Mahy wrote :

> but advise me how to get the initial ramdisk to work.

Are you sure you need one? From README.TXT:
"A "test kernel": 2.6.13 with support for nearly all filesystems, SCSI
controllers, and SATA."

And if it still fails to boot I would go for one of the standard 2.4.31
kernels.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Thomas Overgaard wrote:
> Mahy wrote :
>
>> but advise me how to get the initial ramdisk to work.
>
> Are you sure you need one? From README.TXT:
> "A "test kernel": 2.6.13 with support for nearly all filesystems, SCSI
> controllers, and SATA."

Not having done any of this I might be way off, but my understanding is
that the test26.s kernel that Mahy used to boot his system using the
install cdrom is very different from the kernel package in testing, the
latter having much more things compiled as modules instead of in the
kernel. I.e., the problem is that Mahy has to find out which modules he
needs to include in his initrd. Not only reiserfs, but also something
for his SATA-controller.

Well, that's my 2 cents.

PJ

PJ Beers wrote:
> Not having done any of this I might be way off, but my understanding is
> that the test26.s kernel that Mahy used to boot his system using the
> install cdrom is very different from the kernel package in testing, the
> latter having much more things compiled as modules instead of in the
> kernel. I.e., the problem is that Mahy has to find out which modules he
> needs to include in his initrd. Not only reiserfs, but also something
> for his SATA-controller.
>
> Well, that's my 2 cents.
>
> PJ

Good idea, that might the entire problem. It never occured to me
before, that if i choose to boot and install the test26.s kernel, a
different one will be installed. I know that test26.s from the CD needs
no initrd, but even though i did choose it to install to hard drive,
the outcome needs a ramdisk to boot, coz it's only a generic one and
not a test26.s (something I can't quite comprehend). Alrite, i'll
browse through the modules directory, and i hope there will be some
sata module available. Thanks.

Mahy

Yipee, i found out there was both the test26.s AND a generic kernel
present, so I just changed the link and now it works with no initrd at
all (even using Grub). Then i booted Slax, let it generate an optimum
xorg.conf for me, returned back to Slackware and even the graphics
works ok. That is, fonts are whole lot uglier than on other Linux
distros i tried so far... :-P Hope i'll find a way to fix it. If anyone
of you knows what to do, please tell me.

Must learn the package management for now, and enable wifi. Once again
thanks to y'all for help and patience.

Jan Kotuc

Mahy wrote :

> That is, fonts are whole lot uglier than on other Linux distros i
> tried so far... :-P Hope i'll find a way to fix it.

Check the fonts section in /etx/X11/xorg.conf and make sure the path to
your fonts is correct:
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/*
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

On Fri, 12 May 2006 23:01:45 -0700, Mahy wrote:
<snip>
>... Ok, I promise I'll try everything. Hey, what
> about downloading a newer and richer kernel (in terms of hw support)?
>
> Mahy
>
I see on subsequent postings that you have fixed this, and probably it
wasn't related to the loader. I also see you don't want to compile your
own kernel- that's ok. You can use a newer kernel, and depending on your
hardware I'd consider doing it. The latest official kernel for slackware
is in testing, 2.6.16.9.

There was a thread regarding reiserfs and kernel modules earlier this year
which showed the module load order is important. The hardware level
modules must be present for the reiserfs module to bind to it (IIRC).

I also see you were considering jumping ship before you'd even left the
dock. (Notice: you weren't totally locked out; you could boot using the
setup CD. That gave you a chance to figure out where things went
wrong.) You can do what you want, and I won't discourage you from using
any OS or distribution that works for you. I see you had good reasons to
try Slackware. My primary reason for trying Slackware was to get more
control over the system. I came from RedHat 8 which was very hard (or
impossible) for me to keep working. Slackware, on the other hand, gives
those with a little patience and determination a fighting chance to make
things work. The "bare metal" of GNU/Linux is accessible to you, if that
is what you want. If you don't need that type of control, Slackware is
still right their with other GNU/Linux distributions; that is, they are
all very similar- when they are working. They diverge when it comes to
fixing things which are broken. If you think that's too hard, then
good luck meeting your criteria (no bloat, fixable, etc.) without learning
anything.

One more thing: configuring X with Slax is not necessary. Just use
xorgsetup.

--
Douglas Mayne

Douglas Mayne wrote:
> The latest official kernel for slackware
> is in testing, 2.6.16.9.

Yep, but so far i've seen only a generic one, so i'll to go through all
that initrd stuff. But i am gonna try it, that's for sure.

> I came from RedHat 8 which was very hard (or
> impossible) for me to keep working. Slackware, on the other hand, gives
> those with a little patience and determination a fighting chance to make
> things work. The "bare metal" of GNU/Linux is accessible to you, if that
> is what you want. If you don't need that type of control, Slackware is
> still right their with other GNU/Linux distributions; that is, they are
> all very similar- when they are working. They diverge when it comes to
> fixing things which are broken. If you think that's too hard, then
> good luck meeting your criteria (no bloat, fixable, etc.) without learning
> anything.

I came from Ubuntu. Their release cycle was what changed my mind. I was
stuck with e.g. Firefox 1.0.8 about half a year after release of 1.5.
No such thing as a "current" version. But the biggest difference is
that in Ubuntu, nothing is "3rd party", you get everything (packages,
news, support) from official servers.

I'm not saying i don't wanna learn anything. What i wanna is a system,
that's tweakable, but only if i desire so. Otherwise, it runs with a
"factory preset". Yeah, a bit cliche answer, i admit.

> One more thing: configuring X with Slax is not necessary. Just use
> xorgsetup.

Agreed, but Slax's xconf takes about 3 seconds and requires no input.

Mahy wrote:
> [...] fonts are whole lot uglier than on other Linux
> distros i tried so far... :-P
> [...]

There used to be a Font-Deuglification-HOWTO in Slackware, but I can't
find it on my disk anymore. Perhaps the information has been folded into
/usr/doc/Linux-HOWTOs/Font-HOWTO.

The jist of it is to enable True-Type or Type 1 in X and configure
applications to use the True-Type or Type 1 fonts.

HTH
Sumo

On 2006-05-13, Mahy <jkotuc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:
>> Lots of people have problems with initrds. I suggest that you build a
>> kernel with support for all the things you need built-in and use modules
>> for everything else.
>>
>> That means that your HD controller chipset, HD controller bus and
>> filesystem type would be compiled directly into the kernel, and you
>> wouldn't need an initrd.
>
> First of all, thanks for your helpfulness. Well, i did a kernel
> compilation few times already, but i decided it's not how i wanna spend
> my time. Do you think it might help if I downloaded and installed the
> newer (2.6.16.9) kernel from some Slackware mirror? Moreover, you say
> lots of people have problems with initrd. Then has someone bothered to
> compile an enriched kernel and post it somewhere? I hope this isn't
> contrary to Slack's philosophy...

Volkerding didn't want to compile and distribute a bunch of
different 2.6 kernels just yet, so unless the root file system
is an ext2 filesystem on an ATA disk you will need to follow
his instructions for setting up an initrd with the modules
you need to use to get your root filesystem going. After that
you can pick up the other modules you need from /lib/modules.
Compiling a new kernel isn't that big a deal, although you
do need to have a working system first. Once you have the
kernel configured you get the compilation started and then
go do something else useful for a while. It's supposed to be
automated data processing after all, although interactive GUIs
have caused people to forget that it is possible to have the
computer do something without having to hover over the mouse.
Eventually Slackware might adopt the 2.6 kernel and provide
the selection of kernels you've been used to seeing with earlier
versions of the kernel. The kernel powers seem to be having
difficulty with bugs in the 2.6 kernel.

Mahy wrote:

> I'm not saying i don't wanna learn anything. What i wanna is a system,
> that's tweakable, but only if i desire so. Otherwise, it runs with a
> "factory preset". Yeah, a bit cliche answer, i admit.

But with Slackware, it seems it could be argued that "factory preset"
means using ext2/3 for your "root" filesystem, and lilo as you boot
loader, neither of which it seems you've done. That's ok, of course,
but it puts you squarely in the "tweakable" end of the scale before your
system ever boots. There's some work that you need to do just to get
the system running. It's my opinion that you'll find Slackware's worth
the effort, though. The system should serve you well, once you have it
running to your specifications.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------