Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help with Debian

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
April 25, 2009 1:27:22 AM

This might be a n00b question but whatever. I have tried to install LinuxMint and Debian onto a 40GB IDE HD. I also have a 500GB SATA HD that is dual booting xp and 7. When I tried to install LinuxMint onto the IDE it overwrote my SATA HD's MBR and gave me a GRUB error 22 when trying to boot windows. I had to use the Windows 7 disc to repair it and then when I tried to boot LinuxMint it it would just skip over the Linux and go straight to Windows. I even tried unplugging the SATA and just booting Linux and it gave me an I/O error ?? I then formatted it and tried to install Backtrack 4, it would boot and then randomly say "disks not syncing Kernel Panic!" i tried installing it many times using very precise instructions to modify it to match my system and it did the same thing. So then I said screw it I will just install Debian onto my 120GB IDE HD. I didn't want to go through all the trouble of rewriting my MBR on my SATA so I left it unplugged during the install. It installed perfectly and worked just fine until I hooked up my SATA again and now it boots LILO but, says that it cannot find the root file system. I tried editing the commands on boot to load the file system from sdb1 instead of sda1 and it works but I found that my settings are not saving so I have to go back every time and change sda1 to sdb1. So, my question is how can I modify LILO to look at sdb instead of sda and if so it won't overwrite my SATA's MBR right? here are my specs:

Corsair vx450
Asus P5Q
Radeon 4830 with bios volt mod
e5200 at 3.8 stable
120GB IDE
500GB SATA

More about : debian

April 25, 2009 6:47:49 AM

You'll need to edit the lilo config file to make the settings permanent or you can install GRUB on your sata drive ( sda ).

Most distros have defaulted to GRUB for many years.

Good luck :) 
April 26, 2009 6:34:46 AM

I have another problem now. I installed some updates with apt-get upgrade and now whenever I boot I have to manually change it to look for the /root/ directory on sda1, but that's not all. It boots but once it gets to the login screen it flashes for a second and then I'm just left with this pink distortion at the top of my screen and nothing else. I can enter my password and login blindly, and it plays the music and everything, but I'm still left with the same pink distortion. What should I do? I was thinking that I should just format and install Ubuntu 9.04 because I spent all day configuring compiz and getting Debian just the way I want it and now its unusable. I also installed the p54usb packet injection capable drivers right before I installed the updates :(  I have BT4 beta installed on my flash drive with persistent changes but its soooo buggy on my computer.

Do you have any thoughts or suggestion to fix my problem?
Related resources
April 26, 2009 8:03:05 AM

Your X11 driver must be foobared. If you haven't invested a lot of hard work into your install then it might be a lot easier to install Ubuntu 9.04 desktop amd64 ( yes it works on intel ).

You might want to save some room on your disk for Fedora 11 too, it should be out later this month.

GL :) 
April 26, 2009 8:47:19 AM

They should rename it x64 instead of amd64.
April 26, 2009 3:31:51 PM

They should probably rename it -amd64 (x86_64) or something like that.

Essentially amd64 and x86_64 are the same.

AMD invented it ( amd64 aka x86_64 sometimes aka x64 ), Intel borrowed it.

AMD64 / x86_64 should not be confused with IA64 which is a completely different architecture ( the Itanium and Itanium2 ). IA64 is not x86.

:) 
April 26, 2009 6:26:53 PM

I know what amd64 is... lol I was thinking about Fedora 10 but will the new version be worth it to wait? I was just planning to do some photo editing, normal web surfing and a little bit of hacking ;)  Also, would it be silly to dual boot two versions of linux?
April 26, 2009 9:13:36 PM

It won't be silly at all :) 

You can boot 2, 3 or more Linux distributions on the same machine, or you can have one primary Linux distribution and run a bunch more on VMs or a combination of dual booting and VMs.

With VMs there is a performance penalty and the virtual VGA on most VMs sucks, so dual booting is better if you need maximum performance and 3D acceleration.

The only annoying thing about dual booting is the required reboot but Ubuntu 9.04 and Fedora 11 boot in 20-30 seconds anyway so it shouldn't be a big deal unless you have to fsck.

From what I've heard both Ubuntu 9.04 and Fedora 11 are pretty good.

It may take a few weeks for the proprietary drivers to catch up after a distro is released.

Fedora 10 is good and it has working nvidia and ATI drivers, but Fedora 11 is supposed to be better with some lag due to drivers. Ubuntu 9.04 and Fedora 11 both have the latest kernel improvements which is nothing to sneeze at.

You're way ahead of the curve :) 

The amd64 mini-lecture was directed at all forum users, it comes up a lot and you wouldn't believe how many people are confused by amd64 x86_64 x86 x64 i386 i686 IA32 and IA64.

Some people download IA64 and expect it to work on x86 only to find out it doesn't.

Good luck :) 
April 26, 2009 9:25:11 PM

Well, for some reason Fedora 10 isn't letting me use any gui at all so instead of making it a big hassle I'm just gonna go with a dual boot of Ubuntu 9.04 and OpenSuse 11.1, for now, but I might format OpenSuse for the new Fedora and see if I have any luck with that. I have heard good things about OpenSuse, but I also heard good things about Debian too and it utterly failed on me. I'm burning OpenSuse right now so we will see what happens. Wish me luck :D 
April 26, 2009 9:35:36 PM

I have a 4870 1GB and it works fine on Fedora 10 x86_64, your 4830 should work.

Ubuntu 9.04 amd64 also booted fine from the CD and worked with the 4870 1GB.

Have you tried rpmfusion on Fedora 10?

http://rpmfusion.org/

It should work with the ATI driver from rpmfusion.

SuSE is not too bad but the whole novell thing turned a lot of people off.

Good luck :) 
April 26, 2009 9:49:20 PM

I've used the 4870, X850, 9800GT, 8600GT, 6600GT and various other cards all work for me.

Fedora works with 8MB cards all the way up to 1+GB cards.

It will also work on cards with less than 8MB but may require a little work.

Here's a neat trick, if the OS is having trouble with your modern card during the install you can use a 10 year old pci card and then install your modern card after you rpm or apt-get your drivers.

:) 
April 27, 2009 12:35:17 PM

randomizer said:
They should rename it x64 instead of amd64.

If that's so then i386 should never be used as well, since is gives attribution to Intel. So its either x86 or x86-64 or you're saying i386 versus amd64. I prefer the latter since i think attribution is important.
April 27, 2009 12:39:22 PM

Oh and who cares about IA64? The Itanium never has done well and never was supposed to replace the 32-bit CPUs intel was selling. It also never will, because it has no fallback to i386 mode - only a software emulator which causes low performance when executing 32-bit code. AMD has done a formidable job at introducing the new 64-bit architecture: since its fully compatible with 32-bit code the architecture has a low acceptance threshold and MS won't be making two 64-bit operating systems they made clear to Intel.

I consider IA64 together with architectures from DEC/Alpha or PPC; simply a different architecture and i wouldn't even call it 'PC'. There's also no normal windows version available in IA64; its only for servers. And when you consider price and compare against AMD offerings, its probably a waste of money, for general purpose computing anyway.
April 27, 2009 1:40:47 PM

I was trying to keep people from mistakenly downloading IA64 ISOs which won't work on x86 systems :) 

IA64 is pretty much used for clusters in business and scientific computing, it's not for consumers.

:) 
May 4, 2009 9:15:05 PM

I prefer x86 and x86-64. Calling it AMD64 makes people think they have to have an AMD processor to run it. Even though i386 is attributable to Intel, it seems more generic and less confusing... but mistaking it as Intel-only could happen as well.

Of course you could make the argument that if you know enough to install and use Linux, you would know what i386 and AMD64 means and what processors they could be installed on.
!