0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

mandos · 2006-12-22 00:42:43

brain0 wrote:

mandos wrote:
beyond kernel is panicking (default kernel is still ok)
I tried to add earlymodules=piix, it didnt work!
That workaround is no longer needed/working for 0.8 systems, the installer makes sure that the correct modules are always loaded. It was only intended as a workaround for older systems, as the update to 2.6.19 unevitably switched from piix to ata_piix for those with Intel chipsets.
I think we need to make sure that people doing a 0.8 install don't get that message any more, somehow.
Can you provide more details about the beyond issue? Is it a 2.6.19 version?

I did a pacman -Sy, and pacman -S kernel26beyond
so yes, its the latest kernel (2.6.19)
then I added to menu.lst the options for the beyond kernel (the same as base kernel, just added the word beyond!)

Sadly I'm stuck in windows for some work I have to do, I'll try to give more info later tonight.

ps: I'll remember not to use "piix" any more, thanks

redge · 2006-12-22 01:07:53

There is some discussion about the experience that I have had with installing Voodoo, as well as my own experience with "earlymodules=piix", in posts 7 through 9 of the following thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=28038.

If anyone has a simple fix (or even thoughts about what is causing the different results from different installation options), I'm all ears

Best.

tbroderick · 2006-12-22 01:39:34

Been using another distro and just reinstalled Arch using the ftp-iso. Everything went fine for me.

astrocrep · 2006-12-22 01:40:38

Just installed 0.8 on my raid 0 array and everything went really well...

HUGE HUGE HUGE improvement in the installer from .72 to .8

Congrats!

-Rich

catweazle · 2006-12-22 11:43:20

I installed the 'current' ISO on my laptop (Dell Latitude C640, ICH3 bridge) and on my desktop (Dell Optiplex GX280, ICH6 bridge). On the laptop I also tried ide-legacy. All of it worked just fine. Great work!

scarecrow · 2006-12-22 13:17:30

Worked great here on an Intel 965/ Intel Core 2 Duo 6600/ Jmicron PATA/SATA controller/ nvidia GPU system. No hiccups at all.

mrvw0169 · 2006-12-22 16:33:55

Works fine here (Dell Inspiron 700m)! Refreshingly easy (even compared to other distros!) installation experience, esp. with the preconfiguration making sure everything works... No troubles with the change to pata from piix or otherwise here!

Thanks guys!

espo · 2006-12-22 18:11:09

Everythings went very well here with the arch64 bit iso on my shuttle xpc. Great work. Thx a lot.

Greetings
eSpo

detto · 2006-12-22 19:31:50

There seem to be pretty much changes and improvementes on 0.8 isos!

Can we expect a final 0.8 iso soon (like in some days?) , or should i install straight on from 0.8 alpha-iso?
Are any (big) changes planend for beta or rc or final iso?

Mr.Elendig · 2006-12-22 20:31:22

Since the alpha iso are working greate in most cases, I can't realy see any reason to wait for the final 0.8 iso.

And once the system is installed, it realy dosn't matter anymore what ethode of installation you used.

detto · 2006-12-22 20:34:08

That really makes sense. Think i just try it out and see if it works and take a look at the changelogs of isos. Thank you anyway

redge · 2006-12-23 04:38:40

Being a neophyte at this, I'm curious about this idea that 0.8 is ready, or close to ready, to go.

In the last few weeks, I've loaded about 10 Linux distributions onto the computer that I am interested in setting up with a Linux operating system. It is an IBM, Pentium III, 850MHz.

Every one of these distrbutions, with one exception, loaded and functioned without difficulty. The most recent, earlier today, was a developmental (i.e. not stable) version of Elive with Enlightenment 17, which is also in development. It loaded without a problem, and worked fine.

Arch Linux is the sole exception. On my computer, Voodoo loads with difficulty, and cleanly only in ide legacy fallback mode. Indeed, I had lots of kernel panic problems when I tried the pre-0.8 version. And I gather, looking at posts on this forum, that others also had problems loading the last version.

So I guess that my question is, do Arch users consider it a success when their distribution is incapable of doing what everyone else's distribution can do? Doesn't that suggest, on the contrary, that there is a problem with the distribution, maybe even quite a serious problem?

Best

iBertus · 2006-12-23 04:58:42

redge wrote:

...

/* customary Arch is not designed for the same users as most of those other distros response */

Arch Linux is by design a bleeding-edge distro with alot of experimental things enabled by default that other distros would not enable. This makes Arch better for the targer user and worse for those looking for GUIs that do everything and the most rock-solid stable releases.

redge · 2006-12-23 05:06:26

Hi iBertus,

I'm not talking about Graphic Interfaces.

I'm asking whether Arch users expect the base installation CD to successfully install a base operating system on an IBM computer with a Pentium III processor, especially given that everybody else's CD manages to do this.

It's that simple. It isn't a question about philosophy or user sophistication. It's a simple question about whether the people behind Arch Linux, and the users, think that an install CD is supposed to result in a normal boot. Not resolve fancy configuration issues, just provide a functioning base operating system.

Cheers.

redge · 2006-12-23 06:30:09

Hi Craft,

The fact is, the installation CD is pretty straightforward and has a limited number of options. It is pretty difficult to screw it up, and it either works or it doesn't. Especially if one has tried the potentially relevant options, among them an option suggested by one of the people of is responsible for developing Voodoo, and it still doesn't work, and that person doesn't, at least to this point, have a solution.

In the case of the computer that I am talking about, it hangs on a normal install, has a kernel panic on an ide legacy install and boots smoothly only on an ide legacy fallback install. And the problems are not just with Voodoo alpha, but with the current Arch Linux. In any event, my question was simply, how can people talk about Voodoo being ready when the installation CD gives questionable performance on an IBM Pentium III computer.

That's all. I didn't realize that asking that question would result in successive posts that, however one cuts it, are defensive, not to mention dismissive of others.

Cheers.

chrismortimore · 2006-12-23 06:32:54

redge wrote:

So I guess that my question is, do Arch users consider it a success when their distribution is incapable of doing what everyone else's distribution can do? Doesn't that suggest, on the contrary, that there is a problem with the distribution, maybe even quite a serious problem?

I feel the need to congratulate you. You have successfully managed to turn an honest question, with the potential for a bug report and the further betterment of Arch Linux, into a giant insult.

redge · 2006-12-23 06:40:33

One has got to be awfully defensive about Arch and/or have an awfully thin skin to consider that a 'giant insult". It is a serious, straight-up question.

judfilm · 2006-12-23 07:21:32

Had a strange one - Just did an ftp install, selected "base" packages minus lilo. Everything seemed to go fine (as usual). Once rebooted - nano and tar were not installed.

I'm checking to see if anything else is missing.

any ideas or maybe a one off?

nv · 2006-12-23 11:43:41

redge wrote:

Being a neophyte at this, I'm curious about this idea that 0.8 is ready, or close to ready, to go.
In the last few weeks, I've loaded about 10 Linux distributions onto the computer that I am interested in setting up with a Linux operating system. It is an IBM, Pentium III, 850MHz.
Every one of these distrbutions, with one exception, loaded and functioned without difficulty. The most recent, earlier today, was a developmental (i.e. not stable) version of Elive with Enlightenment 17, which is also in development. It loaded without a problem, and worked fine.
Arch Linux is the sole exception. On my computer, Voodoo loads with difficulty, and cleanly only in ide legacy fallback mode. Indeed, I had lots of kernel panic problems when I tried the pre-0.8 version. And I gather, looking at posts on this forum, that others also had problems loading the last version.

Either try the 0.7.2 installer, wait for the next installer beta or post some details about your problem so that the installer can be improved. Thanks.

So I guess that my question is, do Arch users consider it a success when their distribution is incapable of doing what everyone else's distribution can do? Doesn't that suggest, on the contrary, that there is a problem with the distribution, maybe even quite a serious problem?

Don't mix up 'the distribution' and the 'installer'. The Arch linux installer is indeed not perfect. I am not talking about the fact that it is a text-based installer. I have used Slackware for a long time, and the Slackware installer is IMHO much better. Still, a 'distribution' is made up of several components, e.g. the runlevel scripts, the package manager, the update policy and philosophy, the user support (forums/bugtrackers), and a thousand things more. If you are really interested in improving Arch, then please share your problems in a way that they can be resolved for other users as well.

Niklas.

detto · 2006-12-23 16:38:19

Just installed with 2nd alpha from 18.12. and have same problem/bug as judfilm: tar didnt get installed (deselected nano nevertheless) and am searching now for others :S

catweazle · 2006-12-23 17:31:54

redge wrote:

One has got to be awfully defensive about Arch and/or have an awfully thin skin to consider that a 'giant insult". It is a serious, straight-up question.

redge, you might have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. The current install ISOs are alpha, and the developers asked arch users willing to try it to report their experience, and in particular their problems, here. So if you have some trouble with the installation, please help and report what the problem is, along with your hardware configuration. ArchLinux has a rather small community, and it benefits from the feedback of its users. So it depends much on your attitude if Arch is the right distribution for you. If you prefer to get a perfectly working installation with no contribution ever needed from your side, one of the bigger distros might be better for you (but then you would miss all the goodies of Arch ) Please join in and help.

tpowa · 2006-12-23 18:17:17

you still can install with ide-legacy, thats fine then, the new installer only defaults to new experimental pata subsystem if your pata is broken what can happen since it has experimental status please use the old ide-legay stuff.
You are reporting kernel issues, that are not really solvable by us wihtout patches you find yourself on the net and give us more input, please open a bugreport that we can collect everything, thanks

fk · 2006-12-23 19:14:34

Just installed with 2nd alpha from 18.12. and have same problem/bug as judfilm: tar didnt get installed (deselected nano nevertheless) and am searching now for others :S

I have had these problem , now I have made a new install with the latest ISO, no problem, works

redge · 2006-12-23 19:50:09

In point of fact, I did share the problem, in detail. See the link in my first post in this thread to another thread, which talks in considerable detail about what the problem is.

With the greatest respect tpowa, it is a basic problem that has, as it turns out, a simple solution that is a lot less complicated than this:

"you still can install with ide-legacy, thats fine then, the new installer only defaults to new experimental pata subsystem if your pata is broken what can happen since it has experimental status please use the old ide-legay stuff.
You are reporting kernel issues, that are not really solvable by us wihtout patches you find yourself on the net and give us more input, please open a bugreport that we can collect everything, thanks"

In short form, here is the problem:
Standard installation, default boot: slow boot due to the sequence set out in the linked thread
Standard installation, fallback boot: slow boot due to the sequence set out in the linked thread
Arch ide-legacy installation, default boot: kernel panic
Arch ide-legacy installation, fallback boot: smooth except for a brief hang at udev

Having spent quite a lot of time on this, I now know what the solution is. First, here is what the solution is not:

If one installs arch on an intel computer and has a kernel panic, it is an error to assume the following:

First, that the on-screen recommendation to append "earlymodules=piix" works. It doesn't, as I discovered after wasting a lot of time trying it in various permutations, before coming across a post in this thread to the effect that it should no longer be in the documentation.

Secondly, that if you install arch ide-legacy, it will actually fix the problem. Because it won't. On a default boot, you will get a kernel panic, and on a fallback boot, you will get a 5 second or so hang at udev.

Instead, ignore the statement in the installation screen for Initramfs Config that says "Most of you will not need to change anything in this file." Go into the file anyway, where you will find, at the very end, on what is supposed to be an "ide-legacy" install, that HOOKS="base udev autodetect pata scsi sata filesystems". Replace pata with, guess what, ide.

The result is a clean boot, with no hesitation, both from default and fallback.

The point of my post was that I could not understand how people could be urging that this release be finalized when it won't install properly on a Pentium III computer. I suggested, and will suggest again, that this is basic. But if some people think that it is time to invite people to install this distribution, despite the fact that the installer contains misleading documentation, and that the ide-legacy option patently doesn't work, so be it.

Not only am I not negative about Arch, I have now spent quite a lot of time getting it to function. My point is that these kinds of problems don't need to exist, and that they shouldn't exist. From any objective point of view, it looks sloppy. I think that it is better to come to grips with these kinds of issues than to proclaim that everything is hunky dory, or to excuse basic problems on the ground that Arch is 'bleeding edge" (what, exactly, is bleeding edge about these kinds of errors?), or to blame the kernel and tell someone to go looking around the internet for a patch, or to start jumping on someone who has the temerity to suggest that it ought to be possible to install a basic system without running into completely unnecessary problems. And while it is true that 0.8 is alpha, it is my understanding that people have had similar problems trying to install the current distribution. It is way too easy to ignore, or paper over, problems like this, and blame potential users on the ground that they aren't clever enough.

When new users spend many hours resolving problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place, it raises a completely legitimate question about whether the people who are running the show know what they are doing. Some people may not want to hear that, but it is a fact, and one that needs to be faced. My gut feeling is that the biggest problem this distribution faces is that there is no emphasis on documentation. I have seen posts on this forum in which people have essentially objected to documentation on the ground that it will invite what they consider to be riffraff. Apart from the intellectual arrogance of that position, which has a tendency to blow up in one's face, the fact of the matter is that documentation imposes discipline that forces one to look at one's own product instead of writing off problems to the kernel or the perceived stupidity of others.

One of the participants in this thread has pointed out that the installer and the distribution are not the same thing. That's true, but it is beside the point. If the installer won't install the operating system, one is left with the old adage "100 per cent of nothing is nothing".

All this talk on the forum about "bleeding edge", invariably connected to a certain attitude towards others, reminds me of something. At one time, I had a coach who liked to tell us that we would do better if we concentrated on the fundamentals instead of trying to spend all of our time being fancy. I'd like to venture the opinion that a working, and properly documented, installer, is about as fundamental as one can get.

Best,

Rory

ravycavy · 2006-12-23 21:28:30

well not so positive over here.
When i boot the cd over here, the first screen i'm gettig is a grub error:
Error 23: error parsing number.

when i push enter i get a regular grub screen, and i've tried to edit the commands.
Because i think the cd entry isn't found. But when i use tab for auto completion it sais my only options are sd0 and fd0.
So my cd/dvd drive isn't listed. I think it has to do with the :evil: jmicron ide controller op my p965 motherboard (msi p965 platinum).
God i wich i bought a sata dvd-drive.

Arch Linux

#51 2006-12-22 00:42:43

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#52 2006-12-22 01:07:53

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#53 2006-12-22 01:39:34

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#54 2006-12-22 01:40:38

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#55 2006-12-22 11:43:20

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#56 2006-12-22 13:17:30

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#57 2006-12-22 16:33:55

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#58 2006-12-22 18:11:09

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#59 2006-12-22 19:31:50

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#60 2006-12-22 20:31:22

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#61 2006-12-22 20:34:08

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#62 2006-12-23 04:38:40

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#63 2006-12-23 04:58:42

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#64 2006-12-23 05:06:26

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#65 2006-12-23 06:30:09

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#66 2006-12-23 06:32:54

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#67 2006-12-23 06:40:33

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#68 2006-12-23 07:21:32

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#69 2006-12-23 11:43:41

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#70 2006-12-23 16:38:19

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#71 2006-12-23 17:31:54

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#72 2006-12-23 18:17:17

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#73 2006-12-23 19:14:34

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#74 2006-12-23 19:50:09

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

#75 2006-12-23 21:28:30

Re: 0.8 alpha/beta and final Voodoo installation feedback

Board footer