A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

On 10-04-12 11:00 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> the NVIDIA GeForce 7200 GS is ok with Linux on my computer.
>
> *The Suse test*
>
> You might remember that some time ago I build the proprietary nvidia
> driver for a self build kernel 2.6.31.6-rt19 amd64 on Suse, but I didn't
> tested it.
> I get no NVIDIA logo, X is ok for GDM, but there's something broken when
> the session starts. After double pushing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace and starting
> a new session everything is ok.
> I still have to do this every time after startup.
> Today I tested the 3D support by using googleearth and it works like a
> charm.

Logs are your friend.
>
> There's no doubt about it, Linux is fine with this NVIDIA card.
>
> *How to continue with 64 Studio*
>
> I still couldn't solve how to build the proprietary driver or to get the
> Ubuntu kernel-rt and the packaged restricted modules running on 64
> Studio 3.0-beta3 amd64.
>
Which Ubuntu kernel are you trying to install? This matters because
each release of Ubuntu uses a newer version of GCC which will cause you
grief when you try to build 3rd party modules for the kernel.

If you must do this, then build from source. Get the kernel source from
the version of Ubuntu that you want (packages.ubuntu.com) but *build*
the kernel on 64Studio (or another Ubuntu 8.04 computer).

> Should I brief the troubles and open a ticket or send an email to the 64
> Studio developers list? Or are you stressed out because of OEM stuff at
> the moment?
>
Why not do both? You could also continue to post to the users list as well.

Anyway, you should probably get your driver directly from nVidia if you
are building your own kernel.

_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Hi Ralf,

> I still couldn't solve how to build the proprietary driver or to get the
> Ubuntu kernel-rt and the packaged restricted modules running on 64
> Studio 3.0-beta3 amd64.
>
> Should I brief the troubles and open a ticket or send an email to the 64
> Studio developers list?

I don't think this will be necessary, because we now have a 3.3 alpha
release where the kernel and base distro are different versions compared
to 3.0-beta3. Let's see where we get to with those versions.

I'm particularly interested to hear if you still experience problems
with MIDI jitter when using 3.3x versions.

Cheers!

Daniel
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Hi Daniel :)

>> Should I brief the troubles and open a ticket or send an email to the 64
>> Studio developers list?
>>
>
> I don't think this will be necessary, because we now have a 3.3 alpha
> release where the kernel and base distro are different versions compared
> to 3.0-beta3. Let's see where we get to with those versions.
>

Is it available for download somewhere right now? Btw. it would be good
if I could try to upgrade 3.0 to 3.3 by a repository.
The issues with NVIDIA cards seems to be a problem in general for
Ubuntu, sometimes everything is ok and very often Ubuntu fails.

I'm not in a hurry. Currently I mark a lot of mails with a * in
Thunderbird, to mark them for my todo and to-read list, because there
are a lot of non-computer things to do now.

> I'm particularly interested to hear if you still experience problems
> with MIDI jitter when using 3.3x versions.
>

I've got a Karmic install and I build kernel 2.6.31.12-rt21 but didn't
made tests, neither for the NVIDIA nor because of MIDI jitter.
Suse is similar to Karmic, there I build kernel 2.6.31.6-rt19, for
jitter there's no difference to 64 Studio, but I could build the
proprietary graphics driver.
I run 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 with kernel 2.6.31.12-rt20, but I also build
older kernels.

I noticed that I'm not up to date, there is not only the
patch-2.6.31.12-rt21, but patch-2.6.33.2-rt13 at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/.

Cheers!
Ralf
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:51 +0100
Daniel James <daniel@64studio.com> wrote:

> Hi Diego,
>
> > is this 64 Studio Alpha 3.3 version available for download
> > at the moment?
>
> Yes - there was a very low-key announcement on the development list:
>
> http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-devel/2010-March/006789.html
>
> This distro is definitely not for production use; the 32-bit version is
> not tested at all, and probably broken. If you don't mind experimenting,
> then this release may be of interest - otherwise, I would recommend
> waiting for the first beta.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel

Tried to install this today. It failed when 'Configuring camp caster'.
Trying to ignore this and go on to install the bootloader which also
failed.

Using the second partition of my HD - manually set up all partitions as
ext3 (as I usually do).

--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Folderol wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:51 +0100
> Daniel James <daniel@64studio.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Diego,
>>
>>
>>> is this 64 Studio Alpha 3.3 version available for download
>>> at the moment?
>>>
>> Yes - there was a very low-key announcement on the development list:
>>
>> http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-devel/2010-March/006789.html
>>
>> This distro is definitely not for production use; the 32-bit version is
>> not tested at all, and probably broken. If you don't mind experimenting,
>> then this release may be of interest - otherwise, I would recommend
>> waiting for the first beta.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>
> Tried to install this today. It failed when 'Configuring camp caster'.
> Trying to ignore this and go on to install the bootloader which also
> failed.
>
> Using the second partition of my HD - manually set up all partitions as
> ext3 (as I usually do).
>

Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
alpha1, but alpha2. When there was the question regarding to the boot
device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
campcaster-station? OTOH I guess the marked boot device will be
auto-checked when pushing continue, wrong?
_______________________________________________
64studio-devel mailing list
64studio-devel@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-devel

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Folderol wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:51 +0100
> Daniel James <daniel@64studio.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Diego,
>>
>>
>>> is this 64 Studio Alpha 3.3 version available for download
>>> at the moment?
>>>
>> Yes - there was a very low-key announcement on the development list:
>>
>> http://lists.64studio.com/pipermail/64studio-devel/2010-March/006789.html
>>
>> This distro is definitely not for production use; the 32-bit version is
>> not tested at all, and probably broken. If you don't mind experimenting,
>> then this release may be of interest - otherwise, I would recommend
>> waiting for the first beta.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>
> Tried to install this today. It failed when 'Configuring camp caster'.
> Trying to ignore this and go on to install the bootloader which also
> failed.
>
> Using the second partition of my HD - manually set up all partitions as
> ext3 (as I usually do).
>

Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
alpha1, but alpha2. When there was the question regarding to the boot
device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
campcaster-station? OTOH I guess the marked boot device will be
auto-checked when pushing continue, wrong?
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Hi Ralf,

> Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
> alpha1, but alpha2.

That's actually a test build on the way to alpha2 that you've
downloaded, it's not quite ready :-)

The inclusion of campcaster (a radio station automation application) was
just for testing purposes.

> When there was the question regarding to the boot
> device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
> new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
> campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
> campcaster-station?

Yes, that should be towards the end of the install - it's a grub2 thing.
Gustin is quite right that dual booting this alpha on a production
machine is probably not worth the hassle.

Cheers!

Daniel
_______________________________________________
64studio-devel mailing list
64studio-devel@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-devel

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Hi Ralf,

> Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
> alpha1, but alpha2.

That's actually a test build on the way to alpha2 that you've
downloaded, it's not quite ready :-)

The inclusion of campcaster (a radio station automation application) was
just for testing purposes.

> When there was the question regarding to the boot
> device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
> new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
> campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
> campcaster-station?

Yes, that should be towards the end of the install - it's a grub2 thing.
Gustin is quite right that dual booting this alpha on a production
machine is probably not worth the hassle.

Cheers!

Daniel
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
>
>> Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
>> alpha1, but alpha2.
>>
>
> That's actually a test build on the way to alpha2 that you've
> downloaded, it's not quite ready :-)
>
> The inclusion of campcaster (a radio station automation application) was
> just for testing purposes.
>
>
>> When there was the question regarding to the boot
>> device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
>> new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
>> campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
>> campcaster-station?
>>
>
> Yes, that should be towards the end of the install - it's a grub2 thing.
> Gustin is quite right that dual booting this alpha on a production
> machine is probably not worth the hassle.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel

Hi Daniel :)

it was just for testing purpose regarding to my new second hand NVIDIA.

A friend, a musician, who won't use the computer for music, but for
emailing etc. will get a 3.0-beta3 install done by me. I tried it some
days ago, when we thought his Vista was broken, but it wasn't the fault
of Vista. I need the whole day to repair his hardware, so I still need
to install a Linux, 64 Studio, on his machine. He is willing to try
Linux, not only because of me, but also because people from his family
are Linux users, who can't belief that he is using Windows. He was
already thinking of paying for Windows 7, but I gave him a verbal slap
in the face. I offered him any Linux plus XP instead. 64 Studio
3.0-beta3 won the race :).

The long and the short of it, I do know that 3.0-beta3 is the only valid
version, I'll use it, I'll install it for other people. I only wish to
know if my NVIDIA would work perfectly, like it does for Suse, when
using the current alpha.

For music, excepted of the old issue MIDI jitter for external devices,
64 Studio is ok when using the FLOSS "nv" driver. Just GDM is broken,
but I don't care about this.

Everything is ok here, when using 3.0-beta3, anyway it would be
interesting to test the alpha version. To be honest, I already have an
unused Karmic install and could test it by revivifying this install again.

Thank you for the reply. No problem, I'm able to wait until an alpha or
beta version is more stable.

Cheers!
Ralf
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

A request at the hands of the persons responsible for 64 Studio
 

Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
>
>> Here the installation failed at campcaster-station. FWIW it's not 3.3
>> alpha1, but alpha2.
>>
>
> That's actually a test build on the way to alpha2 that you've
> downloaded, it's not quite ready :-)
>
> The inclusion of campcaster (a radio station automation application) was
> just for testing purposes.
>
>
>> When there was the question regarding to the boot
>> device I didn't check a box, but continued, because I won't install a
>> new bootloader. Perhaps it has to do with this? I know
>> campcaster-station has nothing to do with it, but maybe the step after
>> campcaster-station?
>>
>
> Yes, that should be towards the end of the install - it's a grub2 thing.
> Gustin is quite right that dual booting this alpha on a production
> machine is probably not worth the hassle.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel

Hi Daniel :)

it was just for testing purpose regarding to my new second hand NVIDIA.

A friend, a musician, who won't use the computer for music, but for
emailing etc. will get a 3.0-beta3 install done by me. I tried it some
days ago, when we thought his Vista was broken, but it wasn't the fault
of Vista. I need the whole day to repair his hardware, so I still need
to install a Linux, 64 Studio, on his machine. He is willing to try
Linux, not only because of me, but also because people from his family
are Linux users, who can't belief that he is using Windows. He was
already thinking of paying for Windows 7, but I gave him a verbal slap
in the face. I offered him any Linux plus XP instead. 64 Studio
3.0-beta3 won the race :).

The long and the short of it, I do know that 3.0-beta3 is the only valid
version, I'll use it, I'll install it for other people. I only wish to
know if my NVIDIA would work perfectly, like it does for Suse, when
using the current alpha.

For music, excepted of the old issue MIDI jitter for external devices,
64 Studio is ok when using the FLOSS "nv" driver. Just GDM is broken,
but I don't care about this.

Everything is ok here, when using 3.0-beta3, anyway it would be
interesting to test the alpha version. To be honest, I already have an
unused Karmic install and could test it by revivifying this install again.

Thank you for the reply. No problem, I'm able to wait until an alpha or
beta version is more stable.

Cheers!
Ralf
_______________________________________________
64studio-devel mailing list
64studio-devel@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-devel