Hey. I like bananas.
And oranges, a lot, actually.
“I just want to use my computer in a productive manner, not learn how to use it.” — Elysia
“A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.” — Alan Jay Perlis
Well, I d/l the ubuntu ISO.
Then I burnt the ISO to CD with NERO at 48x, but was getting read errors when Nero tried to verify the data. So I tried burning at 40x, 32x, 24x, still the same problems. I am currently burning at 8x to see if that will work. I am rapidly running out of blank CD-R.
If there was an error somewhere in the initial d/l of the ISO, could this be causing the read errors? Ubuntu doesn't provide any checksum values for the ISO. but I am using Opera and it shows the actual size of the file as 723488768 bytes, and 723488768 bytes was d/loaded, so the d/l is complete.
When I try to run the CD, this keeps being displayed, and my caps and scroll lock lights keep flashing:
kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init!
bad_area_nosemaphore +0x12/0 x 20
Imagine a few screens of the above.
I'll d/l the ISO again next weekend.
EDIT: Holy Carp, data verification successful at 8X. I did a search an in another forum, someone said they could only successfully burn ISO at 6x.
Last edited by happyclown; 02-13-2010 at 07:38 PM.
OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.
I'm guessing it's because the the Ubuntu ISO is 700MB, and your CD-R isn't, so you are "overburning". It's a hit-and-miss thing.
Most new CD-Rs are rated for 700MB, though.
Now I always install Ubuntu from a USB drive (you can do that if you have the ISO, a big enough USB drive, and a computer that will boot from USB, using a program called unetbootin).
EDIT: MD5SUM - http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/MD5SUMS
The CD-R disc says 700mb, and the Ubuntu ISO is 690mb.
But I am still getting the same error messages. Kernel panic.
I am getting these error messages when I choose the option "run ubuntu without installing on your computer" or "check disc for defects".
There is an "install ubuntu" option, which I have not tried, but I don't know if I should try it, in case there are errors, which will lead to more kernel panics.
My comp can't boot from USB, it's a 7 year old machine. Thanks for the checksum link, I'll check it out. There is an aussie Ubuntu group that ships 9.10 for $2.60(cost of postage). I'll give that a go if all else fails.
OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.
I hate it when I have to burn Ubuntu CDs, too, when I have no 700MB disc around. They should make a 650MB version by just taking out a few packages.
Rather than trying Ubuntu over and over, just try another distro. This way, you can verify something: if more than one distro install CS ain't working for you, either your hardware is screwed up or you are doing something wrong.
You need to eliminate this possibility.
Try Fedora Core or Debian. You can install the NVIDIA drivers on any of them, just debian (eg) does not provide a package. If you get them direct from the NVIDIA site, you also get to learn how to untar an archive, then you just run a shell script.
In which case you might as well go hard-core "free, but not as in beer!":
gNewSense Official Website : Free as in freedom | Main / gNewSense 2.3 - deltah | browse
This one is "above and beyond" open source
ps. ignore the checksum crap for all of them
Last edited by MK27; 02-13-2010 at 08:05 PM.
Debian has nvidia-glx-new, just need to enable non-free section.
I suggest sticking with Ubuntu, though, for a beginner, just for the huge userbase (and forum support). After you are a little more familiar, you can try out other distros if you want.
happyclown, I'd reccomend trying a different distro too (Mandrake, opensuse or Fedora maybe). On this computer, the Ubuntu family works fairly well, but with any of the Red Hat based distros, I can't even boot the installer. I have a stack of about 20 distro CDs. I'm guessing I'd have about twice that many except that I started using RW's a while back.
MK, Ubuntu Forums also has a lot of idiots. You have to be careful around there.
I copied it from the last program in which I passed a parameter, which would have been pre-1989 I guess. - esbo
I started with Red Hat 9, then Fedora Core 1-3, Debian, Gentoo, then Ubuntu. I've used them all extensively (except Gentoo, I only used Gentoo for 1 month), and frankly, I didn't find much difference between them. They are all Linux. At the end I settled for Ubuntu because of the huge repository (that's why I chose Debian in the first place), and when you have a silly question that you don't want to spend time tinkering, just type "[silly question] ubuntu" into Google and you'll get 5 different sets of commands that you can copy and paste into gnome-terminal to fix your problem...
You can also get it free from canonical at https://shipit.ubuntu.com/. 9.10 never arrived to me, but they are having problems with the number of requests and giving priority to new folks, which is your case. You do have to wait up to 3 weeks, IIRC.There is an aussie Ubuntu group that ships 9.10 for $2.60(cost of postage). I'll give that a go if all else fails.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
I wouldn't run Ubuntu on a Pentium... something like Debian should be more reasonable (or minimalistic). Debian has an easy to use network installation option, too (booting from a tiny CD or floppy, and download the rest during installation).
I've also tried PXE (booting over network) installation, too, for a computer that has nothing except ethernet, but that took quite a bit of work to set up (another machine as the "server").