Re: Getting to the GUI...
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 10:57:43PM -0800, Rick Commo wrote:
>
> It starts up XF86Setup and I configure what I think
> is the correct monitor choice - 8514 for starters.
Not a big deal here. It's your rates that are important.
> (6) Change /etc/inittab to level 5 and reboot.
> The xserver crashes and I'm back in 80x24 mode.
Why are you going to runlevel 5? This isn't RedHat. If you install xdm it
will be available under 2-5 usually. You can tweak that if you like, but I'd
leave the runlevel at 2 for now and fire up X with startx until you actually
get it working and it can be trusted.
> When I try to start it by hand I get "no screens
> configured" message and the server bails. No amount of
> playing with the monitor choice allows the X server to start.
I've always used the generic settings. Start at lowest VGA monitor. If
that works, try something closer to mine, like "monitor capable of 1024x768 @
70 Hz", which works for me. Do you have the specs on your monitor?
> I can't believe that it should be this hard!!!
X has always been a pain, but XFree86's default tools are not as easy as
some installers like Mandrake. But, getting it installed is a minor part of
use, hence I'll stick with Debian and spare myself the pain of constant rpm
hell.
> I am willing to give it one more shot, but so far I do have to wonder in all
> honesty why anyone would bother with this distro. Someone give me a reason!
I realize that you're frustrated, but Debian rocks. I've used RedHat and
Mandrake, and while they were easier to install, the constant hell of daily
use wasn't worth it. Some people's experiences are bad depending on how well
supported their hardware is. That can make you turn your back on an entire
distro. It's a shame, but I understand.
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <msoulier@storm.ca>
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925
Reply to: