problem with grubby Linux...

[W3MIV]

Last Friday, I downloaded and installed the new Ubuntu 9.10. Alas, the ISO image I had created was a 32-bit variant, and I wanted the 64- -- so, again to the servers for service.

Monday, I found and downloaded the 64-bit version, and I reinstalled it, supplanting the 32- that I had loaded previously. Y'all follerin' this?

I had originally put Ubuntu 8.04 (upped to 8.10) on the system, and the new Linux iterations were replacements to that earlier Hardly Heron.

The problems began when I tried to re-order the boot sequence in Grub. Nothing I did would permit me to displace Linux for Vista no matter what I tried. With Grub2, directly editing the CFG file is frowned upon -- indeed, the Canonical folks label it nothing short of foolhardy.

I am a far-from-geek when it comes to Linux, but I finally solved the issue this morning. Although the new versions (both 32- and 64-bit) now employ the new Grub2 (which is 1.97beta4 in reality on my system), the installer had apparently left the old Grub version in place. IOW, both were resident on the system and apparently the old version was responding to my efforts to change the order while the new bird was out to lunch. Finding and deleting the old Grub finally solved the problem, and I can now trust that Vista will boot should Billy Gates & Cie do their usual Tuesday-night-at-Ohdarkhundred update and reboot sequence whilst I am napping. Frequent event at my advanced age. :shifty

If any of you are having trouble trying to set a different boot order than that which the damned penguin insists upon, it might be a similar issue of some old variant keeping Grub2 from responding to the "update grub" command that is now mandated as the proper way to change the CFG file.

This new Ubuntu is very workable. No hardware issues at all, and the proprietary nVidia video drivers required nothing more than a nod and click from me to install flawlessly. OpenOrifice 3.1 handles just about everything that MS Orifice 2007 can dish out except for fonts, which are a PITA that must be handled tediously. You are safe if all you use is Courier, Times New Roman or Arial, but venturing across the OS Divide with anything more modern can be painful.

It's too bad that Gimp is still so damned weak when compared to PhotoShop.

OK, :sleep: I hear you snoring...

[AF6LJ]

Good information, thanks for passing it along.
I Tried GIMP sometime back, and went back to my roommate's copy of Photoshop 4.0.

[ad4mg]

Albert - I ran into a similar issue when I upgraded my Ubuntu from 9.04 to 9.10. Rushing through the upgrade, when it asked about replacing the existing /boot/grub/menu.lst, I told it to leave the original. The solution was similar, if not the same as the one you used.

Regarding the fonts, there is a Linux <-> Windows common font "equivalent" chart available here:

http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/04/02/linux-font-equivalents-to-popular-web-typefaces/

Not terribly up to date, but better than nothing. Beats straining the old peepers trying to match an existing font in a document by eye!

[WØTKX]

I cheat and use Partition Commander. Recommended. It's not free though.


http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51YCO0g8feL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

But I use Winders, and play with flavors of Linux. So I mess around with drive partitions a lot. Need to boot multiple OS's, and the multiple installs will screw it up.

[W3MIV]

Albert - I ran into a similar issue when I upgraded my Ubuntu from 9.04 to 9.10. Rushing through the upgrade, when it asked about replacing the existing /boot/grub/menu.lst, I told it to leave the original. The solution was similar, if not the same as the one you used.

Regarding the fonts, there is a Linux <-> Windows common font "equivalent" chart available here:

http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/04/02/linux-font-equivalents-to-popular-web-typefaces/

Not terribly up to date, but better than nothing. Beats straining the old peepers trying to match an existing font in a document by eye!

Thanks, Luke. I must have REALLY rushed through the install. I didn't even notice a choice between leaving or replacing good ol' Grub! :doh: I did find out, however, that one can remove the new Grub2 and replace it with the "Legacy" Grub (which is 0.97) should one desire to do so. However, now that I'm past that hump, I can't see looking over my shoulder...

Trouble with fonts is that Windders/Office now offers a default set of some really nice Open Fonts which OO uses with delight. Migrating them to Linux, however, is a PITA. That will change, however, as Linux continues to mature. The difference between this new Ubuntu and Hardly Heron is like that from Win ME to XP. The next issue will likely move the goal posts ever farther down the field. The boys in Redmond are feeling the heat: Win 7 is now available in a "family" pack that lets one install on up to three computers for non-commercial use.

[W1GUH]

Thanks, Albi...sounds related to something that happened to me. I'll read through your post in more detail later.

What happened with me is that I saw the "Make boot [something or other -- disk?]" in the menus and thought that it'd be far easier to boot Linux off an external hard drive, and switch between Linux and (Argh!) windows that way, rather than swapping the internal hard disk. But something happened (I think) while writing the file. It seemed to hang, doing nothing, for a long time, so I "cancelled." The state in which that left my computer was that now...if that external disk is plugged in, the computer insists on booting from it, rather than giving me an option. But there no image, so it can't. That's the part that sounds similar. If I unplug that disk, all's cool.

(Not a request for help....yet. This is something I want to try to fix from scratch.)

There's some hints about that in your post.

Also a hint about 32/64 bit installs. I have no idea which I did -- in my haste (probably) I didn't notice that option. Guess I'll retrace my steps to resolve this.

In any event, the time and effort I've invested in Linux has been very well spent. I'm loving using Linux, and will probably eventually try all flavors.

[W3MIV]

I have been doing a bit of research into the advantages (real or imagined) between the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors of Ubuntu. The consensus is that the 64-bit offers NO real advantage unless you are using software that is heavy into number-crunching. In fact, several forum contributors have cautioned that the 64-bit variant may be short of some needed drivers or utilities for which only 32-bit iterations are available.

I swapped out the 32-bit for the 64-, and I have found no flaws (other than the "sleep" issue, which I mention in another thread (http://forums.hamisland.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9789&p=183065#p183065), which seems to affect both flavors if the forum gurus (and my own experience) is to be believed.

I went with the 64-bit only because I am using a 64-bit AMD system and naively figured it would be a better match to the hardware. Such is the depth of my knowledge! :shhh

[WØTKX]

I went through the same hassle Albert, and reloaded the 32 bit version myself.

Screwed it up again (accidentally on purpose) and need to reinstall it. :roll:

[ad4mg]

I have been doing a bit of research into the advantages (real or imagined) between the 32-bit and 64-bit flavors of Ubuntu. The consensus is that the 64-bit offers NO real advantage unless you are using software that is heavy into number-crunching. In fact, several forum contributors have cautioned that the 64-bit variant may be short of some needed drivers or utilities for which only 32-bit iterations are available.

I swapped out the 32-bit for the 64-, and I have found no flaws (other than the "sleep" issue, which I mention in another thread (http://forums.hamisland.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9789&p=183065#p183065), which seems to affect both flavors if the forum gurus (and my own experience) is to be believed.

I went with the 64-bit only because I am using a 64-bit AMD system and naively figured it would be a better match to the hardware. Such is the depth of my knowledge! :shhh
Interesting! My laptop has the AMD 64 bit architecture, but I opted for the 32 bit installation. I'm currently running 9.04 on that machine, and the sleep function works fine. I may just stay with 9.04 until they get the bugs worked out. My issue with that machine was with the SiS technologies chipset in the video controller. SiS refuses to play nice with Linux on drivers, so I had a hell of a time getting the resolution to match the ratio of the wide screen monitor. There should be a thread here where I listed the solution ... it involved using the open source SiS driver with the sisfb module, if I remember right.

The one machine I have here running 9.10 seems sluggish, especially the browser (Firefox). It's an older machine, 1.8 GHz Intel, 2 GB RAM, ATI 9200SE AGP4x graphics card. I had installed 9.04, and did an update with the 9.10 alternate Live CD. It ran great with 9.04 on it. Go figure ... oh yeah, sleep and hibernate are big problems on that one with any version of Ubuntu ... it has an ASUS MB in it (P4S533-X), a nice one, but they seem to cause issues with Ubuntu.

I take it you're frequenting the Ubuntu forums like I am? A wealth of information once you learn to wade through the search feature!