I need to revisit that and update. The problem was an idiosyncrasy in earlier versions. Thanks.Could you explain why xorgwizard has to be entered twice?
Why one time is not enough?
Lucid Puppy 5.2.8 - Updated ISO Version 005 - APR 05 2012
Playdayz,
I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599
Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599
Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Playdayz,
I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599
Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
Also this info:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76516
I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599
Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
Also this info:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76516
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
- ASRI éducation
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Sat 09 May 2009, 12:10
- Location: France
- Contact:
This solution sounds interesting.bigpup wrote:Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
New version:
Mtpaint 3.44.03
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71332
Pburn 3.5.1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=23881
Pmusic 2.4.4-1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=31206
Right click options 5.9
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67013
Mtpaint 3.44.03
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71332
Pburn 3.5.1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=23881
Pmusic 2.4.4-1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=31206
Right click options 5.9
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=67013
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
The Future of Linux, never mind Puppy
A propos of the proliferation of both official and unofficial Puppies, and the effect this has had, and will have increasingly, on the range of applications, and the currency and quality of upgrades and of support, I today came upon the eloquent lament of an experienced and dedicated Linux user.
In it he says pretty much of the entire global Linux community what I've been observing of Puppy, especially in the past two years.
Some of you may find it of interest (if you can get past the title and look at the substance):
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/goin ... ndows.html
In it he says pretty much of the entire global Linux community what I've been observing of Puppy, especially in the past two years.
Some of you may find it of interest (if you can get past the title and look at the substance):
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/goin ... ndows.html
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
strange partition behaviour
Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.
The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.
When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.
Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.
To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.
Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.
When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.
Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.
To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.
Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
-
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue 09 Jun 2009, 21:06
bigpup wrote: Pmusic 2.4.4-1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=31206
I've updated Pmusic from 2.30 to 2.4.4-1 but now when I launch a music cd I don't get any track information(apart form the no.) or album artwork as before.
Anyone else see this?
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41
Re: strange partition behaviour
More info please! Where is lupu installed, sda3? Or did you boot from CD? What does Partview report? Or Pdisk? If Gparted has problems with the drive I'd begin to suspect a bad MBR, but remember it can take a long time to scan partitions when loading. First guess is that too many partition utilities have been fooling with your partition table (part of the MBR) and the whole disk will have to be wiped to get it straight, but again, not enough info to tell at this point.otropogo wrote:Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.
The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.
When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.
Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.
To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.
Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41
Re: strange partition behaviour
Don't know if it's Murga-linux or my wonderful satellite ISP but I wound up with a double post, sorry!
Bootflash
Bigpup brought this to Barry's attention and got a fix. Here it is. It is only useful or necessary for people using Bootflash to install to a usb stick.
Info -> http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02740
Bigpup brought this to Barry's attention and got a fix. Here it is. It is only useful or necessary for people using Bootflash to install to a usb stick.
Info -> http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02740
Re: strange partition behaviour
1. I run lupu from a LiveCD, with the lupusave file generally on the "b" hdd (which then is automounted as sdb2/home).kevin bowers wrote:More info please! Where is lupu installed, sda3? Or did you boot from CD? What does Partview report? Or Pdisk? If Gparted has problems with the drive I'd begin to suspect a bad MBR, but remember it can take a long time to scan partitions when loading. First guess is that too many partition utilities have been fooling with your partition table (part of the MBR) and the whole disk will have to be wiped to get it straight, but again, not enough info to tell at this point.otropogo wrote:Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.
The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.
When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.
Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.
To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.
Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
2. Pdisk /fdisk reports:
Pdisk/cfdisk reports:The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 30401...this is larger than 1024...and could cause problems with:
1)software that runs at boot time
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs
Partview reports only one partition for the 0 drive - "sda3"FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 2: Partition ends in the final partial cylind
Gparted (in lupu) does nothing when called from the start menu. This is the case whether asking it to review sda or sdb.
3. When booting from the Utilex rescue disk and running PartedMagic, both drives are scanned, no errors reported. And I was able to "successfully" delete two partitions, create a new ntfs partition, and increase the size of the remaining one "sda3" without apparent loss of data or other issues.
However, when I tried to install Win2K to the new ntfs partition at the beginning of hdd0/sda, it reported that the partition was "unformatted or damaged". More disturbingly, it also reported all of the fat32 partitions on both hard drives with the same words, and refuses to proceed with the installation unless I allow both drives to be fdisked....
(actually, when both drives are powered up, and I try to install to hdd0/sda, it demands permission to fdisk drive "D:" , its name for partition sdb2. When I remove sda, and try to install to unallocated space in sdb, it demands to fdisk drive "C:". The issue is complicated by the fact that it seems to be confused by the two drives, which are the same model, when both are present, listing both of them as primary drive 0 on Channel 0, IIRC. I'm not keen on experimenting with my data at stake, so this plan is on hold for now)
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Phantom Partitions
Hi otropogo,
If I recall correctly, I ran into something like that when I restructured my hard-drives. It may be caused by your SaveFile preserving images reflecting the settings you made before the change. Try Menu>Desktop>Desktop Drive icons manager, Uncheck "Tick box for drive icons on the desktop." Click OK. A reboot may be necessary. Then go back and check the box again so that it will show the icons.
Or I can be mis-recollecting, the result of wishful thinking.
mikesLr
If I recall correctly, I ran into something like that when I restructured my hard-drives. It may be caused by your SaveFile preserving images reflecting the settings you made before the change. Try Menu>Desktop>Desktop Drive icons manager, Uncheck "Tick box for drive icons on the desktop." Click OK. A reboot may be necessary. Then go back and check the box again so that it will show the icons.
Or I can be mis-recollecting, the result of wishful thinking.
mikesLr
Re: Phantom Partitions
mikeslr wrote:Hi otropogo,
If I recall correctly, I ran into something like that when I restructured my hard-drives. It may be caused by your SaveFile preserving images reflecting the settings you made before the change. Try Menu>Desktop>Desktop Drive icons manager, Uncheck "Tick box for drive icons on the desktop." Click OK. A reboot may be necessary. Then go back and check the box again so that it will show the icons.
Or I can be mis-recollecting, the result of wishful thinking.
mikesLr
Hi mikesLr
Yes, that works. Thanks.
No reboot necessary, only restarting X twice. Once after unchecking the idividual icons box, to remove the individual partition icons, leaving only a single one named "drive", and a second after ticking the box for individual icons.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
rpm/ epel repositories for Puppy?
Have been experimenting with CentOS 6.2 on my USB3.0 laptop booting from a USBflash installation on a 2GB thumb drive.
And after asking persistently on the CentOS6 forum for help in obtaining ntfs read-write capability (neither is available natively in CentOS6) was eventually offered fairly simple directions (after the usual stern lecture and extended study list) on achieving this:
1.
2.
3.
at each command, CentOS 6.2 went online, searched and tested the nearest repositories (sfu and telus) for availability and speed, chose the one to use, downloaded the package, installed it (with pauses for user confirmation), and at the end of the sequence, allowed me to mount my 3TB Goflex desktop drive with full read-write access on the USB3.0 port.
Is there any chance one of the Puppy versions could tap into this package management system?
And after asking persistently on the CentOS6 forum for help in obtaining ntfs read-write capability (neither is available natively in CentOS6) was eventually offered fairly simple directions (after the usual stern lecture and extended study list) on achieving this:
1.
Code: Select all
install epel-release
Code: Select all
yum install ntfs-3g
Code: Select all
yum install ntfsprogs ntfsprogs-gnomevfs
Is there any chance one of the Puppy versions could tap into this package management system?
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41
Re: strange partition behaviour
I haven't a clue why all the different partition managers are giving contradictory info, nor why gparted won't run. Maybe ask some of the big boys? I've had zero troubles with gparted for half a decade.otropogo wrote:Partview reports only one partition for the 0 drive - "sda3"FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 2: Partition ends in the final partial cylind
Gparted (in lupu) does nothing when called from the start menu. This is the case whether asking it to review sda or sdb.
3. When booting from the Utilex rescue disk and running PartedMagic, both drives are scanned, no errors reported. And I was able to "successfully" delete two partitions, create a new ntfs partition, and increase the size of the remaining one "sda3" without apparent loss of data or other issues.
However, when I tried to install Win2K to the new ntfs partition at the beginning of hdd0/sda, it reported that the partition was "unformatted or damaged". More disturbingly, it also reported all of the fat32 partitions on both hard drives with the same words, and refuses to proceed with the installation unless I allow both drives to be fdisked....
(actually, when both drives are powered up, and I try to install to hdd0/sda, it demands permission to fdisk drive "D:" , its name for partition sdb2. When I remove sda, and try to install to unallocated space in sdb, it demands to fdisk drive "C:". The issue is complicated by the fact that it seems to be confused by the two drives, which are the same model, when both are present, listing both of them as primary drive 0 on Channel 0, IIRC. I'm not keen on experimenting with my data at stake, so this plan is on hold for now)
I recommend you back up your valuable data, either on at least two other HDDs or two sets of archive-quality DVDs. This is a good idea anytime but I consider it mandatory before installing OSs or editing partitions.
Windows installers (or any others I know about) won't install to unallocated space; they need a partition in place. Some will partition the space with permission, some will repartition the entire drive without asking, some must have a partition in place before the installer starts.
If the Win2k installer is confused by the two near-identical drives, simply remove one beforehand, and reinstall it later. Simply unplugging it will do the trick if you're not screwdriver-friendly. You already found out how to redo the desktop icons in Puppy; If Windows doesn't do it automatically there is an admin tool called "drive manager" that will get Windows to recognize a new drive.
Lots of luck!
Re: strange partition behaviour
I've got two Win2K reference books here that touch on installation issues (two more don't even mention installation). One actually mentions Partitioning, and even recommends partitioning and formatting beforehand with Partition Magic (which has never worked for me, but I do still have a disk around).kevin bowers wrote:...
Windows installers (or any others I know about) won't install to unallocated space; they need a partition in place. Some will partition the space with permission, some will repartition the entire drive without asking, some must have a partition in place before the installer starts.
If the Win2k installer is confused by the two near-identical drives, simply remove one beforehand, and reinstall it later. Simply unplugging it will do the trick if you're not screwdriver-friendly. You already found out how to redo the desktop icons in Puppy; If Windows doesn't do it automatically there is an admin tool called "drive manager" that will get Windows to recognize a new drive.
Lots of luck!
I may give that a try, and maybe Ranish, if PM doesn't work. It may be that the MBR is not to Win2K's liking, and needs to be replaced, which Ranish can sometimes accomplish.
I've already tried your second suggestion. It made no difference, except, as I mentioned IIRC, it then wanted to fdisk the C: drive. So maybe it has something against only Drive 1, not Drive0. But I don't want to risk it.
I also don't want to back up 160GB of stuff over USB2.0, never mind burning it to DVD! In the latter case, I might as well just bury it, as I'll never find time to sort it out again.
Well, let's see. realistic USB2.0 throughput is probably an average of 2MB/sec or 7GB per hour (unless you're coping thousands of small files, when it can easily sink to 700KB/s). So 160GB would take some 23 hours to copy.
Maybe I'll try it with just the one drive's 90GB of data, and remove the other drive for the install attempt. But it won't be today or tomorrow.
BTW, the desktop scheme didn't do a complete job. My sole partition on sda is still numbered "3" on both the desktop and in Pmount. Which doesn't make sense to me.
But then, I also miss MUT's ability (in earlier Puppies, not anymore) to display the size of the swap file. Pmount doesn't show it at all.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Yes, I am seeing this too.Brown Mouse wrote:bigpup wrote: Pmusic 2.4.4-1
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=31206
I've updated Pmusic from 2.30 to 2.4.4-1 but now when I launch a music cd I don't get any track information(apart form the no.) or album artwork as before.
Anyone else see this?
This may not be a good update, but only way to know is try it.
I am seeing other problems.
Like change the view, and there is no way to change back, that I can find, on some of the optional views.
I am going to post about this on the Pmusic topic.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)