# no graphic interface



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

Well im new to linux so i know what ive read online only. I downloaded cd1 from freebsd.org and aftger alotting 10 gigs for the install, i installed this cd1 which seemed to go normally. I dual booted with a win2k os as well, there are no problems and my windows works fine still. When i go to load freebsd i can only get into a command line, i log in with my username or root and cannot get to any kind of "desktop." Granted i know nothing of linux besides some limited usage of a solaris unix system at my school.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

wow i'd like to know what school uses solaris.


----------



## twotugs (May 14, 2003)

I'm not familiar with FreeBSD, but try typing "startx" from the command line.

edit: If it's not installed this may help:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x-install.html


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

the william states lee college of engineering at unc charlotte, they are rediculous and we have to learn how to use them as part of the curriculum. So much power.... anyway, i tried startx and it says there is a screen error and a whole bunch of other error codes. I hold no allegiance to freebsd in particular, however, i do desire to have a linux os on my laptop aside my win2k. does anyone know of a linux based operating system which is simple to install from cdrom. (but not red hat, last time it ate my windows partition)


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

solaris is cool


----------



## tsunam (Sep 14, 2003)

oldunion: if you want to play with linux I'd suggest knoppix. it can simply be run from your cdrom drive..and you can play with it withouth having to install.

If you are set on installing it, then I'd recommend Suse, Mandrake, knoppix, or fedora (red hat community version, when they took the RedHat entire version to corporate only)

All are available at linuxiso.org. Those are some of the easiest if you want to use a linux and not a BSD based unix enviroment

If however you want to try and figure out the bsd error, give us a readout of the errors you are getting and we can go from there to help debug the problem.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

i may try freebsd version 4, as i just read the 5 series has a stability issue. I would prefer a more unixlike bsd version of linux, so ill investigate this further and version 4 as well. However, here are the readouts after hitting "startx":

(EE) unable to locate/open config file
(EE) error from xf86Handleconfigfile()

fatal server error:
no screens found



above the "(EE)" means error


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> I would prefer a more unixlike bsd version of linux, so ill investigate this further and version 4 as well.


I am kind of speechless with that statement.

I didn't know you could use all three Kernels in one sentence. What exactly would you call it if you were able to morph all three kernels into one.

By the way, FreeBSD 5 has officialy been transitioned to stable status and is consider a Production release.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

unixlike=adjective
freebsd= version of linux, most resembling unix imo.

according to linuxiso.org the 5 versions of freebsd are less stable than 4.

i always love a good sassing, but id much rather have my box linuxed


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> freebsd= version of linux, most resembling unix imo.


WRONG! I think you need to do a little reading on OS history.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

my opinion>your *****ing


----------



## tsunam (Sep 14, 2003)

no...union, bsd = unix. Its just the berkley version of it. That's what LwdSquashman was getting at.... it wasn't meant as disrespect, just that you have your facts a bit off.

Also, lets keep this friendly guys. We want to help everyone not drive anyone away T_T


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

I agree with tsunam about Knoppix. You can also try Freesbie for a live on CD FreeBSD .
lynch


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

only those who are much more familiar with unix should try freeBSD i had it once with a nice and warm gnome desktop, installed xorg and a very modded config, and in the end i really liked it because of its PORTS system. Though i do like knoppix if you want to try /linux/ because thats where it all started for me. MEPIS i also really like because once you learn to like it and get it configured you can do an install straight from KDE. PS, i think RedHat messed up your harddrive b/c you didnt partition it right. I always use manual partitioning. Please tell me you harddrive status and how you usually partition it.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> my opinion>your *****ing


NO, I am not *****ing. I am educating. I just get extremely annoyed when people make reference to Unix, BSD and Linux being the same thing. BSD is the closest to Unix you can get as it was Berkely's version of Unix. Linux may resemble Unix and BSD but they are not the same.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

LwdSquashman said:


> BSD is the closest to Unix you can get as it was Berkely's version of Unix.


Precisely what i stated. We are finished with that now, however. The redhat i installed was i believe version 8 on an old compaq desktop i had a few years back. The redhat was not very productive or functional. My partitioning scheme then is unknown to me now, but i believe i did it through a supplied utility on the redhat installation cds.

This time, my freebsd partition was set aside in a 10gig chunk using partition magic 8 so that i could shrink the 20 gig NTFS partition for win2k. If memory serves me i originally made it ntfs, then realizing that fat was a better guess, i deleted the ntfs and made it fat. Once that was finished i set up the needed disk space through fdisk supplied with the cd and established an FAT partition.

Whereas i understand freebsd is very similar to a bsd os, this is precisely why i desire it. I can get my school work done in word and excel and all of that with my win2k os, so my linux does not need to be easy to learn to use because it will become more of a hobby for me.

partitioning a cause for faulty installation?


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> Precisely what i stated.


I am not quite sure at what point you stated that.



oldunion said:


> Whereas i understand freebsd is very similar to a bsd os


 Free BSD is a BSD os.



oldunion said:


> , this is precisely why i desire it. I can get my school work done in word and excel and all of that with my win2k os, so my linux does not need to be easy to learn to use because it will become more of a hobby for me.


Please stop refering to linux as unix and BSD as linux.

If you want a Linux based kernel OS, you can use Suse, Red Hat, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, etc, etc.......

If you want BSD, you can use FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD............

If you want Unix, you can call those retards at SCO and use their POS OS. Or use AIX, DG/UX, HP-UX.......


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

oldunion said:


> unixlike=adjective
> freebsd= version of linux, most resembling unix imo.


freebsd is a version of linux, bsd is a version of unix. 
This session of you imagining that i am incorrect is over


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> freebsd is a version of linux, bsd is a version of unix.
> This session of you imagining that i am incorrect is over


You are wrong, and about a million other people will back me up on that.

FreeBSD is not Linux.

The original BSD forked from Unix in March of 1978. FreeBSD forked from the 386BSD project in December of 1993. The first Linux Kernel appeard in August of 1991. Some people will argue that the Linux Kernel was a fork of the Minix project but the original kernel was just programmed on a Minix box.


----------



## soup4you2 (Jul 8, 2003)

"BSD" != "Linux"

For BSD to be considered linux it should have to share the same kernel.. in which it DOES NOT.

BSD support far more platforms than linux does.

The BSD userland is much diffrent. BSD the first version was NetBSD which came from the origional AT&T Unix code. one of the most famous computer law suites. Then some of the developers were not happy. so in time it then branched into FreeBSD and OpenBSD and the other odd varietys you have nowdays. you might think BSd and linux are the same becuase some of the commands are the same.. in this is true but these are all commands from the GPL which almost every distro ends up picking up.

So how could you think the 2 are the same when kernels are completely diffrent, userland is diffrent, packages are diffrent, and the OS Licenses are diffrent?

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/x117.html


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

you both deviate far from MY problem, and since linuxiso.org makes multiple references to freebsd as being linux (along with the freebsd homepage) it is linux to me. I dont care if you think i am wrong, i dont care if technically i am wrong. I have a porblem with my installation, it needs to be solved. arguement is over


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Here comes good old iXneonXi to fix things up. Anyone watch the screensavers? well i do and there is a FreeBSD vs Linux Showdown segment of an episode and althought they may be similar, do the same stuff, they are quite different. While they seem the same just because you can use kde and gnome in both of them that means nothing. Solaris can run Linux applications but it is definetely not linux. Thats like saying since my windows xp can play old windows 98 games and use windows update it must be windows 98.

About the install thing. I always make a swap partition 2x the size of my ram, a root partition for system files, and some people make a home partition (swap,/, and /home) For windows i use NTFS because it is more efficient but some unix sytems and variants hate it. It is possible to shrink ntfs drives and thats fine. I suggest you manually partition before starting the install and then during install just chose the partitions to use instead of using a built in partitioning tool. Partition magic will work but i hate it and recommend the free qtparted available with sysrescuecd


----------



## twotugs (May 14, 2003)

From what I'm able to divine using a little known search utility that goes by the unlikely name of "Google", you'll need to configure XFree86. This FAQ sounds like it's describing your issue, and a solution:

http://xfree86.linuxwiki.org/FAQErrorMessages#head-ac337c9ec1883a0634b638126af977f982c4710a

Welcome to the world of *nix, oldunion. It's allright to ask questions when issues arise, but I generally try to Google an issue to death and see if I can't figure it out myself. I learn more that way, and don't bug the more experienced people with problems that can be solved by RTFM. There's also no point in copping an attitude with those in a position to help; they're not here to do it for me, but to point me in the direction I need to go and let me do it myself.

LwdSquashman has an excellent link in his sig. I'd recommend reading it.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> you both deviate far from MY problem, and since linuxiso.org makes multiple references to freebsd as being linux (along with the freebsd homepage) it is linux to me. I dont care if you think i am wrong, i dont care if technically i am wrong. I have a porblem with my installation, it needs to be solved. arguement is over


I dont think you are are wrong, I know you are wrong. From what it sounds like from your error codes, you may not even have an X Windows systems Installed or maybe just not configured. The link *twotugs* posted is a good starting point.

If you are really nice to *soup4you2*, he may help you. He is a BSD guru. He is a network admin for several FreeBSD and linux servers. So basically anything he says about FreeBSD, is coming straight from GOD's mouth. He is that good with FreeBSD.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

well good, i will look into the link. I was scanning the freebsd and the supplied xfree86 link for a solution. Thanks to those who have helped thus far. 

On a side note, i really dove into the solaris 9.1 unix system at my school and wow is that one amazing machine. ive never used unix before but i can feel how much more efficient it is. the commands give you so much power


----------



## soup4you2 (Jul 8, 2003)

Well seeing how you have "Linux compatability mode" mades you wonder why linux would need linux compatability mode..

also i dont know if your familiar w/ ELF branding.. but why would most binary's have a branding of FreeBSD as opposed to Linux.

anyways.. it doesnt matter what you think the OS is.. just the fact you cant run X.

since you dont really have any X applications installed yet.. you might want to go ahead and remove it.. FreeBSD is no longer going to use XFree86 and is starting to switch over to Xorg's Xfree86. installation is really simple..

update your ports tree..

pkg_delete -f /var/db/pkg/imake-4* /var/db/pkg/XFree86-*
cd /usr/ports/x11/xorg && make install
pkgdb -F

once installed try running xorgcfg

perhaps that will help...


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

yup just like i said, homebrew xorg right wit me. thought the power of solaris is the most amazing os i've ever seen. it is just super powerful, btw thats what the government uses-- solaris and since u already know some of i i recommend you just use that OS because of its power and ability to use a wide variety of applications. including pretty much all *nix apps, and the ability to run a good range of windows apps via 3rd party.


----------



## soup4you2 (Jul 8, 2003)

Not all of the goverment runs solaris.. some projects we support run solaris.. some linux some bsd.. some AIX.. some windows.. hell we still have a few True64 digital unix box's laying around.. all depends on what needs to be done..


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

i know it does lots of data forensics and apps are easily built for it. they use it at fcc corps.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

that method is ineffective, i have sent a more detailed message to freebsd tech help.


----------



## soup4you2 (Jul 8, 2003)

prepare to get flamed...


----------



## Whiteskin (Nov 16, 2002)

Most especially if you continue refering to BSD as linux, or Linux as BSD.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/history.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/history.html
http://www.li.org/linuxhistory.php

Read all that, and if you still have issues about Linux being BSD, or vica versa, please, don't bother mentioning it here. And yes. And smart questions.

Someone earlier mentioned how the FreeBSD rocks, because of the ports system. Just as a note, you can get a linux system with one too. It's called Gentoo, and it's Portage sysstem. Portage is essentially a port system that was re-written to be more efficient, easier to maintain etc. Infact, one (the main?) of the developers was a former FreeBSD dev.

If you want to go unix like, get the free x86 release of solaris. It's actually decent. (not sure if it's still around though). If you want to go BSD... go free... it's the biggest (Or freesbie, the live cd ). Linux, then go for Suse, fedora or mandrake. (Or knoppix, the linux livecd)

About your issue, it sounds as if X is installed (there is a startx script) however, it's not configured for your monitor. try xf86config or manually edit /etc/X11/XF86Config(-4)


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

cmon whiteskin, u think i didnt know about the build from source gentoo, man its all about portage. i dont like gentoo b/c it takes to long to build everything from source. i'm just saying bsd is neat about its ports system though fedora will just use rh update and stuff so u know each os has its own goods.

o sweet jesus, soup is here to flame us with his extensive knowledge of bsd.

p.s. yes stop getting the operating systems mixed up. no one wants full unix b/c everyone hates sco.


----------



## Topato (Aug 6, 2004)

oldunion said:


> linuxiso.org makes multiple references to freebsd as being linux


Direct from linuxiso.org's FreeBSD download page:
"Note: FreeBSD is not Linux. It is based on BSD UNIX. Please don't send us angry emails telling us this."


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

thought you fellas might want to know i got mandrake 10 up and running without flaw, so far. I checked out ice, gnome, and kde and kde is the most efficient thus far so i am going to use that. It is slow sometimes, extremely slow, recommendations? Let me just say, i know hardly anything about linux and i already know enough to say it sends ANY windows os straight to hell stinking of inferiority. Any suggestions for a new linux user?


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

your computer does not have enough resources for kde 3, use icewm and if you cant stand menu only wm's then add a desktop manager to you icewm interface, but desktop manages take resources.


----------



## Whiteskin (Nov 16, 2002)

Try installing either XFce4, Fluxbox, or Icewm. Those are some of the more light WMs. Actually, XFce is a Desktop environment, however, I digress.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

i'm a fan of icewm in conjunction w/ desktop enviro, or just fluxbox if ur really low on resources.


----------



## twotugs (May 14, 2003)

oldunion said:


> Any suggestions for a new linux user?


Harden the system.

http://www.linuxexposed.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=522&mode=&order=&thold=

http://www.bastille-linux.org/


----------



## Whiteskin (Nov 16, 2002)

Tellme Twotugs, how is that supposed to speed up a system. Yes, it's something that should be done, but to speed up a system? (Which was the query)


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

speed up=more ram or more resource friendly environment


----------



## Whiteskin (Nov 16, 2002)

But not hardening. Hardening essentially makes it harder to crack.... not cut down on junk. I think someone is confused between slimming and hardening.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

not me, if i were to harden my computer it would be making it more immune to crap etc. I hardened my xp by installing spyware blaster, firewall and viruscanner, and stuff like that. i know the diffs.


----------



## twotugs (May 14, 2003)

Whiteskin said:


> Tellme Twotugs, how is that supposed to speed up a system. Yes, it's something that should be done, but to speed up a system? (Which was the query)


You're right; I wasn't addressing the issue of speeding up the computer. I was taking the last part of the post, and offering a suggestion that I'd like to have been given when I started playing around with Linux.

As far as making to OS run swifter, I'm not adept enough to make recommendations on tweaking. If it were me, I'd throw more RAM at the box or install Mandrake 10 on a better system. Or try a distro that was better suited to a resource-challenged computer. Everything I've installed, with the exception of Xandros, has run fine on my setup, and it's no powerhouse (AMD XP 2000, 768 MB RAM).


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Its the ram that gives the life, you have 768 and thats alot.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

Im on a LAN connecting to the net with a cable modem via 3com ethernet port. I looked over the unsupported hardware for mandrake 10 and 3com came up a few times, i dont believe it was for mine however (ill double check). During boot, two systems consistently fail to load: 

unmount:initrd:device is busy failed
bringing up interface eth0 failed

Im thinking that is an ethernet related error and i dont know how to check that. Mandrake has a great manual for version 9.2 that i have access to, but i couldnt find anything on this issue. 

The games dont work either, but im not too concerned with this. As soon as i get the net up i will troubleshoot more online because i wont have to go through windows booting up.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

seems unsupported, but there is always a way. try device drivers and kernel patches, if that doesnt work then use a different distro. they have gotten extremely ez to install.


----------



## Whiteskin (Nov 16, 2002)

twotugs said:


> no powerhouse (AMD XP 2000, 768 MB RAM).


*blink* WTF? That's a sweet computer when speaking in the linux world. In My world. I use a 266. PII.


----------



## twotugs (May 14, 2003)

Whiteskin said:


> *blink* WTF? That's a sweet computer when speaking in the linux world. In My world. I use a 266. PII.


Thank you.  I know it does me just fine. But everytime I wander into the Hardware forum I feel so...inadequate.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

lol yah i hear those with 4 gb ram and i'm like *****WTF***** man my best computer only has 488 ram and 2.1 ghz and my worst has 133MHz next is 266 MHZ < good linux box like yours. the older ones all have 64mb ram and can only do fluxbox, i sometimes use icewm on the 266 to show it off but i'm in for the power not the looks. all i need is a terminal and launch stuff from there.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

the 3com 10/100 mini PCI ethernet adapter is supported by mandrake 10, but it doesnt work for me. I dont know how to go about fixing something like that on linux


----------



## downtime (Oct 21, 2002)

If nothing's plugged in to the ethernet card, it will fail. It doesn't have to mean the card isn't properly installed, just that no network connections were present. It's like windows "a network cable is unplugged". It can also mean that you're not configured to be assigned an address by a dhcp server.
http://www.rt.com/man/initrd.4.html


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

that makes much sense.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

Im sorry i dont understand what youre telling me to do, that essay doesnt seem to address any dhcp server.


----------



## downtime (Oct 21, 2002)

That is just to explain the second fail, unmount:initrd:device is busy failed. 
Gnome, system, configuration, configure your computer, network and internet, manage your connections, what's listed?


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

new connection
internet access
manage connections
monitor connections
remove connection
proxy net connect sharing

in monitor connection it shows that no packets have been sent.
in manage connection it shows that there is no ip address, no netmask, and no gateway

i also get an error on boot which says "could not find a usable proxy config script"


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

try using ifconfig.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

to do what, i have logged maybe 2 hours on linux i dont know much about it. the kde is pretty self explanatory though, so point me in the right direction


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

oldunion said:


> to do what, i have logged maybe 2 hours on linux i dont know much about it. the kde is pretty self explanatory though, so point me in the right direction




```
[b]man ifconfig[/b]
```


----------



## downtime (Oct 21, 2002)

If you open manage connections, is eth0 at the top?


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

yah learn ifconfig usually u can fix problems like this and also ipv4 or v6 may be messing up.


----------



## oldunion (Aug 24, 2004)

what does Downtime have to say


----------



## downtime (Oct 21, 2002)

Last post on page 4, if you open manage connections, is eth0 present?


----------

