Re: Newbie Nvidia/Woody problem
"Kent West" <westk@acu.edu> wrote in message
news:332Lv-6Lx-17@gated-at.bofh.it...
> Brian Coiley wrote:
>
> > Many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your efforts to
> > help. Unfortunately, you have overestimated my abilities! I started
> > on this literally just yesterday, and doing anything at all is
> > requiring a great deal of research and trial-and-error! Specifically:
> >
> >
>
> As others have suggested, I'd upgrade to Sarge or Sid; Woody is (imo)
> unusably old for a desktop system.
OK, I'll look into doing the upgrade: as you've perceived, it's a desktop
system and it's not mission critical, it's a learning thing.
>
> (Also, top-posting is generally frowned upon on this list; the preferred
> method is to respond just below that to which you're responding.)
>
Sorry, I wasn't intending to top post, I was merely trying to provide a bit
of an introduction since I was just quoting snippets of the previous post
rather than replying to the whole thing.
> > Complete Linux newbie here. Successfully partitioned the disk on my
> > W2K box, and got it dual-booting with Woody (installed from a CD
> > set). I thought that was pretty cool, and I was going good! Tried
> > startx, and got this: (EE) No devices detected.
>
>
> Rather than trying to use an nVidia driver, you might try VESA. Just run
> "dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86" as root and select "vesa" (or,
> horrors!, vga) as your video device.
>
I tried that: the error message changed to "(EE) Screens found, but none
have a usable configuration". Leaving aside the grammatical error (should
be "none HAS a usable configuration"!), this presumably indicates that I now
have a working video driver, but that something else is now wrong! It may
however now be irrelevant as I'm going to attempt upgrading as discussed.
> > Regarding Sarge, isn't that unstable? What exactly does that mean?
> > How exactly would I switch to it? I deliberately chose to install
> > Woody, from a set of CD's, because I felt that for a complete dunce
> > like me it would be far easier than downloading and installing
> > bleeding-edge stuff that I don't understand.
>
>
> Yeah; that's the way to reply to email.
>
Thanks! See above for apology.
> "stable" means that this version of Debian as a whole (not individual
> packages) undergoes almost no change; only necessary changes like
> security fixes. The current version of stable is named "Woody".
>
> "testing" means that this version of Debian is being stretched and
> pulled and pushed and prodded in preparation for becoming the next
> "stable". The current testing is very close to becoming stable. The
> current version of testing is named "Sarge".
>
> "unstable" means that this version of Debian is constantly under flux;
> this package being removed; that package being added; another several
> packages being merged into one; another package split into several; new
> features added to a package; new features breaking a package, etc.
> However, the ability of a system to stay usable which has been built
> with unstable has no relation whatsoever to the name "unstable". My
> desktop workstations all run unstable. My servers run Woody. In my
> experience, an "unstable" Debian system is far more stable than a
> similarly equipped MS-Windows workstation. All versions of unstable are
> named "Sid" (for the kid next door in "Toy Story" that was always
> breaking the toys; however, some people think of it unofficially as
> Still In Development).
>
> For maximum usability (all the neat toys) on a workstation, I'd
> definitely recommend unstable. If you're a bit more cautious, testing is
> satisfactory today, but three months after it moves to stable, testing
> will tend to break less often than sid, but will stay broken longer than
> does sid. (When something breaks in testing, it might be a couple of
> weeks before the fix trickles in; with sid, the fix is usually within
> hours or days.) However, after testing goes to stable, you can change
> your sources.list file to point to stable, and stick with an unchanging
> system untll the next version of stable comes out in a year or seven.
>
> For a server, woody is still a good choice in many situations, although
> I'd probably go with testing, and then switch to stable when testing
> moves to stable.
>
> The advantage of moving to testing or unstable is that you'll get newer
> packages that are likely to handle your video system better. As
> mentioned, Woody is really ancient now.
>
OK, thanks, as mentioned above, will attempt to upgrade.
> At any rate, there's an open-source driver for nVidia (called nv) in
> Debian, which is okay, and there's a proprietary driver for nVidia
> (called nvidia, I believe), which must be downloaded and partially
> compiled which means you have to have headers and maybe sources and
> maybe compile your own kernel, etc etc etc.
>
Tried nv, doesn't work. The Nvidia FX series doesn't appear in the list of
supported cards, so that is presumably the problem.
> You also might want to upgrade your kernel. Run "apt-get search
> kernel-image-2.6" and/or "apt-get search kernel-image-2.4" to see what
> 2.6 and 2.4 kernel images are available in your current distribution
> (Woody). Then you can install one with a command like "apt-get install
> kernel-image-2.6-686-1". The "686" means its compiled to run on a
> Pentium system; a 386 would mean its for the entire 386-class of
> machines. A "k7" is for AMD, etc. "SMP" means more than one processor
> (not likely for most people - you'd likely know if you have such as
> system).
>
Obviously (I think?) the kernel upgrade is irrelevant if I'm going to
attempt to upgrade the whole shooting match. I am indeed clued up enough to
know that I don't have an SMP system, but I am too dumb to have spotted
before now the potential significance of the fact that I have an Athlon not
an x86 processor. Doh! All I can offer in my defence is years of being ins
ulated from my hardware by countless layers of Windoze...
> --
> Kent
>
Terrific, Kent, thanks a lot!
Reply to: