Re: samba and a bit of sound
Quoting Anders Ellenshøj Andersen <andersa@fys.ku.dk>:
> On Thursday 26 December 2002 17:20, Kurt Sys wrote:
>
> > OK... problem found, I guess:
> >
> > # Can't locate module iirc
>
> Sorry I should have know better than to be that imprecise. iirc is just
> shorthand for if I remember correctly. Using the regular kernel its just
>
> # modprobe smb
>
OK... I'm sorry I didn't no that expression... I'll never forget it. But euh,
smb is installed, as a module. And I installed several smb-packages too. It's
just, I can read server-data if i use xsmbrowser, but mounting seems not to
work... Is this 'normal'?
> > I'm quite sure it isn't, mainly because I'm not sure which one I have
> > to choose. I know it's SoundBlaster and Windows sound compatible (from
> > website of Dell). However, if i try to 'modconf' the '100% soundblaster
> > compatible' modules, it fails... I have this on my laptop, but actually
>
> Yeah.. That's not gonna work, I think.
>
> > also on my desktop (so it is not really a laptop-specific problem for
> > me, although i have much more information about my soundcard of my
> > desktop, i.e. i/o, irq, ...).
> > I tried also with the OSS-stuff, but if i run alsaconf then, it
> > complains 'can't locate module snd'. Do i really miss another module?
> > (And where can i find it...)
>
> ALSA stands for Advanced Linux Sound Architechture. It's the next generation
> sound api that is going into kernel 2.6 (hopefully). There is no alsa support
> in the stock kernel sources from debian, so unless you get an alsa patch for
> 2.4 from somewhere on the net, nothing that has anything to do with alsa is
> ever going to work. Forget alsa until you get regular sound working.
OK... I'll remember this too. It's just, many people advise me to use alsa.
> Try compiling the kernel with the Intel sound driver (Intel ICH (i8xx), SiS
> 7012, etc. etc.). If you compile it directly into the kernel it should be
> activated at reboot.
I'll try this, later on, but I think I already tried some of these. Does make
a difference if i include as a module, or directlly into the kernel? I read
sometimes that it's 'better' to compile the things as modules, but i have not
really an idea why... Anyway, it's worth the effort.
By the way, I always try to get things to work as root first. If that's
working, I change permissions... I think this isn't really an issue here
(since root has the right permissions), is it?
tnx,
Kurt.
Reply to: