Debian only loading text based system ?

mathias

I have been searching around for a while and trying different linux distros out to see which one suits me best ,

Ubuntu didnt support my sound or video properly ,
Suse didnt really work with anything properly ,

Knoppix works really well with everything , however installing the live DVD to hard disk breaks some functionality , in particular DVD writing , Knoppix recommended Debian for a hard drive installation so I have just downloaded and installed it from two DVD,s .........and it just boots to a text based system !!
During install I chose desktop environment when choosing packages ?

Am I missing something here , is Debian just text based , I was expecting the same packages as Knoppix and a GUI desktop ?

bman

Does it give you a login prompt? If so then log in and type 'startx'. I really don't know a lot about this stuff so this probably won't work but its no harm trying.

Your problem could be your graphics card may not be supported.

mathias

I bought this system ,

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=324235&view=detailed

Its a shuttle with an onboard Via KM890 controller for graphics , it was bought just for linux and has an AMD sempron 3000 , a 400GB hard drive and an NEC 5170 DVD and 1GB of ram, When I get to the Xfree86 part of the install I chose the Via chipset when asked what my graphics controller was and carried on from there ,

Again it just boots to a txt prompt , tried using startx but it crashes out saying xserver could not start.

When using the Knoppix live DVD it starts no problem, has anyone got any ideas?

h57xiucj2z946q

I have seen this before, even though you install desktop-environment in the installer, it does not install a desktop environment as such, only a basic one like OpenWindow which you must manually start yourself. I have seen this when installing debian from the DVD, however I never had problems when using the net-installer.

Anyway you can always log in as root and do:

apt-get install x-window-system-core kde kdm gnome gdm

reboot, (init 6)

mathias

Thanks for the replies lads , however I have spent way too much time trying to get this to work so Im switching , none of the other distros had this type of critical fault , even Ubuntu and Knoppix which apparantly are based on Debian so Im ditching it ,

I tried just installing the base system and having the rest installed via HTTP , exactly the same results , no desktop , it downloads all the files but cannot start x with my machine , ( all the other distros have no problems starting x on this machine !! )

I was using the latest stable release of Debian , which is 3.1R4 and it seems that in this release x is just broken !!

I have switched back to a Ubuntu install , my issues with that were annoying but no where near as critical.
For instance at the moment , I cannot get flash player installed !!

The joys of linux , Im determined to get it to work but its a long way from a home user operating system.

invisiblewill

mathias wrote:

Thanks for the replies lads , however I have spent way too much time trying to get this to work so Im switching , none of the other distros had this type of critical fault , even Ubuntu and Knoppix which apparantly are based on Debian so Im ditching it ,

I tried just installing the base system and having the rest installed via HTTP , exactly the same results , no desktop , it downloads all the files but cannot start x with my machine , ( all the other distros have no problems starting x on this machine !! )

I was using the latest stable release of Debian , which is 3.1R4 and it seems that in this release x is just broken !!

I have switched back to a Ubuntu install , my issues with that were annoying but no where near as critical.
For instance at the moment , I cannot get flash player installed !!

The joys of linux , Im determined to get it to work but its a long way from a home user operating system.

X is usually ok to get going in Debian. I have been using it for about 4 years now and when I started getting X to work was a nightmare. Now it's easy enough, but then again I have spent 4 years tweaking the config files.

With regards to your flash problem, what exactly is going wrong? I have flash working fine in Debian Etch.

mathias

Im using Ubuntu now and flash will not install for me , so no youtube or anything like that , the browser is firefox , if I go to a flash site and click install missing plugins it tells me there are no plugins available , its not Java by the way , thats working fine.

If I go to package manager , I can see flash there but if I select it , it says there are no software channels available for that package ,

I have used these commands from the terminal ,

wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-nonfree_7.0.63.3ubuntu3_i386.deb
wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/gsfonts-x11/gsfonts-x11_0.17ubuntu4_all.deb
sudo dpkg -i gsfont*.deb
sudo dpkg -i flash*.deb

And all seems to go well , but still no flash available !!

Any ideas ?

On the plus side Ive got sound and video working and VLC player installed , it also reads NTFS drives for me and Ive just managed to get my external drives working and transferred over all my music , really the only thing left bugging me is the Flash thing.

Cake Fiend

mathias wrote:

none of the other distros had this type of critical fault

Not installing a GUI by default is not a 'critical fault' - Debian tends to be used more as a server OS than desktop, so the onus is on you to get a GUI working if you want it. You're going to have to put a bit of work into getting Debian working on a desktop, it's not designed to be newbie-friendly like Ubuntu or Knoppix.

mathias wrote:

I was using the latest stable release of Debian , which is 3.1R4 and it seems that in this release x is just broken !!

As I used to run Debian 3.1 (Sarge), I know it works perfectly fine, you just don't know how to set it up (see above).

With regard to your problem with Flash, don't rely solely on packages. Ubuntu is probably better for this, but particularly with 'stable' (read: old) releases of Debian, available packages can be way outdated (particularly when using apt). Learn to install stuff manually (compiling from source where necessary), because not everything can be installed from packages. Flash is easy to set up for Firefox with about 10 seconds of Googling.

(For the record, I'm running Debian Etch as a desktop OS)

mathias

As I used to run Debian 3.1 (Sarge), I know it works perfectly fine, you just don't know how to set it up (see above).

I dont know what your definition of the phrase works fine is , but when I run an automated installer thats supposed to set up x and it doesnt , then to me thats not " working fine " especially when other Distros , not all of them " noob" Distros , have no problem , Debian is the only one that failed to start x for me.


If you read my posts then how long exactly do you think I was googling ? A little more than 10 seconds I think , still not working yet ,

If you want to be helpful how about a link to a tutorial on setting up packages or something , I posted here for help , not derision !!

Cake Fiend

Perhaps my particular Debian install was magic, as I don't recall having any issues.

mathias wrote:

If you want to be helpful how about a link to a tutorial on setting up packages or something , I posted here for help , not derision !!

I gave you help - did you follow my tip about not relying on packages for flash?

I'm not going to hold your hand, in the linux world you're expected to do this work yourself. Go here, click 'Get Adobe Flash player', unpack the tarball and read the packaged instructions.

You might want to install firefox manually instead of using the built-in one, I'm not sure how much it'll like you installing stuff manually, or trying to update it using its built-in updater. Maybe try it with the pre-installed bins and see how you get on.

mathias

Your kind of help is not needed by anyone , thanks very much !!
Kindly dont post at all if thats your attitude .

andy1249

Mathias,
Apologies for the less than friendly approach by some ,

Better to try here for any linux questions you may have in general , there is more of a community atmosphere about this site ,

http://www.linuxquestions.org/

For your particular problem , look down the list here ,

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Multimedia_Codecs

There is quite a list of commands in relation to installing and getting Flash to work in firefox under Ubuntu , once installed you may find that it crashes firefox or plays youtube with no sound , in which case there are specific commands for those issues too , they are all on the list.

In addition you will most likely need to install all the multimedia codecs for VLC , these are listed also ,
Please read the general notes first as these explain how to enter Sudo commands in the terminal , they are listed so that you can copy and paste directly into the terminal.

if there is anything else you need , just ask.

Have fun

mathias

Many thanks Andy , excellent post.

Typed in the commands in the flash instructions and it worked , and you were right , there was no sound in youtube , which was also fixed quickly.

That Ubuntu how too is an excellent resource.

Cake Fiend

mathias wrote:

Your kind of help is not needed by anyone , thanks very much !!
Kindly dont post at all if thats your attitude .

I bet you didn't even try to follow my help.

My 'attitude' is that people should make an effort to learn how to do things themselves. To paraphrase a proverb, if I just hand you a fish, you'll eat for a day, but after that you're screwed. If you acually try to learn how to fish, even the basics, then you'll never have to live off handouts again. I pointed you in the right direction (adobe's website), you ignored me and waited until someone else spoon-fed you the answer. TBH, I'd rather have my attitude towards learning than yours.

nesf

Cake Fiend wrote:

TBH, I'd rather have my attitude towards learning than yours.

Your average computer user has little interest in learning about the nuts and bolts of OS's. They just want to click a file and let it do the work for them. There isn't anything inherently wrong in this though. That said, one quick search in the ubuntu forums would have solved this for the OP, which are linked to on the default homepage in firefox after you install ubuntu.

andy1249 wrote:

Better to try here for any linux questions you may have in general , there is more of a community atmosphere about this site

True, but if someone doesn't even bother searching the distro's forums for an issue before posting here it you have to accept that it will get under some people's skin. Especially if the user is just looking for someone to do their terminal typing for them. Not knowing how to manually install stuff in linux is not a route to happiness with the OS tbh.

andy1249

These comments were posted by mathias above ,

I tried just installing the base system and having the rest installed via HTTP , exactly the same results , no desktop , it downloads all the files but cannot start x with my machine , ( all the other distros have no problems starting x on this machine !! )

And then this ,

I have used these commands from the terminal ,

wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/poo...untu3_i386.deb
wget -c http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/poo...buntu4_all.deb
sudo dpkg -i gsfont*.deb
sudo dpkg -i flash*.deb

Not a person who hasnt even searched if you ask me !!, and this is from nesf

True, but if someone doesn't even bother searching the distro's forums for an issue before posting here it you have to accept that it will get under some people's skin. Especially if the user is just looking for someone to do their terminal typing for them.

,

And these are from cake fiend ,

Perhaps my particular Debian install was magic, as I don't recall having any issues

My 'attitude' is that people should make an effort to learn how to do things themselves.

I'm not going to hold your hand, in the linux world you're expected to do this work yourself.

As well as that insufferably patronising comment about the fish this is easily the most despicable display of technical snobbery Ive seen in a long time ,and goes some way to explaining why this forum only has one page of posts , the guy asked a question , why not give a civilised answer ?

IMO this is really something to be ashamed about , you need to get rid of that " I know something you dont know" attitude lads. Its just not nice !!!

Mutant_Fruit

nesf wrote:

Your average computer user has little interest in learning about the nuts and bolts of OS's. They just want to click a file and let it do the work for them. There isn't anything inherently wrong in this though. That said, one quick search in the ubuntu forums would have solved this for the OP, which are linked to on the default homepage in firefox after you install ubuntu

Linux is *not* for people who have little interest in learning the nuts and bolts of the OS. You *will* need to compile stuff from source, you *will* need to resolve problems yourself with dependancies. You will have problems. You come here to ask for help.

So guys, can we keep the flaming to a minimum. If you don't like someone, then click the ignore button. It makes life a *lot* nicer for the rest of us. If you don't have something *constructive* to add, then don't add a reply.

As much as you may not have liked cake fiends tone of writing (and i'd agree with the end of andy's post), he was right in that you need to sit down and read the instructions that come with packages. Once you compile 2-3 apps, they're all pretty much the same. No one is going to paste you commands to compile everything.

nesf

andy1249 wrote:

IMO this is really something to be ashamed about , you need to get rid of that " I know something you dont know" attitude lads. Its just not nice !!!

I assure you that I find technical snobbery as distasteful as you do, however I've also an appreciation that some people, especially in the linux world, have a very strong 'learn to do it yourself' attitude and there is some merit in this and you should respect it.

The comment about Debian not installing a GUI by default being a critical flaw is going to get under some people's skin and is the kind of thing that will get some people's backs up immediately. There is some elitism about being able to use a CLI but there is a reason why some distros work from the CLI and it's not a flaw. Calling the lack of a GUI a critical flaw is technical snobbery, naive technical snobbery tbh, and is no better than the people who respond to threads looking for help over in the windows forum with www.ubuntu.com etc.


My searching comment was that, as you linked to, the solution to this problem is very easy and quick to find on the ubuntu forums because of the multitude of threads and it's not obscure. It's also answered in the manual/documentation under web browsing (though ubuntuguide is more detailed and covers more). If it was an obscure problem then it would be a different situation. Personally if I'd seen this thread before you'd posted the answer I'd have linked to the same site but I do appreciate that other people don't feel that doing so actually helps the person. They don't 'not answer' out of spite or elitism it's because that a lot of the time if you link the person to the terminal code they need they'll just cut and paste it in without trying to understand what it does and then the next time they have an issue they'll be back again.

nesf

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

Linux is *not* for people who have little interest in learning the nuts and bolts of the OS. You *will* need to compile stuff from source, you *will* need to resolve problems yourself with dependancies. You will have problems. You come here to ask for help.

I agree to a point but a lot of distros market themselves as such and go to a lot of effort to prevent people from having to go to the CLI. Plus a lot of people coming to linux now have grown up on GUI's and you have to account for at least a fair amount of system shock when they are forced to sit at a command prompt to install something that used to only take 2 or 3 clicks in the past.

Plus, why should linux be *not* for people who aren't interested in learning the nuts and bolts?

Mutant_Fruit

nesf wrote:

Plus, why should linux be *not* for people who aren't interested in learning the nuts and bolts?

Anyone with a 2200BG wireless card used to have to compile everything from source to install it. There was no other way due to licensing. I always wondered how Ubuntu got around it and supported the 2200BG out of box. I didn't think that was allowed.

Enabling the wireless card was not a trivial task.

Steveire

This forum has been free of technical snobbery for most of the time I've been looking at it. I happen to think that it's better to link someone with a common problem to ubuntuguide than to make them install from source. That way they can check that guide again and get the answer before coming here for help.

I don't think I've had to install anything from source or experienced dependency hell by the way.

Perhaps someone should make a sticky "Look here for help" and just link to that guide.

nesf

Steveire wrote:

Perhaps someone should make a sticky "Look here for help" and just link to that guide.

Having a bunch of stickies with guides for the terminal, archives and manuals, tuxfiles etc might be an idea. It might help people completely new to the OS. Though most people tend to ignore stickies from my experience.

Steveire

A bunch of stickies will be ignored. A single "Look here for help" with a link to ubuntuguide and perhaps linuxcommand.org would be viewed by many I'm sure. I don't think it's a huge problem on the forum at the moment, but it's handy to have the essential, minimal newbie resources in one place.

Cake Fiend

andy1249 wrote:

IMO this is really something to be ashamed about , you need to get rid of that " I know something you dont know" attitude lads. Its just not nice !!!

Lack of technical knowledge is not what annoys me - everyone has to start somewhere, and I have no problem helping someone who is willing to make an effort on their part and not try to (for example) blame the installer etc for their lack of understanding. In fact, I even gave a direct link to what he/she needed in my second post.

Read back and you may notice that my tone was quite reasonable until the OP returned to explode at me in frustration/embarrassment. My comment on the 10 seconds of googling was actually an overestimate - type 'flash' into google and see how long it takes for Adobe's website to come up (about .3 seconds for me).