Knoppix boot issues

  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

i am having problems booting with my Knoppix Live CD. i downloaded the newest version, unzipped it, and burned it onto a CD (the version i downloaded was the 700mb version, NOT the dvd version).

i put it in my cd drive, and restarted my computer. it seemed to load fine, processing some data and presenting it on the screen. i think it was recognizing my hardware, and it seemed to work fine. then, all of a sudden, it stops and presents me with the prompt

A:/>

or something of that nature, you get the idea. what's the problem here? do i need a boot floppy as well? did it not recognize my floppy drive? somebody please help. thanks in advanced =)
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • this213
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1260
  • Loc: ./

Post 3+ Months Ago

what do you mean you unzipped it? You need to burn the ISO image to a CD, simply copying the files to a CD is not the same thing.
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

and you would burn it as a disk image, not as a data disk.
what software do you use for your disk burning purposes?
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

thank you both for the replies. they were helpful. I used nero express, and burned the iso knoppix as a disk image. it worked fine. except, knoppix didn't recognize my soundcard OR my wireless internet card on my PC...

i read that sometimes these *nix live cd's have problems recognizing some hardware. how do i get it to recognize them? do i have to install the drivers just like i did in windows?


i have another problem. i downloaded the linux platform 'mandriva one'. it's also a live cd version. i burned it the same way i burned knoppix. it worked for a little bit. at the system boot screen the 'status bar' progressed all the way up to about 75%... then it went to a blank screen, and did nothing. for a while. the cd rom stopped running a few seconds after the blank screen. why did this happen?
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

sounds like it got stuck somewhere trying to load some of your hardware. usually during the boot process instead of seeing the little progress bar, you can press Esc and see whats going on behind the curtains. do that and see where it gets stuck..
but mandriva one? they just came out with mandriva 2007 and they have that available as a live cd or 3 disk installable, lol so idk where you'd get a mandriva one.
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

mandriva one IS a 2007 version. the 'one' only refers to the style that is bootable, or 'live', as they say. you are correct about seeing the progress 'behind the curtans' by pressing esc. i will try to boot again with mandriva and see where it gets stuck...

as for knoppix, i still don't know why it won't recognize my wireless network card or my sound card. can i install these drivers while running knoppix (i have 2 cd drives so it is possible)? will knoppix be able to read the drivers and install them in the correct place on it's own? or do i have to be a *nix guru of some kind?
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

i re-booted in mandriva, and pressed esc while it was loading. it was working fine, and fast, but one thing i noticed during its loading process is this...

remounting root file-system in read/write mode...... failed

then everything else loaded 'ok'

and then when it got to something called...


starting mdnsryahblahblahblah

i'm not sure if it was msdnr... but there was another word after it. it blanked out before i had the time to read it all.... but like i said before, it was about 75% done when it blank screened, i don't know if that helps or not.

i hope you guys can figure out what the problem might be =\ i REALLY want to switch to linux. but, i'm trying out a few live versions so i can find which one i like best, or at least one that will recognize ALL my hardware =)...

thanks again for all your help, gentlemen.
  • this213
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1260
  • Loc: ./

Post 3+ Months Ago

Try Fedora Core or Ubuntu. If neither of these will run properly on your system, no other desktop distribution will either.

If knoppix doesn't recognize your wireless card, chances are that no other distribution will either and you'll need to use ndiswrapper (google it).

The soundcard may take a little extra work to get going, but you should be able to use it under any given distribution with a little (or a lot, depending on the distro) work.

Check your hardware at http://www.linuxquestions.org/hcl Chances are someone with your hardware has already posted the fixes for these. If not, google for something like "linux my_wireless_card_model" or "linux my_sound_card_model". This will almost always give you the information you need to get your hardware running (or tell you why it won't).

Mandriva is a crap OS (not just my opinion), you might as well use that CD as a coaster. What I'd really like to know is how such a buggy, unstable distribution ever got to be so popular to begin with.
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

wow, thank you so much for all of your help. i've spent the last few days reading general *nix tutorials in order to be more familiar with the structure of the platform and other important things at http://www.linux-tutorial.info, it has proven to be quite informative. i've read the first 5 of 14 chapters, so far, and i have every intention of completing the rest of the book within the next couple of days.

to answer your question about mandriva, i can only assume the reason it got so popular is because of it's GUI, right? from the research i have done, it has a very good interface. but apparently it is lacking in other important aspects of an OS.

through my research i've learned that one of the most popular distributions of linux is 'red hat'. in fact, there is even a certification programme for the red hat distribution in particular. in your opinion, is this the best one? what are your thoughts on the debian-based platforms? and what, in your opinion, is the best distribution for webpages, servers, networks, and databases (mysql)? (security is a MAJOR issue, keep in mind)

i'm going to do some research on fedora core and ubuntu and see what pros and cons they are equipped with. my only boundary is that one of them has to come wth a live cd... OR (as illustrated in one of the chapters in linux-turorial.info) i'd have to set-up a dual-boot system. i'd prefer the first option. but like i said, i'm giong to do some research on these distro's and get back to you.

a side note: when i first made the decision to switch from windows to linux, i was very concerned with my ability to comprehend this extremely complex, but extremely powerful/stable platform, and quickly chose to find the distribution with the best GUI. however, doing further research (thanks to your help), i've come to realize that i CAN have a firm grasp on this whole thing, without a necessarily great GUI. afterall, GUI isn't very important to most *nix gurus, correct?
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

having the ability to navigate a system efficiently through the command line and be able to actually work with it is very important in *nix.
fedora is sponsored by redhat, you're not going to find a current free version of linux produced by them. now they're just mainly producing RHEL (redhat enterprise linux).
CentOS is the free version of RHEL which would be good to put on a server.
the most secure "out of the box" distro of *nix would be OpenBSD, but a server is only secure as the person at the keyboard makes it ;)
another linux distro you may want to check out when it becomes generally available is suse 10.2 , i'm using the alpha 5 version and its looking very nice.. especially the KDE desktop. which is hard for me to say because i'm a GNOME fan, but their KDE is just winning at this point.. lol
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

anarchy, i have a few questions and comments for you, as well. what is the difference between KDE and GNOME? are they the window interface? or the web-browser?

i've done a little research on ubuntu and fedora core since my last post and found that i was not impressed with the interface. well, not that i wasn't impressed, but it seems to reflect a MAC operating system... which i hate more than life itself. (is GNOME the mac-looking interface?) the reason i ask is because while doing research on knoppix, i remember KDE desktop platform being mentioned frequently, which i liked a lot when i finally got it to run live.

before i buy a PC specifically designed for serving web-pages out of my home (which will be on a network connected to my home PC / or alternatively use a KVM switch), i would like to run a distro of *nix that has very good and secure localhost program to test my web-pages. then, transfer them to my server using FTP or whatever procedure proves to be best with my setup at the time. what are your thoughts? another question... are all red-hat distros come with a mac-looking interface? because i'd really like to have the best of both worlds... what is your opinion?

in the meantime i will do research on the SUSE distro.
  • this213
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1260
  • Loc: ./

Post 3+ Months Ago

AnarchY SI wrote:
the most secure "out of the box" distro of *nix would be OpenBSD
I'd beg to differ on this, while the BSD's may indeed be more stable, they have the same sorts of firewalling as any Linux.

Every desktop distribution has a great GUI, including both Fedora and Ubuntu.

Redhat (otherwise known as RHEL, or RedHat Enterprise Linux) is based off of Fedora. Another way to put it is that Fedora is upstream of Redhat. CentOS is basically RHEL without the paid support.

Fedora contains all of the new packages, the bleeding edge of Linux distributions. Once these new packages have settled down (quite a bit) they're then included in RHEL and CentOS. That said, you'll find the best hardware support in Fedora, while you'll find the most stability in RHEL/CentOS.

Here are some screen shots of Fedora desktops, some screen shots of Ubuntu desktops, My personal Ubuntu desktop (I am forced to use it sometimes) and my Fedora desktop (where I spend most of my time).

If you absolutely can't stand a MAC, then you probably won't like Linux very much and you definitely won't like any of the BSD's (OSX is itself a BSD - or based on one (Darwin)).

KDE is a resource hog, though many users coming from Windows like it more than Gnome. KDE is available on any of these distributions.

If you're doing this mainly to interface with a production server, I would suggest that you use the closest OS you can to whatever they're running. This way, you can write scripts specific to the OS and they'll work on the live server as well.

I'd also go straight with an installed distribution rather than a live CD simply because there's no way a live CD can give you everything an installed distro does. If you must use a live CD, I'd suggest either Ubuntu or Mepis. Ubuntu uses Gnome and Mepis uses KDE.
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

suse is produced by novell, who bought the distro after their 9.1 version, and they have more of a community feel now similar to fedora at http://www.opensuse.org
most linux distro's come with both the KDE and GNOME desktop manager. the point to be made about them, is you have the CHOICE which to use. you can choose to completely leave one of them off of your system. or both of them and use a different window manager like xfce or enlightenment (oooh pretty) or xgl or have nothing and just stick with the command line. if you want to check out xgl on a livecd check out kororra xgl. see thats the great thing about linux, you have choices ^_^
but i dont really agree that either GNOME or KDE would look/feel like a mac. unless you're talking about versions prior to OS X, which i've had limited experience. with. and even then, it may kind of look like it, but its not setup like it at all. and theres different themes etc. that you can apply to change it up. there actually used to be a tutorial on how to make your ubuntu distro look & feel like mac os x ;) but anyways, what was i going to say....
oh yea, fedora is coming out with fedora core 6 on the 17th last i checked, so if you do decide to go with that you may want to wait for core 6, or you may want to install 5 and partition your hard drive so that after core 6 has had some "experience" of being generally available, you can install it without losing all the data you've acquired while using 5.
the whole "a good localhost program", apache will run as a webserver on your localhost, which is just your computer behind your router and if you configure your router to let traffic through port 80 and to be directed to your pc's ip, it will be accessible to the internet. so then you'd see the same thing if you went to http://localhost as you would if you went to http://www.your-url.com



this: yea, i was more baseing that on their advertisemnt of "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 10 years!"
i wasn't meaning that the BSD's are more secure in any way :] because i'm sure you could secure your fedora install a hell of a lot better than i could secure OBSD, lol ;)
  • boo_lolly
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • boo_lolly
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

wow, again, thank you BOTH for such informative replies =) ! i'm glad to hear that just about every distro of linux has both KDE and GNOME. that makes me feel a whole lot better, as that is no longer a deal breaker for choosing a distro. i can now focus on the most adequate distro for my preferred use.

what do you guys think of gentoo? what is it known for? how does it stand out amongst other distros?
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

its known for its speed, and for taking forever to get it up and running. i've attempted installing it on my pc, i'll list specs after the post, multiple times with multiple versions between 2004 and 2006 and none of them were ever completely successful. i could get to the command line, so i'd have the base system installed but then i'd have to compile KDE or GNOME and for one reason or another, that just WOULD NOT happen. i asked on multiple forums and people were like "dude it hates you. deal with it." lol BUT kororra is gentoo with a desktop and base system already compiled, and then from there you can go on with compiling the other apps you use. although the extent of my useage was with kororra xgl :D anyways, time for food.!


system specs:
cpu - Athlon 64 3700+ Socket 939 (San Diego)
mobo - Dfi Lanparty UT nf4 Ultra-D
ram - 1024MB Corsair ValueSelect
video - ASUS EAX800 Radeon X800 256MB DDR PCI Express x16
hdd - 300GB Seagate SATA HD (st3300622as-rk), Maxtor 6Y160P0 160GB IDE
optical drives - sony 16x dvd+rw, lite-on 52x32x52
  • this213
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1260
  • Loc: ./

Post 3+ Months Ago

I definitely wouldn't recommend Gentoo to a new Linux user. Best to get a more user friendly distro and use it for a while to get your bearings. Gentoo is known for its speed, but more for its ease of configuration (once you get a handle on how things work).

I also wouldn't wait for the FC6 release. New releases always have some kinks that need to be worked out so it's better to wait a couple months - unless you want to help fix the bugs, that is.

I don't use Suse unless it happens to be installed on a client's machine. It's not that I hate it, just that it doesn't do anything Fedora doesn't (that I've seen). As far as I've seen, Suse is indeed an excellent OS. However, I constantly put new Linux users - and new computer users - on Fedora desktops without issue. Of course, these are business users with no need to configure their own systems, play games or any of the other things you may want to do on a home system.
  • ianfrost
  • Born
  • Born
  • ianfrost
  • Posts: 1
  • Loc: Caribbean

Post 3+ Months Ago

ive have similar problems .... i downloaded the iso image and it was only 302 mb when i converted it to a nero image it was 698 mb ... i burned the actual iso image and i also burned a nero bootable disk from the iso file that i converted to nero...they both give the same problem A:\>

i also tried burning it a couple of other ways but to no avail...
i installed linux suse already and burned 5 iso disk images
converted all to alchohol them burned them as bootable data disk (didn't try this one) so i can of know the process ....help

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 17 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.