no graphical install!

arjun · 2005-07-19 03:49:22

Hello everyone. My problem is that whenever i run a file (specifically a .run file) I don't get a graphical interface; i get an interface in the console. For example, installing the new ati drivers with the "graphical" installer gave me a text based interface. Same thing happens with enemy-territory. I'm using a custom 2.6.11.12 kernel to avoid probelms with the ati installer (it does not like 2.6.12.x). I don't think that the kernel is the issue because I was using the same kernel yesterday before i formatted my HD and the graphical installation worked as expected. perhaps I'm missing some third party package?

Arjun

phrakture · 2005-07-19 04:01:59

so what? does it install fine?

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-07-19 10:43:20

giggle

noamsml · 2005-07-19 10:54:03

have you tried installing GTK2?

iphitus · 2005-07-19 10:59:18

or GTK1, which many installers use.

arjun · 2005-07-19 13:22:53

thanks for the replies. I'l install GTK1 and 2. I thought they would have been apart of the gnome package. And yes, i do need the graphical install because I'm a picky bastard who likes his eye candy

arjun · 2005-07-19 13:32:10

OKay, gtk and gtk2 were both already installed so that's not the problem...

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-19 13:35:58

The text-based interface probably is the "graphical" one... I'll bet it's ncurses-based, and will respond to your mouse.

Cerebral · 2005-07-19 14:30:58

Actually, the ATI graphical installer is X based... or, at least, the new one's supposed to be. There's screenshots and everythang.

arjun · 2005-07-19 19:49:14

I've aleady installed it once before (same OS and kernel) with a graphical interface. Perhaps i should reinstall arch?

arjun · 2005-07-20 15:31:55

I reinstalled arch with KDE this ime instead of GNOME which i was using previously. I'm still not getting a graphical interface. This is really awkward because i was getting a graphical interface 4 days ago.

phrakture · 2005-07-20 15:40:54

arjun wrote:

I reinstalled arch with KDE this ime instead of GNOME which i was using previously. I'm still not getting a graphical interface. This is really awkward because i was getting a graphical interface 4 days ago.

Instead of trying random things like reinstalling, why don't you go to the websites that distribute these installers, check the requirements for the graphical part, and make sure you have it installed?

from the ati install instructions:

To install the ATI Proprietary Linux driver using the Automatic option, follow these steps:
1. Launch the Terminal Application/Window and navigate to the ATI Proprietary Linux driver download.
2. Enter the command ./ati-driver-installer-8.14.13.run to launch the ATI Proprietary Linux driver installer. The ATI Proprietary Linux Driver Setup dialog box is displayed.
Note: You must be logged in with super user privileges in order to successfully install the ATI Proprietary Linux driver.

arjun · 2005-07-20 22:32:55

I've done all that. As I stated before, the installer worked perfectly fine only days ago. I can't think of any differences between my current arch installation and my previous arch installation where the installer worked a expected.

iBertus · 2005-07-21 06:07:04

Just downloaded and tried out the installer. I'm not using an ATi card so I didn't go alway though with it but did get a text based interface. I installed GTK1 and the interface was graphical. I'm not using GNOME or KDE either one. I'm assuming your running this from some terminal program like aterm or gnome-terminal?

iphitus · 2005-07-21 07:39:22

Just use the text based interface, it wont kill you, and the GUI certainly isnt worth reinstalling your system for.

Algol · 2005-07-21 09:05:01

If you're running it as root, it might have to do with the fact that root doesn't have permission to open up new windows in your user run X. Try alt-f2, kdesu konsole, and run it from there.

iBertus · 2005-07-21 13:14:24

iphitus wrote:

Just use the text based interface, it wont kill you, and the GUI certainly isnt worth reinstalling your system for.

I would agree. Let's face it - you're only going to see that UI for what... maybe 90 seconds! Either way, it's still a helluva lot better than what you had back when I used an ATI.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-07-21 13:25:52

... what an effort to just see in gui what you can see in textmode, 2.

can't believe one would even consider to reinstall the complete system ...

arjun · 2005-07-22 02:43:56

I'm not paranoid but I do like things to work the way they are intended to work . Also the reinstall was necessary because i needed re-divide my partitions.

By the way; thanks a million Algol; it worked!

iphitus · 2005-07-22 11:24:19

arjun wrote:

I'm not paranoid but I do like things to work the way they are intended to work . Also the reinstall was necessary because i needed re-divide my partitions.
By the way; thanks a million Algol; it worked!

If there's a text based install, it was intended to work text based too

stavrosg · 2005-07-22 14:31:34

arjun wrote:

I'm not paranoid but I do like things to work the way they are intended to work . Also the reinstall was necessary because i needed re-divide my partitions.

You don't need a reinstall for such a task; just space to put some large tarballs.

arjun wrote:

By the way; thanks a million Algol; it worked!

I usually use sudo <such-and-the-other> for this, OR make my X server accept windows from everyone in the pc. (xhost +localhost IIRC)

Algol · 2005-07-22 22:38:52

I think we all know how it is to have an itch to scratch, and not being able to fix it.

You know it *should* work, and yet it doesn't.
It doesn't really matter if you can solve it another way, or if you even really need to solve it at all... It's itching and it's driving you crazy.

While a total reinstall might be a little drastic, even if it doesn't cure the itch, at least you're scratching.
I completely understand ^^

Glad my guess could help,

cheers!

Arch Linux

#1 2005-07-19 03:49:22

no graphical install!

#2 2005-07-19 04:01:59

Re: no graphical install!

#3 2005-07-19 10:43:20

Re: no graphical install!

#4 2005-07-19 10:54:03

Re: no graphical install!

#5 2005-07-19 10:59:18

Re: no graphical install!

#6 2005-07-19 13:22:53

Re: no graphical install!

#7 2005-07-19 13:32:10

Re: no graphical install!

#8 2005-07-19 13:35:58

Re: no graphical install!

#9 2005-07-19 14:30:58

Re: no graphical install!

#10 2005-07-19 19:49:14

Re: no graphical install!

#11 2005-07-20 15:31:55

Re: no graphical install!

#12 2005-07-20 15:40:54

Re: no graphical install!

#13 2005-07-20 22:32:55

Re: no graphical install!

#14 2005-07-21 06:07:04

Re: no graphical install!

#15 2005-07-21 07:39:22

Re: no graphical install!

#16 2005-07-21 09:05:01

Re: no graphical install!

#17 2005-07-21 13:14:24

Re: no graphical install!

#18 2005-07-21 13:25:52

Re: no graphical install!

#19 2005-07-22 02:43:56

Re: no graphical install!

#20 2005-07-22 11:24:19

Re: no graphical install!

#21 2005-07-22 14:31:34

Re: no graphical install!

#22 2005-07-22 22:38:52

Re: no graphical install!

Board footer