Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
OSes so I could compare them side by side.

XP? No problem.
Win 2K3? No problem.

Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
*know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
Linux won't support this. Hmm, why not? Windows does. I go find the
necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.

A couple weeks later read about Fedora 8. I think "Maybe, being more
polished RH will support the i810." I go through the install. Nope,
I still can't go higher than 800x600. I open up google and search for
i810 Fedora and find the name of an RPM I'm supposed to install. I
get it and open it and it tells me a dependency failed. Ok, I go get
that rpm and that one tells me a dependency failed. I go get that
one, and I when I run it it tells me that a dependency failed. I go
try to find that one (libcrypto.so.7) and it doesn't exist!
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/se...libcrypto.so.7
(Okay, I know where to get it but a search engine should be a little
smarter.)

At least gentoo knows how to get additional dependencies. I'll pop in
my 2007 Live CD tonight.

I've been using Linux since Slackware .99b14 (you haven't lived until
you download 26 1.44 MB floppy images at 2400 baud) so I am far from
incompetent, I just wanted to see how ready for prime time various
distros of Linux are at this point. I realize I may be being a little
critical but my goal was to see how far I could get before I ran into
major hurdles. I am sad to say "not very long." "People" expect
their computers to just work. This clearly doesn't.

I have yet to go the BSD route on one. We'll see how these go.

es330td******.com <es330td******.com> wrote:
>I start doing a little research and find out that I have the i810
>chipset and out of the box Linux won't support this. Hmm, why not?

Because you haven't fixed it yet! We're waiting!

-Beej, drumming his fingers

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:16 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this.

Absolute bull****.

> Hmm, why not? Windows does. I go find the
> necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
> edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
> still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.

You're clearly stupid.

> A couple weeks later read about Fedora 8. I think "Maybe, being more
> polished RH will support the i810." I go through the install. Nope,
> I still can't go higher than 800x600. I open up google and search for
> i810 Fedora and find the name of an RPM I'm supposed to install. I
> get it and open it and it tells me a dependency failed. Ok, I go get
> that rpm and that one tells me a dependency failed. I go get that
> one, and I when I run it it tells me that a dependency failed. I go
> try to find that one (libcrypto.so.7) and it doesn't exist!
> http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/se...libcrypto.so.7
> (Okay, I know where to get it but a search engine should be a little
> smarter.)

Or YOU should be a little smarter. I guess you've never heard of a
package manager, eh?

> I've been using Linux since Slackware .99b14

More bull****.

> incompetent, I just wanted to see how ready for prime time various
> distros of Linux are at this point. I realize I may be being a little
> critical but my goal was to see how far I could get before I ran into
> major hurdles. I am sad to say "not very long." "People" expect
> their computers to just work. This clearly doesn't.

You're clueless, and stupid.

> I have yet to go the BSD route on one. We'll see how these go.

LOL. Right. Bye, troll.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

i can definately understand es's point about the plug and play
features of linux not quite being as advanced as Micro$ofts. i have
also been wortking with linux for about 8 years now, and i do admit
that microsft does do some things better. but not all.

i also admit that i don't know everything about linux,and that is why
i am here. to ask for help with a couple of issues...

the biggest issue that i am having right now is my OpenGL doesn't work
right. it makes the screen really run choppy. it has detected my
nVidia TNT2 video card and all the display modes for the monitor seem
to be working for the non-OpenGL programs, like office and gimp and
firefox. except i'm also having difficulties finding external
repositories for my ubuntu (please don't laugh! this last week i have
enjoyed being able to actually do some things without having to spend
the first month configuring all the files that i needed to in order to
get my last slackware system running right!).

Also, eventually, i would like to recompile this kernel, but i don't
have the first clue as to where to start.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

>
> LOL. *Right. *Bye, troll.
>
> --
> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Given that this *is* an unmoderated group I don't think you get to say
"Bye" until I say I am leaving.

It is the truth that the first distro of Linux I ran was Slackware .
99b14 (downloaded from my lonestar SunOS account at UTSA using SLIP)
but I have not been a steady Linux user since then. If I had, I am
sure that I wouldn't be here complaining about Linux; I would just
make it do what I need it to do. The point of my post was that most
people do not want to have to interact with their systems at the
command line level and want things to be as easy as possible. I knew
I needed to go find an RPM. When I downloaded it to my desktop and
opened it up, why didn't it get opened by a package manager so that it
when the dependecy problem showed up it could say "Additional support
files are needed for this package, would you like to retrieve them?"
The system knew it was an RPM. Even emerge on gentoo knows how to go
and get missing dependencies.

I chose Ubuntu to try because that is the distro getting all the hype
about being the flavor of Linux for the masses that is easy enough to
make people comfortable switching from Windows. I chose Fedora as my
second attempt because RH has one of the better track records of
stability and acceptance by corporate decision makers whose jobs
depends on making right choices.

I admit that I am using slightly older hardware. Unfortunately for
Linux, it doesn't get to choose what hardware people will attempt to
run it on and it is the Linux community's own fault that it has been
ported to everything this side of a Babbage mechanical computer. Many
people I know think that Linux can run on and support anything. It
isn't my fault that the small footprint and lower resource
requirements of Linux are trumpeted by the media and my 5 year old
machine is the perfect candidate for a Linux system as it sure as hell
won't run Vista.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:16 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>
> XP? No problem.
> Win 2K3? No problem.
>
> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this. Hmm, why not? Windows does. I go find the
> necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
> edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
> still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.

There is no Ubuntu 7.1. All you need to do is open synaptic, search for
'intel' and install the xserver-xorg-video-intel package and it will all
be taken care of.


>
> A couple weeks later read about Fedora 8. I think "Maybe, being more
> polished RH will support the i810." I go through the install. Nope,
> I still can't go higher than 800x600. I open up google and search for
> i810 Fedora and find the name of an RPM I'm supposed to install. I
> get it and open it and it tells me a dependency failed. Ok, I go get
> that rpm and that one tells me a dependency failed. I go get that
> one, and I when I run it it tells me that a dependency failed. I go
> try to find that one (libcrypto.so.7) and it doesn't exist!
> http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/se...libcrypto.so.7
> (Okay, I know where to get it but a search engine should be a little
> smarter.)
>
> At least gentoo knows how to get additional dependencies. I'll pop in
> my 2007 Live CD tonight.
>
> I've been using Linux since Slackware .99b14 (you haven't lived until
> you download 26 1.44 MB floppy images at 2400 baud) so I am far from
> incompetent, I just wanted to see how ready for prime time various
> distros of Linux are at this point. I realize I may be being a little
> critical but my goal was to see how far I could get before I ran into
> major hurdles. I am sad to say "not very long." "People" expect
> their computers to just work. This clearly doesn't.
>
> I have yet to go the BSD route on one. We'll see how these go.

ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:16 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:
>
>> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
>> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
>> etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
>> OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>>
>> XP? No problem.
>> Win 2K3? No problem.
>>
>> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
>> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
>> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
>> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
>> Linux won't support this. Hmm, why not? Windows does. I go find the
>> necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
>> edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
>> still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.
>
> There is no Ubuntu 7.1.

Possibly AV3 could post his weekly reminder to this newsgroup too? His
work in educating people about the Ubuntu version system would surely
pay dividends here too?

*titter*

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:16 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> OSes so I could compare them side by side.

Yeah... sure you did.

--
I told you this was going to happen.

"es330td******.com" <es330td******.com> wrote in news:754e3e15-1d38-465a-
8509-8f6a05c8ef1a@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> I chose Ubuntu to try because that is the distro getting all the hype
> about being the flavor of Linux for the masses that is easy enough to
> make people comfortable switching from Windows.

Your problem is that Ubuntu is too easy for you. Note the above post about
Synaptic Package Manager. You "tried to do it like Windows" i.e. look for a
driver to install. Ubuntu is way past that.

The fact that you claim to be such an expert, but are using Google Groups
to post to Usenet damages your credibility in my eyes from the beginning.

es330td******.com wrote:

>>LOL. Right. Bye, troll.
>>
>>--
>>"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
>
> Given that this *is* an unmoderated group I don't think you get to say
> "Bye" until I say I am leaving.

No, he can say "Bye" when he's leaving the discussion with you - that's
being polite from where I come.

....

> I admit that I am using slightly older hardware. Unfortunately for
> Linux, it doesn't get to choose what hardware people will attempt to
> run it on and it is the Linux community's own fault that it has been
> ported to everything this side of a Babbage mechanical computer.

It's also Microsoft's fault that Windwos won't run on the machines that I've
got and require an upgrade/replacement...

> Many
> people I know think that Linux can run on and support anything. It
> isn't my fault that the small footprint and lower resource
> requirements of Linux are trumpeted by the media and my 5 year old
> machine is the perfect candidate for a Linux system as it sure as hell
> won't run Vista.

Hmmm...my (about 2000 Gateway) machine downstairs running the same Mandriva
2008 as my notebook (1.6GHz Turion64x2 1G RAM) is...PIII/500, 630Mb, DVD;
screen runs at 1400x1050; duel (sic) boots with Win 98 (with which it
originally came). Originally had 128Mb RAM, but I upgraded it prior to
installing Linux - it generally uses about 30% of the RAM, often upto around
50%, occasionally maxing out at 60-70%.

Mefinx you have a problem with yourself.

PS That Gateway machine is probably no way able to run the latest Microsoft
Windwos, but it manages quite well with the latest Linux, albeit slowly for
a few functions, but those times are not that often enough (yet) to worry
about having to upgrade/replace.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:16 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this

Yes it will.

es330td******.com wrote:

> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. Â*The
> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> etc. Â*I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>
> XP? No problem.
> Win 2K3? No problem.
>
> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Â*Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> know the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this.

go away, please
i810 works on linux even out of the box.... proof?
http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori.../Yast-Xorg.png
--
EOS
www.photo-memories.be
Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3

EOS wrote:

> go away, please
> i810 works on linux even out of the box.... proof?
> http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori.../Yast-Xorg.png

http://intellinuxgraphics.org/documentation.html
--
EOS
www.photo-memories.be
Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3

es330td******.com wrote:
> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>
> XP? No problem.
> Win 2K3? No problem.
>
> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly.

You mean 7.10?


> Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this.

As far as I know, it's been supported since 3rd of March 2000, just check your
Xorg documentations.


> Hmm, why not? Windows does.

There are far more hardware that isn't supported by microsoft, if you compare
with the different Linux distributions.


> I go find the
> necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
> edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
> still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.

Why reboot? All you do have to do is to restart X11.
Maybe your problem is that you never looked in the Xorg documentation, it do
describe all the driver options for i810.


> I open up google and search for
> i810 Fedora and find the name of an RPM I'm supposed to install. I
> get it and open it and it tells me a dependency failed.

It's not strange, it's like you try to install a driver that depends on
microsoft3.1 on your microsoftVista. If you want to install the right RPM,
then use the one that came with the install media.


> I have yet to go the BSD route on one. We'll see how these go.

*BSD uses Xorg too, so if you don't manage to use the i810 driver in Linux,
you won't be able to do that in BSD.

--

//Aho

es330td******.com <es330td******.com> wrote:
>The point of my post was that most people do not want to have to
>interact with their systems at the command line level and want things
>to be as easy as possible.

This is all very well-known information. As forces drive Linux that
way, that's how it will go.

You can buy laptops, servers, desktops, and a multitude of consumer
devices that run Linux out of the box. You can buy them at Walmart,
Linux pre-installed. They don't have any issues with compatibility,
video modes, or whatever.

If there's a fun/learning/financial/tech/other need that can be
fulfilled by some kind of implementation, it will happen. Otherwise, it
won't. You are having a video mode problem--unless someone has a need
to get rid of that problem, it's not going to happen.

Slackware isn't about to go under. Torvalds can get his salary donated
by tens of thousands of people around the globe, no problem. Microsoft
is currently pressured. Linux is installed and running on hundreds of
millions of devices. Mainstream? Who cares!

-Beej