Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about using the other disc that
came with the machine, the one without the apps. So I had completely the
wrong idea of what you meant. Thanks.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:02 +, Tony Travis wrote:
> Rowan Berkeley wrote:
> > But I would have lost all my applic
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
> But I would have lost all my applications if I had done what Tony
> suggested earlier, here is what he said:
>
> "Did you try my advice of booting the kernel originally supplied by LC?
> [...]
Hello, Rowan.
No you wouldn't!
You can boot different kernels under the same '
Yes, both discs they supplied contain their non-default driver along
with all of the (otherwise standard) kernel components, but the one I
used also contains the applications, whereas the other doesn't.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 12:41 +, Sean Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rowa
Michael, I am actually using the new machine right now, with the updater
switched off. When this email came, I was just gonna go out and buy a
pack of blank CD/R-W's. But since you offer, a ready-burned copy would
be very nice.
As it happens, everything on this list gets crawled by Google, so I
sh
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rowan Berkeley
wrote:
> You see I did ask LinuxCertified about the two discs they supplied, and
> they confirmed that the one I have now used twice has all the
> applications, but the other one has none of them.
Be very interested to find out what this first disc
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Michael G Fletcher
wrote:
> Great! I think it explains where some of the frustration was creeping
> into the list from :-) Something we need to work on, making sure that
> advise is targeted with the correct background information. What many
> saw as simple is n
But I would have lost all my applications if I had done what Tony
suggested earlier, here is what he said:
"Did you try my advice of booting the kernel originally supplied by LC?
I don't think the 'restricted' drivers are the problem, it's the fact
that LC installed a non-standard kernel module f
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Rowan Berkeley
wrote:
> Indeed, I was laboring under a misconception there. It sounds quite
> straightforward, when you explain it like that ...
>
>
Great! I think it explains where some of the frustration was creeping
into the list from :-) Something we need to
I hadn't considered the LiveCD aspect... you are, of course,
absolutely right Michael. So there's no need for Rowan to even
install to prove that 8.10 brings up the network without any problems.
Sean
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.
Indeed, I was laboring under a misconception there. It sounds quite
straightforward, when you explain it like that ...
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 12:13 +, Michael G Fletcher wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rowan Berkeley
> wrote:
> > I wouldn't mind installing 8.10, and then I could run
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rowan Berkeley
wrote:
> I wouldn't mind installing 8.10, and then I could run all the updates as
> and when they appear, and enjoy all the cutting edge improvements. But
> it's true that I do not know whether the non-default interface driver
> was necessitated by t
Hello, Michael,
That's very nice of you to offer. You wouldn't want to come round here
though, this place is unbelievably horrible, believe me. It has serious
rising damp and galloping fungus mould all over the walls, and I am in
dispute with my landlords about it even as we speak, with the assist
I wouldn't mind installing 8.10, and then I could run all the updates as
and when they appear, and enjoy all the cutting edge improvements. But
it's true that I do not know whether the non-default interface driver
was necessitated by the particular interface card used by Compal, the
manufacturer of
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Rowan Berkeley
wrote:
> If all LinuxCertified did was buy a batch of snazzy Korean executive
> laptops, with Windows Vista already installed on them, and then install
> out-of-date and un-updatable versions of ubuntu on them, then tweak them
> to make it work as lon
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
> If all LinuxCertified did was buy a batch of snazzy Korean executive
> laptops, with Windows Vista already installed on them, and then install
> out-of-date and un-updatable versions of ubuntu on them, then tweak them
> to make it work as long as they weren't updated, then I
If all LinuxCertified did was buy a batch of snazzy Korean executive
laptops, with Windows Vista already installed on them, and then install
out-of-date and un-updatable versions of ubuntu on them, then tweak them
to make it work as long as they weren't updated, then I would be better
off without t
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> Good luck. Let us know if it does, and if it doesn't I'm sure we can help.
>
> _however_ the solution _even_ if you are on 8.10 _may_ well still
> involve downloading some source code and manually compiling it.
>
> Don't think that running the lat
2009/3/9 Sean Miller :
> If you take that to its logical conclusion then
> he'll never be able to upgrade anything in his life, which would be a
> shame... stuck with a Spring 2008 version for the rest of the
> machine's useful life...
>
Not true. You can't possibly know what extra versions LC wi
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> indeed it _should_). However, the fact still remains that he'll likely
> lose any support from LC.
Is that a bad thing? If you take that to its logical conclusion then
he'll never be able to upgrade anything in his life, which would be a
shame..
If I was running a consistent and up to date version of the OS, the
situation wouldn't arise in which I would be tempted to uncheck the
drivers updates option.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 09:19 +, Sean Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> > 2009/3/9 Sean Miller :
> >>
2009/3/9 Rowan Berkeley :
> I think Sean's approach is a lot more sensible for someone in my
> position than yours, Al: especially because he included the magic words,
> "It should detect all your hardware fine."
>
"_should_"
Good luck. Let us know if it does, and if it doesn't I'm sure we can he
2009/3/9 Sean Miller :
> Ah, hadn't spotted that... true...
> still am of the opinion, though,
> that if he's still at the stage where he can re-install (or "restore"
> or whatever) without losing things he'd do better with a more
> up-to-date, and "vanilla", install.
>
Sure, and I can understand
I think Sean's approach is a lot more sensible for someone in my
position than yours, Al: especially because he included the magic words,
"It should detect all your hardware fine."
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 07:36 +, Sean Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Rowan Berkeley
> wrote:
> >
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Sean Miller :
>> I will repeat my previous advice -- forget "restore disc", install
>> from 8.10 instead.
>>
>
> That wouldn't help in this case. If he was running 8.10 vanilla and
> unticked 'restricted' he'd end up in pretty much the sa
2009/3/9 Sean Miller :
> I will repeat my previous advice -- forget "restore disc", install
> from 8.10 instead.
>
That wouldn't help in this case. If he was running 8.10 vanilla and
unticked 'restricted' he'd end up in pretty much the same place. It's
not the install disc, it's the user that's at
2009/3/9 Rowan Berkeley :
> I gotta tell you, this is worse than I thought. I set the update manager
> to exclude "proprietary device drivers (restricted)" and allowed it to
That wasn't wise.
I'd recommend learning what things are before randomly unclicking them :)
> download and install everyth
On 09/03/09 07:22, Rowan Berkeley wrote:
> I gotta tell you, this is worse than I thought. I set the update manager
> to exclude "proprietary device drivers (restricted)" and allowed it to
> download and install everything else, and it again totally screwed up
> the machine, knocking out among othe
I'm getting less reluctant all the time!
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 07:36 +, Sean Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Rowan Berkeley
> wrote:
> > I gotta tell you, this is worse than I thought. I set the update manager
> > to exclude "proprietary device drivers (restricted)" and allow
Or, alternatively try the Jaunty (9.04) beta when it comes out on the
21st of March, if you aren't afraid of testing new things. Among other
things it should probably have improved hardware support.
Harry
Quoting Sean Miller :
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Rowan Berkeley
> wrote:
>> I go
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Rowan Berkeley
wrote:
> I gotta tell you, this is worse than I thought. I set the update manager
> to exclude "proprietary device drivers (restricted)" and allowed it to
> download and install everything else, and it again totally screwed up
> the machine, knocking
30 matches
Mail list logo
