shell and a file system "plus a GUI on top".

This of course is off topic, and your debian tip sounds cool, I "know" and I agree that users should be enticed to at least try to setup a Linux,
but they should not have to worry about the details, at all.

i've used Linux before (SuSe, I forget which version - I still have it in it's big box ) - and Linux has made big strides in what I consider the right direction of simplifying the use of it (especially for spoiled rotten Windows users like me - and yes, I admit it! I still remember the days of MS-Dos...hehe).

I just may get around to trying Knoppix or Morphix and popping in the LiveCD...got any links for me?

quote:

---

reisio said:

It's probably just a matter of altering your xorg.conf or XF86-Config-4 file in /etc/X11 - look for "Modes". Might need to check "DefaultDepth", too.

---

Thanks! Works!

I just need one more thing in order for my Linux to run just the way I want right now. Whenever I boot, it checks for my monitor and will show an error dialog (thus waithing for some sort of input from the user) before it's all booted up if my monitor isn't plugged in. Is there a way I can turn that check off? I'm going to be using VNC for accessing it, I don't want to use money to get a KVM switch. Other than that, I'm fine.

I am trying to figure out the DNS records (or zone files) but that's another story and I'll ask for help if I find myself sinking in mud. I'd rather go the hard way in order to learn them. Thanks to Google, I have a basic understanding of them.

quote:

---

zavaboy said:

Whenever I boot, it checks for my monitor and will show an error dialog

---

Ask in #debian on irc.freenode.net.

quote:

---

_Mauro said:

I know how to use a text editor quite well, thanks. I don't want to. Picture the basic user, Sir John Doe himself, starting a KDE for the first time and seeing a resolution of 800x600 on a superb 21" monitor.

---

Really (and as I've already said), on the popular newbie distros or any distro with a full KDE setup, etc.), you won't have to use a text editor, and you most likely will not ever be started on 800x600 res.