Post by thread:[EE] Fedora 9 First Impression

I always wanted to try out both ubuntu and Fedora since both are among the most popular Linux distros. I've used Ubuntu since 5.04 (5.04,5.10, 6.06, 6.10, 7.04,7.10 and 8.04) and now I am mainly using 8.04 even though I kept 6.06 and 7.10 as well. I've used Fedora since Core 3 (Core 4, Core 5, Core 6, Fedora 7) but Fedora 8 failed to boot in my system due to the conflict with FreeBSD. So I have not used Fedora for a while except an old Fedora Core 6 installation used for testing. Today I installed Fedora 9 (after removing a dormant PCLinux 2007 partition). Initially I did not install grub since I always used my trusted Ubuntu 6.06 to handle grub stuff and it works for all other Linux distros I am using and it works for FreeBSD 7.0 and NetBSD 4.0 as well. But this proved to be not a good idea for Fedora 9, which is always on the cutting edge side. The grub from Ubuntu can not handle Fedora 9 due to some changes. Google shows that there are many users having similar problems. Problems: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/fedora-35/fedora-9-and-grub-error-2-problems-642487/ I tried to use the chainloading method in the thread but it did not work. I was thinking of giving up but I decided to try it again. I chose to "Upgrade" the new installation and surprisingly it gave me the chance to install the bootloader and did not mess up the existing installation. The grub bootloader did not recognize the other operating systems (not even Windows XP) but I knew this from past experiences. After this, Fedora 9 can boot properly. I modified the menu.lst file from the Ubuntu 6.06 menu.lst file so that I could boot the other operating systems. So this time it is better than last time. The normal operation of Fedora is quite ok just like my past experiences with Fedora Core 6 and Fedora 7. There are some new things like PolicyKit/ConsoleKit to set up permissions for usb device which I am now learning. Other than that, it is quite easy to get my usual programs (gputils, sdcc, libusb, openusb, pk2cmd, etc) to work. Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first impression with Fedora 9? Xiaofan

> Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first impression > with Fedora 9? I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image backups with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it would come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image and was back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills the machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another upgrade with the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the upgrade. >From what I've read, there's something going on with the network manager that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a while... Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I want to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying an image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB drive that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of relatively complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. I'm thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of is doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the old drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were to copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new installation. Thoughts? Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising opportunities available!

Clonezilla will take a partition image and put it on a larger partition, and can do a disk-disk copy too. It may be what you want. -Skip Harold Hallikainen wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's > generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image backups > with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it would > come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image and was > back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills the > machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED > flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another upgrade with > the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the upgrade. > that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a while... > > Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I want > to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying an > image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB drive > that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of relatively > complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. I'm > thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of is > doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the old > drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were to > copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new > installation. > > Thoughts? > > Harold > >

Also might check out cute partition manager. And the drives usually come (or available on the web) utilities to handle transfer to a new drive, backup, etc. Dr Skip wrote: {Quote hidden}> Clonezilla will take a partition image and put it on a larger partition, and > can do a disk-disk copy too. It may be what you want. > > -Skip > > > Harold Hallikainen wrote: > >> I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's >> generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image backups >> with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it would >> come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image and was >> back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills the >> machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED >> flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another upgrade with >> the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the upgrade. >> that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a while... >> >> Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I want >> to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying an >> image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB drive >> that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of relatively >> complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. I'm >> thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of is >> doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the old >> drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were to >> copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new >> installation. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Harold >> >> >>

Xiaofan Chen wrote: > Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first impression > with Fedora 9? I put it on the Thinkpad (T42, 1.8GHz Intel Pentium-M Dothan, 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, DVD-ROM) this morning. By mid-afternoon it was gone. For starters, I can't stand GNOME - I've traditionally been more of a KDE fan (some tradition!). So I installed KDE on Fedora 9 and ran yum update to bring the system up to date... big mistake. It seems Fedora have decided to use the 'raw' KDE 4.0. From what I can gather, some of the KDE dev team are less than pleased about this, and there are a lot of missing features. Things like, for instance, the Taskbar is locked to black. That's right, you can't change the Taskbar colour or background image... Well, apparently you can change the theme, but I tried for nearly 40 minutes to get the "plain" theme from KDE-look working, but installing it proved impossible. System load borders on Vista-like insanity. The CPU in the T42 was constantly cranking at 1800MHz - on Fedora 7 it usually runs at 1800 for a bit, then settles down to between 600 and 800MHz (i.e. about as fast as an Eee 701). No such luck here. Battery life was pitiful - less than 40 minutes on a battery that usually lasts an hour and a half. Just for grins, I yum-upgraded KDE to the current Rawhide development version. That pretty much fragged the system completely. KDE wouldn't load (kcmserver failed to start) and X wasn't too happy either. Not that I expected it to work in the first place... I've switched the Thinkpad to Kubuntu 8.04 with KDE3.5 (though admittedly with the new-style Control Centre and file manager). CPU load is now back to <5% idle and SpeedStep is holding it at around 600MHz in "power save" mode, or 800 in "dynamic scaling" mode. Hardware wise, everything - and I mean everything - worked right out of the box. Intel ICH4 chipset, ATI Mobility 7500 graphics, the DVD drive, power management, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, everything. Didn't even have to install madwifi manually, it just worked. This is Ubuntu or Mandrake level ease of use... Serious, honest opinion? Wait until mid-July, then try it. For now I'd stick with one of the Ubuntu 8.04 variants or Fedora 8. Unless you like GNOME, in which case, go right ahead and upgrade. Ugh. -- Phil. spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/

I rather use WindowMaker for the Window Manager. Faster and more responsive. John Chung --- On Mon, 6/16/08, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> From: Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspam.....gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [EE] Fedora 9 First Impression > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu> > Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 4:06 AM > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Philip Pemberton > <piclistspam_OUTphilpem.me.uk> wrote: > > Xiaofan Chen wrote: > >> Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first > impression > >> with Fedora 9? > > Serious, honest opinion? Wait until mid-July, then try > it. For now I'd stick > > with one of the Ubuntu 8.04 variants or Fedora 8. > Unless you like GNOME, in > > which case, go right ahead and upgrade. > > I see. I like Gnome way better than KDE. So I did not even > install KDE > and have no plan to use KDE on either Ubuntu 8.04 and > Fedora 9. > > I have KDE installed in Ubuntu 7.10 but almost never used > it. > > Xiaofan > --

Many Unix/Linux programmers I know prefers lightweight window manager, blackbox. They do not need fancy gadgets, only something that allows them to open many terminal windows to run vim + gdb... But that's the beauty of linux, isn't it? To have more than one choice and to be able to use the window manager you like. Tamas On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Xiaofan Chen <KILLspamxiaofancKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > On 6/16/08, John Chung <RemoveMEkravnusTakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote: > > I rather use WindowMaker for the Window Manager. Faster and more > > responsive. > > Hmm, that was old. Even XFCE is rather useless compared to > Gnome/KDE. KDE seems to be more "powerful" but I am fine > with Gnome. To me, anything simpler is only for very very > underpowered PC. > > Xiaofan > -

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnaispamBeGonegmail.com> wrote: > Many Unix/Linux programmers I know prefers lightweight window manager, > blackbox. They do not need fancy gadgets, only something that allows them to > open many terminal windows to run vim + gdb... But that's the beauty of > linux, isn't it? To have more than one choice and to be able to use the > window manager you like. > I see. I admit I am not a programmer and I do not use vim that much and do not use emacs at all. I only know a few commands of gdb. >From what I see Gnome actually runs fine for quite under-powered computer. I just installed Fedora Core 6 on a 5-year old Dell 600M laptop. It runs XP just fine with 256M RAM but the dying keyboard controller on the mother board causes big problems for XP (sending out random keys) even though I am using an external USB keyboard. It seems that FC6 is better but I need more testing. Last time this laptop had big problem with Redhat Linux version 9. Xiaofan

I am more of a minimalist. Yes I am a programmer but I tend to live in a dev env which is not quite ideal. Windows XP. I like WindowMaker b'cos it is fast and takes very little resources. I am able to do most of the stuff I need to do with the window manager. John Chung --- On Mon, 6/16/08, Tamas Rudnai <TakeThisOuTtamas.rudnaiEraseMEspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> From: Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiTakeThisOuTgmail.com> > Subject: Re: [EE] Fedora 9 First Impression > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistEraseME.....mit.edu> > Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 3:53 PM > Many Unix/Linux programmers I know prefers lightweight > window manager, > blackbox. They do not need fancy gadgets, only something > that allows them to > open many terminal windows to run vim + gdb... But > that's the beauty of > linux, isn't it? To have more than one choice and to be > able to use the > window manager you like. > > Tamas > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Xiaofan Chen > <EraseMExiaofancgmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/16/08, John Chung <RemoveMEkravnusEraseMEEraseMEyahoo.com> > wrote: > > > I rather use WindowMaker for the Window Manager. > Faster and more > > > responsive. > > > > Hmm, that was old. Even XFCE is rather useless > compared to > > Gnome/KDE. KDE seems to be more "powerful" > but I am fine > > with Gnome. To me, anything simpler is only for very > very > > underpowered PC. > > > > Xiaofan > > --

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancspam_OUTKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Philip Pemberton <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspamphilpem.me.uk> wrote: >> Xiaofan Chen wrote: >>> Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first impression >>> with Fedora 9? >> Serious, honest opinion? Wait until mid-July, then try it. For now I'd stick >> with one of the Ubuntu 8.04 variants or Fedora 8. Unless you like GNOME, in >> which case, go right ahead and upgrade. > > I see. I like Gnome way better than KDE. So I did not even install KDE > and have no plan to use KDE on either Ubuntu 8.04 and Fedora 9. > > I have KDE installed in Ubuntu 7.10 but almost never used it. Today I installed KDE under Fedora 9 and it is quite nice. Still feel it is a bit slower than Gnome but it seems to be not bad. KDE 4 is quite beautiful indeed. Xiaofan

I am quite happy with Gnome at the moment (was using KDE for long time, but it becomes slower and slower as they add more and more nice features). I've just installed VMware 6 and XP, so will see if USB 2.0 support of VMware6 works well with PicKit2 and with my USB projects. BTW: Is there any good software USB protocol analyzer for linux? And if there is any way to use PicKit2 as a debugger with PIKlab or PIKdev or other environment? PIKlab claims that it will send firmware 1.x to PicKit2 which I do not want, so I might will use the command line tool and maybe the virtual Win instead. Any comments is more than welcome Tamas On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Philip Pemberton <piclistSTOPspamspam_OUTphilpem.me.uk> > wrote: > >> Xiaofan Chen wrote: > >>> Any other Fedora 9 users here? What is your first impression > >>> with Fedora 9? > >> Serious, honest opinion? Wait until mid-July, then try it. For now I'd > stick > >> with one of the Ubuntu 8.04 variants or Fedora 8. Unless you like GNOME, > in > >> which case, go right ahead and upgrade. > > > > I see. I like Gnome way better than KDE. So I did not even install KDE > > and have no plan to use KDE on either Ubuntu 8.04 and Fedora 9. > > > > I have KDE installed in Ubuntu 7.10 but almost never used it. > > Today I installed KDE under Fedora 9 and it is quite nice. Still > feel it is a bit slower than Gnome but it seems to be not bad. > > KDE 4 is quite beautiful indeed. > > Xiaofan > -

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnaiSTOPspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote: > BTW: Is there any good software USB protocol analyzer for linux? usbmon is kind of a software sniffer under Linux. It is built-into the kernel. http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt > And if there is any way to use PicKit2 as a debugger with PIKlab or PIKdev > or other environment? Not yet and I doubt it will be implemented anytime soon. pikdev is basically dead. Piklab is kind of dormant now as well. > PIKlab claims that it will send firmware 1.x to PicKit2 which I > do not want, so I might will use the command line tool and > maybe the virtual Win instead. For programming, you can use pk2cmd Linux port. http://home.pacbell.net/theposts/picmicro/ An updated pk2cmd under Linux and Mac OS X will soon be out. Maybe Monday. Xiaofan

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Xiaofan Chen <KILLspamxiaofancspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote: > Today I installed KDE under Fedora 9 and it is quite nice. Still > feel it is a bit slower than Gnome but it seems to be not bad. > > KDE 4 is quite beautiful indeed. > But it is slow. So I go back to Gnome. Still Firefox is a main problem for me. It is extremely slow under Fedora 9, especially with Gmail. I had some hardware problem with the old ATI 9800SE graphic card (mostly graphics RAM cooling problem so the system will occasionally fail to boot up). So I bought a even lower end AGP card (NVidia FX 5200) as I really do not need any 3D capability and hope it will improve the stability of the system. Xiaofan

I am not sure what is the problem with FireFox on your side, on my Ubuntu FF works way faster than on Windows XP or Vista. Anyway, I am just playing with Wine, and MPLAB works now with some minor issues, and I can compile with MPASM and C18 and debug with MPSIM. Tamas On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Xiaofan Chen <@spam@xiaofanc@spam@spam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Xiaofan Chen <spamBeGonexiaofancKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > >> KDE 4 is quite beautiful indeed. > >> > > > > But it is slow. So I go back to Gnome. > > > > Still Firefox is a main problem for me. It is extremely slow under Fedora > 9, > > especially with Gmail. > > Switching to Swiftfox seems to fix the problem. I do not know why top > Linux distros like Ubuntu and Fedora have done such a bad job > to get Firefox right. > > Xiaofan > -

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Tamas Rudnai <TakeThisOuTtamas.rudnai.....TakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: > I am not sure what is the problem with FireFox on your side, on my Ubuntu FF > works way faster than on Windows XP or Vista. I seldom use Firefox under Windows. So I am not so sure about the speed comparison and I do not really that care about speed. Stability is more of an issue for me for Firefox under either Ubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9. It is now better under Ubuntu 8.04. Under Fedora 9, the default Firefox is not that stable. Switching to Swiftfox seems to help. I was thinking the ATI9800SE video card might be the problem. Now I have an Nvidia FX5200 card, Firefox problem still exists. Switching to Swiftfox mostly solved the problem under older Ubuntu versions (Ubuntu 6.06 and 7.10). Unfortunately I still do not like to use Opera under Linux. I just do not quite like the user interface. Xiaofan

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Xiaofan Chen <TakeThisOuTxiaofancKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancRemoveMEgmail.com> wrote: >> Today I installed KDE under Fedora 9 and it is quite nice. Still >> feel it is a bit slower than Gnome but it seems to be not bad. >> >> KDE 4 is quite beautiful indeed. >> > > But it is slow. So I go back to Gnome. Actually I am ok with both Gnome and KDE. But it seems to me KDE under both Fedora and Ubuntu are not as good as Gnome. Just my personal experience. Many power users like to use KDE. My usage pattern under Linux/Gnome is pretty simple. I am mainly use Firefox for web and email (Gmail and Yahoo email) and then testing some USB stuff like PICkit 2 and PICDEM FS USB. Under FreeBSD 7 and NetBSD 4, I actually use KDE 3.5. I have some limited success of using PICkit 2 under FreeBSD but I am still struggling to get PICkit 2 work under NetBSD. Under both OS, I need to rebuilding the kernel. Xiaofan

On Sunday 29 June 2008 12:48:36 Xiaofan Chen wrote: > I seldom use Firefox under Windows. So I am not so sure about the speed > comparison and I do not really that care about speed. Stability is more of > an issue for me for Firefox under either Ubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9. It is now > better under Ubuntu 8.04. Under Fedora 9, the default Firefox is not that > stable. Switching to Swiftfox seems to help. Stability is a very hardware dependent thing. On a system that we were setting up for a client, for some reason, the server would randomly hang at random intervals. At first, we tried to swap parts out and run memory burn in tests, all unsuccessfully. In the end, we just built a new server box with different vendor parts and it worked flawlessly. Personally, I've not had FF hang on me under Hardy at all. But mine might just be an isolated case. -- with metta, Shawn Tan Aeste Works (M) Sdn Bhd - Engineering Elegance http://www.aeste.net

Xiaofan Chen wrote: >>It's a bit (somewhat) slow in starting, but then it's ok and safe. > > Safe is a relative thing with Firefox under Windows. ;-) no, well, it's good enough... > And Vista is *annoyingly* safer than XP. ;-) don't tell me :) I managed to but a HP notebook without OS... to install XP on it!! > To me IE7 seems to be good enough for me under XP. Occasionally I will > switch to Firefox under IE7 when IE7 is having a problem with a web page. agreed on 7, but 6.0 was catastrophic, and that's why I started using Firefox. (on other machines, older OS, I've been using Netscape since 1996 - which I still do now!) -- Ciao, Dario

I FINALLY tried out CloneZilla, and it worked quite well. I've now moved from a 100GB drive to a 500GB drive under Fedora Core 4. Now... what do I do to repartition it to use the whole drive? Here's what I get from df: [harold@sujan ~]$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 107G 61G 41G 60% / /dev/hda1 99M 93M 1.3M 99% /boot /dev/shm 502M 0 502M 0% /dev/shm [harold@sujan ~]$ THANKS for the assistance. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but I have not yet found it. Harold {Quote hidden}> Also might check out cute partition manager. And the drives usually come > (or available on the web) utilities to handle transfer to a new drive, > backup, etc. > > Dr Skip wrote: >> Clonezilla will take a partition image and put it on a larger partition, >> and >> can do a disk-disk copy too. It may be what you want. >> >> -Skip >> >> >> Harold Hallikainen wrote: >> >>> I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's >>> generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image backups >>> with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it >>> would >>> come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image and >>> was >>> back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills the >>> machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED >>> flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another upgrade >>> with >>> the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the >>> upgrade. >>> that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a >>> while... >>> >>> Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I >>> want >>> to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying an >>> image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB >>> drive >>> that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of >>> relatively >>> complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. I'm >>> thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of is >>> doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the old >>> drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were to >>> copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new >>> installation. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Harold >>> >>> >>> > -

I hate to bring this up, but isn't "Fedora 9 First Impression" just a little off-topic? I'm on a LUG mailing list and that's where I expect to see these types of discussions, not the PICLIST. :) Cheerful regards, Bob On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:27:00 -0700 (PDT), "Harold Hallikainen" <TakeThisOuTharoldspamhallikainen.org> said: {Quote hidden}> I FINALLY tried out CloneZilla, and it worked quite well. I've now moved > from a 100GB drive to a 500GB drive under Fedora Core 4. Now... what do I > do to repartition it to use the whole drive? Here's what I get from df: > > [harold@sujan ~]$ df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 > 107G 61G 41G 60% / > /dev/hda1 99M 93M 1.3M 99% /boot > /dev/shm 502M 0 502M 0% /dev/shm > [harold@sujan ~]$ > > > THANKS for the assistance. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but I have > not yet found it. > > Harold > > > > Also might check out cute partition manager. And the drives usually come > > (or available on the web) utilities to handle transfer to a new drive, > > backup, etc. > > > > Dr Skip wrote: > >> Clonezilla will take a partition image and put it on a larger partition, > >> and > >> can do a disk-disk copy too. It may be what you want. > >> > >> -Skip > >> > >> > >> Harold Hallikainen wrote: > >> > >>> I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's > >>> generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image backups > >>> with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it > >>> would > >>> come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image and > >>> was > >>> back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills the > >>> machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED > >>> flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another upgrade > >>> with > >>> the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the > >>> upgrade. > >>> that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a > >>> while... > >>> > >>> Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I > >>> want > >>> to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying an > >>> image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB > >>> drive > >>> that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of > >>> relatively > >>> complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. I'm > >>> thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of is > >>> doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the old > >>> drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were to > >>> copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new > >>> installation. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Harold -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

True. I'm on this list and not that, and there are some Fedora users here. But, I'll go over to Fedora Forum. Thanks! Harold {Quote hidden}> I hate to bring this up, but isn't "Fedora 9 First Impression" just a > little off-topic? I'm on a LUG mailing list and that's where I expect to > see these types of discussions, not the PICLIST. :) > > Cheerful regards, > > Bob > > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:27:00 -0700 (PDT), "Harold Hallikainen" > <haroldEraseMEhallikainen.org> said: >> I FINALLY tried out CloneZilla, and it worked quite well. I've now moved >> from a 100GB drive to a 500GB drive under Fedora Core 4. Now... what do >> I >> do to repartition it to use the whole drive? Here's what I get from df: >> >> [harold@sujan ~]$ df -h >> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on >> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 >> 107G 61G 41G 60% / >> /dev/hda1 99M 93M 1.3M 99% /boot >> /dev/shm 502M 0 502M 0% /dev/shm >> [harold@sujan ~]$ >> >> >> THANKS for the assistance. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but I >> have >> not yet found it. >> >> Harold >> >> >> > Also might check out cute partition manager. And the drives usually >> come >> > (or available on the web) utilities to handle transfer to a new drive, >> > backup, etc. >> > >> > Dr Skip wrote: >> >> Clonezilla will take a partition image and put it on a larger >> partition, >> >> and >> >> can do a disk-disk copy too. It may be what you want. >> >> >> >> -Skip >> >> >> >> >> >> Harold Hallikainen wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm running Fedora 9 on this HP laptop that I'm on right now. It's >> >>> generally working quite well. Luckily, though, I'm doing image >> backups >> >>> with g4l. After it had worked quite well for a while, one morning it >> >>> would >> >>> come up and say "GRUB" and just stop. So, I reloaded a good image >> and >> >>> was >> >>> back in business. Then, this week, there was an upgrade that kills >> the >> >>> machine just prior to the login screen. It left the caps lock LED >> >>> flashing. I went back to a good image. The system did another >> upgrade >> >>> with >> >>> the same result. So, back to the good image and don't allow the >> >>> upgrade. >> >>> that is crashing the system. So, I'll hold off the upgrades for a >> >>> while... >> >>> >> >>> Drifting on the Fedora thread, I'm running a server with Fedora 4. I >> >>> want >> >>> to put a larger hard drive in it. From what I've read, just copying >> an >> >>> image from the old drive will only use that portion of the new 500GB >> >>> drive >> >>> that corresponds to the old 100GB drive. I've read all sorts of >> >>> relatively >> >>> complex methods of getting the system to use the whole new drive. >> I'm >> >>> thinking there's got to be an easier way. One thing I'm thinking of >> is >> >>> doing a fresh install to he new drive, then copying files from the >> old >> >>> drive to the new. Even that seems complex, though, in that if I were >> to >> >>> copy fstab (and who knows what else), I'd probably destroy the new >> >>> installation. >> >>> >> >>> Thoughts? >> >>> >> >>> Harold > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. > > -

On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 13:16 +0100, Shawn Tan wrote: > On Sunday 29 June 2008 12:48:36 Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > I seldom use Firefox under Windows. So I am not so sure about the speed > > comparison and I do not really that care about speed. Stability is more of > > an issue for me for Firefox under either Ubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9. It is now > > better under Ubuntu 8.04. Under Fedora 9, the default Firefox is not that > > stable. Switching to Swiftfox seems to help. > > Stability is a very hardware dependent thing. On a system that we were setting > up for a client, for some reason, the server would randomly hang at random > intervals. At first, we tried to swap parts out and run memory burn in tests, > all unsuccessfully. In the end, we just built a new server box with different > vendor parts and it worked flawlessly. > > Personally, I've not had FF hang on me under Hardy at all. But mine might just > be an isolated case. FWIW FF3 on Hardy has been pretty much rock solid for me. It has crashed a couple times, but the recovery facility makes crashes zero worries (if the browser crashes, restart it and it'll reopen all the tabs you had open, works extremely well). The RCs were far less stable, but still collectively faster and more stable then FF2. ï»¿Xiaofan, during an earlier discussion didn't you mention you're running some language related plug in? TTYL

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist4EraseMEspam_OUTfarcite.net> wrote: > FWIW FF3 on Hardy has been pretty much rock solid for me. It has crashed > a couple times, but the recovery facility makes crashes zero worries (if > the browser crashes, restart it and it'll reopen all the tabs you had > open, works extremely well). Same experience. I am happy with FF3 under Ubuntu 8.04. > The RCs were far less stable, but still collectively faster and more > stable then FF2. Agreed. I think now Ubuntu 3 is running the release version. > ï»¿Xiaofan, during an earlier discussion didn't you mention you're running > some language related plug in? Not on Ubuntu 8.04 and Fedora 9. By the way, originally I wanted to post this topic as [OT] but James mentioned that IT topics are [EE]. Next time I would probably post IT topics (especially Windows/Linux) as [OT]. Xiaofan

Herbert Graf wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 13:16 +0100, Shawn Tan wrote: > >> On Sunday 29 June 2008 12:48:36 Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> >>> I seldom use Firefox under Windows. So I am not so sure about the speed >>> comparison and I do not really that care about speed. Stability is more of >>> an issue for me for Firefox under either Ubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9. It is now >>> better under Ubuntu 8.04. Under Fedora 9, the default Firefox is not that >>> stable. Switching to Swiftfox seems to help. >>> >> Stability is a very hardware dependent thing. On a system that we were setting >> up for a client, for some reason, the server would randomly hang at random >> intervals. At first, we tried to swap parts out and run memory burn in tests, >> all unsuccessfully. In the end, we just built a new server box with different >> vendor parts and it worked flawlessly. >> >> Personally, I've not had FF hang on me under Hardy at all. But mine might just >> be an isolated case. >> > > FWIW FF3 on Hardy has been pretty much rock solid for me. It has crashed > a couple times, but the recovery facility makes crashes zero worries (if > the browser crashes, restart it and it'll reopen all the tabs you had > open, works extremely well). > > The RCs were far less stable, but still collectively faster and more > stable then FF2. > > ï»¿Xiaofan, during an earlier discussion didn't you mention you're running > some language related plug in? > > TTYL > > After having something of a baptism of fire with FC9 I haven't found anything major wrong with it (built and deployed 6 kiosks using it inside 2 days). Its hardware support seems better than ubuntu 8.04 as its using the .25 kernel which was something of a surprise for me. I still much prefer the ubuntu way of doing things. Not having to rember the path to every damn program I want to run for a start, ubuntu still has Ease of use all over FC9 ;-> I have noticed that compiz can get a little upset after a days work with >50 windows open in ubuntu, no comparison for FC9. It feels like FC9 is trying to get ubuntu's out of the box onto the disk install ease, but they aren't there yet. On the other hand ubuntu which has always pushed for the latest hardware support and all the new wiz bang bits is playing it conservative for the current LTS release. Firefox had a bad spell where youtube would crash it, still can be a little unstable there, but thats adobes fault not FF. Firefox still occasionally pulls 100% CPU but again i'm 99% sure thats a problem with flashplayer. I use gnash on my 64bit TV but alot of websites just pop boxes up saying "you have to be using the latest flash player to use this site" Gnash seems to leave loads of copies of itself running which isn't optimal either.