Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

5.10, 6.10 its close! You should have 1.18 which is a bit newer. You can check in synaptic with a search for ndiswrapper. Sorry about that.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Para, why did you edit out your post? I found the link, but you had some other stuff there. The ndiswrapper I have is 1.18, but according to this link the version I want is 1.5. Unless that's a misprint and they meant 1.05 or something, that's sounds newer than what I have.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Version 1.5 is from 2005-10-30 and 1.18 is 2006-06-22. After looking a while whoever made the ubuntu 6.10 ndiswrapper-utils also had trouble with looking at version numbers. XD
Did you install ndiswrapper-utils or ndiswrapper-utils-1.8?
bug

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I have:
ndiswrapper-common .............1.18-lubuntu2
ndiswrapper-utils .............1.1-5
ndiswrapper-utils-1.1 ..........1.1-5

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Yeah you want the 1.8 utils
run
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo apt-get install ndiswrapper-utils-1.8
sudo ndiswrapper-1.8 -i /path/to/inf/SiS163u.INF
sudo modprobe ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Ok, I didn't do that yet, but I've made some progress. I found a post one place stating the XP driver may not work and to try the other versions. I got the driver to install with no errors by using the Win2K driver instead of the XP driver. Here's what I get now...

lsusb
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0457:0163 Silicon Integrated Systems Corp.
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
ndiswrapper -l
Installed drivers:
sis163u driver installed, hardware present


It looks like progress to me, but I still cant' seem to figure out how to get the device to connect to my wireless network. And the led on the adapter isn't on. Any ideas?

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo depmod -a
sudo modprobe ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />
Then look at the end of /var/log/messages for errors. Then go into System - Administration - Networking and set stuff up. If all works run this to load the mod at startup:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo ndiswrapper -m
</pre><hr />

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Ok, didn't see any errors in the log file. But when I do this...
sudo ndiswrapper -m

I get this...
modprobe config already contains alias directive

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Look for ndiswrapper in the list
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>gedit /etc/modules</pre><hr />

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file contains the names of kernel modules that should be loaded
# at boot time, one per line. Lines beginning with "#" are ignored.

lp


That's all. Don't see ndiswrapper in it.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Open it again this time as super user:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>sudo gedit /etc/modules</pre><hr />
Add it at the bottom of the list and save like so:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file contains the names of kernel modules that should be loaded
# at boot time, one per line. Lines beginning with "#" are ignored.

lp
ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />

edit: Why o why has it taken to double spacing stuff inside code tags? It wasn't a few posts ago...

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Para, I owe you a beer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Wireless is workign great now. Thanks for all the help.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

No problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Wish I'd opened this last week; I have a brand new OEM copy of XP:Pro, still in the cellophane wrapper.

Oops,
TT

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

What? You could have used Linux instead? Or you would have bought a retail copy of XP at the higher price instead?

I'll take the XP package if you don't want to use it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Windows still has its uses. For a while, anyway.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Until April, 2014:
End of extended support for XP prof and home ... .

Lets hope Reactos and/or Linux are really usuable by then!

(and if anyone else has a wrapped version of XP prof lying around - I would be glad to help him getting rid of it ;-) )

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Heh, by 2014 we'll have mobile phones that can run XP fer cryin out loud, and a Vista machine would cost less than a grand. Still, I'm all in favour of the user-friendly Linux idea. That'd be sweet.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

A "vista machine" only costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 US, including the ability to run Aero.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Aero? Oreo? what do cookies have to do with vista?

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Give Microsoft Oreos and get Vista Aero

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

If you're ever thinking of experimenting with Ubuntu again there are usually three versions on the go. I think the current 6.10 (Feisty Fawn?) is the latest stable version. There may be an unstable beta and there's the first time installers friend 6.06LTS - the ultra stable version. The LTS is for long term support, which is to say they'll support the OS repositories not that you have to buy a support package off them. I never had a problem with 6.06 but 6.10 eventually got kicked off my second machine.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Thats a rather silly general statement isn't it? With all the computers between us (routers, modems, dns, shrapnel...) I'm guessing your computer is the only one running windows and at least one of them is running Linux.

I think what you're talking about is games. ReactOS, Wine and Cedega will always have trouble with newer Windows games. Not only is there a delay from waiting for the OS and game to be released before the work on compatibility can start but it takes longer to create that compatibility than the OS and game. A better solution is to make cross-platform software. Sadly cross-platform software is often avoided by developers because they see no immediate benefit because the small market. Users don't use alternative operating systems because their games won't run.

If the gaming communities only hope for another OS instead of contributing to one they will never have one.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I'm not seeing the advantage to running XP over the faster, more specialized operating systems phones use now.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I never said there'd be any advantage, only that it'd be possible.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Games is one issue, but Linux is simply a pain in the ***. The UI works all right, but it doesn't cover most essential functions, leaving only the command prompt and manually editing control files. Not a good thing. I shouldn't have to do that for basic tasks like installing drivers on a fresh machine..

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Personally, I don't understand what everyone's problem with XP is. I've never had any major difficulties with it that weren't my own fault for messing around with stuff I didn't understand at the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif No viruses, trojans, etc, no instability, nothing. Been a smooth ride for me ever since my first computer with Win 95 on it.

*(Now will probably have a rash of problems, after making the above statement!)*

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Everything Geo did can be done from one GUI or another that is installed by default. The command line is a very useful tool in getting people to do exactly what you want because the commands can be copy/pasted.
You should also keep in mind windows often looks to the manufacturer for drivers. If Trendnet would have made a driver for Linux and not Windows anyone using Windows with that hardware would be out of luck.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

XP has been quiet stable and decent for me as well. My only complaint is, as the thread title says, it's too expensive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

To be completely honest though I tried doing it using the GUI tools and it didn't work. Whether that is Linux's fault or my own I can't say, but it certainly wasn't as plug-and-play easy as XP.

Of course XP wouldn't be that plug-and-play easy if the hardware manufacturer hadn't spent the time and money to write a basically self-installing driver and included it in a CD with the adapter. And Linux could be if they would do the same for it. It's not an advantage of the OS per se as much as it is the fact that the hardware mfg did all the work for me.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Not talking about this specific case, just in general. Take the NVIDIA drivers, for example. Windows is download, double click. Linux is a hell of a lot more complicated.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Linux:
System -&gt; Administration -&gt; Synaptic Package Manager
Settings -&gt; Repositories
Select Proprietary drivers for devices (restricted) and close the Repositories menu
Edit Menu -&gt; Reload Package Information
Edit Menu -&gt; Mark All Upgrades... -&gt; Default Upgrade
Edit Menu -&gt; Apply Marked Changes
Edit Menu -&gt; Search nvidia
Select nvidia-glx, nvidia-kernel-common
Package Menu -&gt; Mark for Installation
Edit Menu -&gt; Apply Marked Changes
Exit Synaptic
Run gksudo nvidia-xconfig from the run dialog (alt-F2) or terminal (Applications -&gt; Accesories -&gt; Terminal)
Restart Gnome (Press 'Ctrl + Alt + Backspace' or sudo /etc/init.d/gdm restart from a terminal or System -&gt; Quit -&gt; Reboot)

Windows:
Open nvidia.com in your browser.
Goto DOWNLOAD DRIVERS.
Select Graphics Driver -&gt; Hope you know what your hardware is -&gt; Windows XP/2000 -&gt; Go!
Select a mirror and download to somewhere
Turn off AV (God knows where to do this its different for each one).
Start Menu &gt; Windows Control Panel &gt; Add/Remove Programs and search for "NVIDIA Windows Display Drivers" or "NVIDIA Display Drivers" and select remove.
Select the driver if you remembered where you downloaded it you impulsive fool.
Walk though the install (select next and accept a bunch of times).
Start -&gt; Turn Off Computer -&gt; Restart
Turn on AV.

I don't see one being much easier then the other.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

From what I've read about them, XP and Vista both include a number of "features" and deliberate design decisions which IMO are Bad Ideas. (Mostly involving security and DRM issues, which I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion of.)

I'm hoping to buy a used system in the near future, which is probably going to have XP already installed. I don't intend to connect it to the net until I've done some research on what settings I have to change to ameliorate the security problems.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

OK, now that you've struggled through a Linux install maybe you can answer some questions. I am about to buy some new HDs and try to setup a dual boot system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Does Linux still need a dedicated 'swap partition'? I'd like to know before I put the install disk in whether I should have reserved a few gigs for swap. And did you need to reconfigure and recompile the kernel to make it work or is this just an option? (How much of the stuff on the disk comes with source code? Basically everything? Or just the kernel and the little Gnu utilities?)

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Yes you want a swap partition. How large depends on how much ram you got and how much processing power. You usually want twice your ram.
You usually don't need to recompile the kernel though adding non-free graphics modules is pretty normal (aka nvidia driver).
Almost none of a debian (ubuntu) install is source though all the packages have source available in the repositories. Other distributions are called source based and install/compile everything from source like Gentoo.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Yeah, I'm still up in the air about which distro to use. Novell is in trouble with the OSS community, or I'd go with their very 'Windows friendly' package. Fedora is another possibility. I've heard both good and bad things about Ubuntu. The effort to make it 'easy' like Windows has apparently cut some corners.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

bah @ fedora. If you are concerned about Ubuntu, you could always go with Debian. Don't think you have to pick a distro and be stuck with it; play around for a while, see if it is for you, then decide whether to keep it or install something else. You can keep your /home partition separate so you don't lose some settings and such.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Yeah, if you have the bandwidth download a few livecds and see which ones you like. Out of the ones you like do some research on their installer and package manager.

Also keep in mind what the distribution has installed by default isn't set in stone. I'm still running Ubuntu when I am using very little of gnome. If I was to reinstall I would probably do a custom net install from the Debian unstable repositories but my environment is far from user friendly or commonly preferd.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

And keep in mind that Fedora/Red Hat has a really lousy package management system. Not even a decent Debian-like central repository. :-\

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Hmm, isn't Novell using SUSE Linux? What's the difference between Novell's branded version and SUSE 10.2 (which is the latest, I believe)? Being on dialup, I'm not going to download a bunch of .ISO images. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'll be going to a good source like cheapbytes.com and ordering CDs.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

SLE is aimed for businesses (lots of server support), openSUSE is aimed for everybody else. They both use YAST Package Manager which uses RPM (RedHat Package Managment) which most people agree stinks (certainly Debian users). They also can use Debian's APT (Advanced Package Tool - built off of dpkg) but don't do so for the default install.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

So you have to buy some 'derivative' distro to get the APT versions?

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Huh? With Ubuntu/Debian (free distros) its installed and used by default. SUSE can install it but it isn't there by default: howto

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Well, a 'package' has to be prepared in advance. So, it seems likely you'd need to have a distribution prepared with the different package manager. It sounds like you're talking about something other than the storage format for the applications.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Just some background info before I get to Suse..

A package manager is how you download and install software packages when you do not want to manually locate the source code on the net, compile it, then place the files in the necessary locations as per your distribution's file system scheme (which is somewhat standardized, but each distro has its own little tweaks). Most use of a package manager involves getting binaries directly, though it is possible to download things as source and still compile them yourself. The package will generally have a modified makefile with appropriate changes for the distribution, so it is still more automated than manual compiling.

In the Debian-based world, the fundamental package manager is apt (there are various GUI apps built off of it, but apt is the core). There are online package repositories available for each major apt-using distribution. These tend to have nearly every piece of linux software under the sun available and ready to install into the distribution. You use apt-search to look for packages, then apt-get to download and install them. You can also use apt to install a package you manually downloaded from some web site.

Then you have something like Red Hat's (or Fedora) RPM package manager, which (last I checked) only has the function to install package files you manually find on the net. There is not much in the way of a central online repository for competent ease of use.

For Suse, they seem to maintain their own package repositories already. OpenSuse 10.0 is already "prepared" to use apt. You do not need a "derivative" distribution of Suse to use it, you just need to install their version of apt and their sources file. You can just get OpenSuse 10.0 and download apt via YasT (as per the instructions on the site Parabolize linked). I have no idea how Suse' package repository compares to Debian or Ubuntu, though.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I believe Ubuntu uses Debian's apt, so technically those aren't separate items when discussing the package managers. That's my understanding anyway.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I believe that Ubuntu has its own package repositories.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I'm lost, what are we arguing about? Package managers and package repositories are related to each other (both having to do with software packages) but aren't the same thing. Both Debian and Ubuntu use apt as the package manager and both have their own repositories.
I'm not sure about apt being a fundamental or core package manager though. Wouldn't dpkg be the core package manager for Debian based distros?

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I wasn't aware that we were arguing; I thought we were just answering BM's questions?

apt, dpkg, whatever. I was just thinking in terms of aptitude and synaptics building off of apt.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

FWIW, my techie girlfriend recommended Ubuntu over Suse when I mentioned an interest in trying Linux. She didn't really elaborate on what she disliked about Suse; I got the impression that she mostly disliked the attitude of the people who put together the Suse distribution.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Heh...

Yes, Ubuntu is the 'vogue' right now because it's so much easier to install and use than many other distributions. But I am a techie myself, if a bit out of practice, and I want the extra widgets that come with the older distributions. Like source code. I'd probably go for Debian if it weren't so huge and covered so many CDs. I'll be trying to recompile Seamonkey with some advanced instructions (MMX for example) at the very least. Probably will go for a kernel recompile, too -- After I gain some confidence with the system.