Re: newbie can't install 3.1
On 7/31/05, Hans-Peter Sulzer <ql_freak@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 26 July 2005 schrieb Evans wrote:
>
> > I don't know much, and figured the best way to learn linux is by having
> it.
> > Unfortunately, the installation looked like it only half succeeded. The
> gui
> > won't work, and it won't auto-config my network card (I'm often on a big
> > lan, and windows works). Of that I am certain, and other things might
> not
> > work either. I'm seeing a lot of "blabbedy blah failed to load" or
> similar
> > in the boot-up process. Unfortunately, I can't take screenshots to
> > troubleshoot, because I have to reboot to run windows, the OS where I can
> > get on the internet, and therefore any possible support. Any help would
> be
> > most appreciated. I'm sorry if I'm asking the wrong people, but I just
> > haven't seen any newbie faqs or mailing lists.
>
I am a newbie too and I think Knoppix is good start. But if you like
Linux and want to install it on your HD, then IMHO, Ubuntu is probably
better. The base is again Debian and you can apt-get most of the
software that's available for Debian. The difference is that when you
install Knoppix on HD it somehow looses its ability to recognize
hardware.
About three years ago, I had RHAT 7.3 on my machine but when I
switched to broadband, it did not recognize my ethernet card and I
could not get on the Internet. I reinstalled it, tried SuSE., but
didn't work for some reason (finally succeeded with RHAT). Knoppix
came to my rescue. But when I installed Knoppix on HD, it was not able
to recognize the card.
Anyways, Ubuntu is pretty good with most hardware, including printers,
monitors, ethernet and surprisingly even sound. Unlike Debian, you
wouldn't have to tell the OS what the horizontal and vertical config
of your monitor is.
Rajiv
Reply to: