|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > October 2006 > Is it possible to install Ubuntu on my Compaq?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is it possible to install Ubuntu on my Compaq?
|
|
| Peter J Ross 2006-10-25, 1:16 am |
| Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
| |
| Gordon 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Peter J Ross wrote:
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
Absolutely. Have you run the Live CD to check all your hardware etc works
first?
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely. Have you run the Live CD to check all your hardware etc works
> first?
1 second with google had this as the first link : "compag dual boot ubuntu"
http://www.akshaymehta.com/2006/09/...o-v3000-series/
The question is : does ME do anything different with regard to booting?
A quick google suggest 98SE works fine:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/archive...p/t-196614.html
so I guess one can infer that ME will be ok too.
The big question is "Why ME"? Windows ME is about as bad as any OS can
be : buggs, insecure etc etc. Why compromise your HW with ME? Get XP on
it - much safer.
COLA say no to "Win ME" but YES to "ME too".
| |
|
| Peter J Ross wrote:
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
>
Another day another troll
| |
| Gordon 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Hadron Quark wrote:
> Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>
>
> 1 second with google had this as the first link : "compag dual boot
> ubuntu"
>
>
http://www.akshaymehta.com/2006/09/...o-v3000-series/
>
> The question is : does ME do anything different with regard to booting?
> A quick google suggest 98SE works fine:
>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/archive...p/t-196614.html
>
> so I guess one can infer that ME will be ok too.
>
> The big question is "Why ME"? Windows ME is about as bad as any OS can
> be : buggs, insecure etc etc. Why compromise your HW with ME? Get XP on
> it - much safer.
>
> COLA say no to "Win ME" but YES to "ME too".
Why are you telling me this?
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> http://www.akshaymehta.com/2006/09/...o-v3000-series/
>
> Why are you telling me this?
Telling you what? It wasn't directed at you - it was adding some info for
the OP. It's called a thread. But rather than say "absolutely" I also
added some factual links. relax.
| |
| Dennis M. Hammes 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Peter J Ross wrote:
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
>
System Commander will install, and menu boot to, just about anything.
It has one problem with DOS/Win95-98 in overwriting CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT for all installs to the one with the latest date --
which Billy seems to have caused deliberately by redating those files
on startup. Win NT (incl 2000 and ME) writes an empty CONFIG.SYS
that performs the same screwjob on real CONFIGs.
S.C. also has a "small" version of Partition Commander allowing
repartitioning without loss of extant data, however it will only
format FAT-16 and FAT-32; your o/s must format anything else.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org
| |
| Leythos 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| In article <1161753788.480877.186970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
sean.monaghan2@gmail.com says...
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
I have a nice laptop that I was testing Ub on, it didn't include WPA,
only WEP, so I abandoned it and went back to FC5.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| |
| Barbara's Cat 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> said:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely. Have you run the Live CD to check all your hardware etc works
> first?
____
/\| ~~\
/' | ,-. `\
| | X | |
_|________`-' |X
/' ~~~~~~~~~,
/' ,_____,/_
,/' ___,'~~ ;
~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~|--- / X,~~~~~~~~~~~~,
| | | XX'____________'
| | /' XXX| ;
| | --x| XXX,~~~~~~~~~~~~,
| | X| '____________'
| o |---~~~~\__XX\ |XX
| | XXX`\ /XXXX
~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~' `\xXXXXx/' \XXX
/XXXXXX\
/XXXXXXXXXX\
/XXXXXX/^\XDCAU\
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
--
Cm~
Mousy Tom Bishop LARTed me
for "moronic harassment".
You can't see this post.
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-25, 7:13 am |
| Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> writes:
> In article <1161753788.480877.186970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> sean.monaghan2@gmail.com says...
>
> I have a nice laptop that I was testing Ub on, it didn't include WPA,
> only WEP, so I abandoned it and went back to FC5.
Dapper includes "network manager" which is supposed to work with
WPA. Unfortunately it doesnt adhere or work alongside the more
traditional /etc/networks/interfaces file - I couldnt get it working at
all either on my desktop or my portable. The networkmanager web site
reveals a ton of bugs waiting to be fixed.
| |
| Daedalus 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:26:14 GMT, jason <me@invalid.address.com>
wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>Another day another troll
Yup. Trolls suck.
Jade
| |
| arachnid 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:30:27 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> writes:
>
>
> Dapper includes "network manager" which is supposed to work with WPA.
> Unfortunately it doesnt adhere or work alongside the more traditional
> /etc/networks/interfaces file - I couldnt get it working at all either on
> my desktop or my portable. The networkmanager web site reveals a ton of
> bugs waiting to be fixed.
It works great for me. Did you install network-manager or
network-manger-gnome?
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| arachnid <none@goawayspammers.com> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:30:27 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
> It works great for me. Did you install network-manager or
> network-manger-gnome?
>
network-manager-gnome which installs network-manager.
I'll stick with what I have now : the mail-list archives show I'm not
alone. I'll wait until its more stable.
--
Call for details.
| |
| Peter J Ross 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:48:20 -0400, Daedalus <jade@netk00ks.org> wrote
in alt.os.linux.debian:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:26:14 GMT, jason <me@invalid.address.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Yup. Trolls suck.
This one certainly does.
FOB.
PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ | The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no Cabal."
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, | FSM: <http://www.venganza.org/>
/ (`---'\ `-. | AUK: <http://www.netcabal.com/auk/>
,-` _) (_, F_P | PJR: <http://insurgent.org/~pjr/>
| |
| Peter Köhlmann 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| arachnid wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:30:27 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
> It works great for me. Did you install network-manager or
> network-manger-gnome?
You can't earnestly expect Hadron to change his non-working situation. How
would he be able to moan and XXXXX about linux then? You know, he *loves*
linux. He exclusivly works with linux and uses windows only for games.
So he tells us. He is also a "kernel hacker"
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity
| |
| Leythos 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| In article <pan.2006.10.25.14.56.02.969938@goawayspammers.com>,
none@goawayspammers.com says...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:30:27 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
> It works great for me. Did you install network-manager or
> network-manger-gnome?
I did a base installation without really picking anything. Why would I
want to only have WEP, it's not secure and for years we've all been
saying that WEP is no a good option - I would have expected that WPA
would have been the default.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| |
| Linonut 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> I did a base installation without really picking anything. Why would I
> want to only have WEP, it's not secure and for years we've all been
> saying that WEP is no a good option - I would have expected that WPA
> would have been the default.
Why? Not even the wireless routers themselves default to WPA.
--
"It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly,
so you should look into that." -- Bill Gates, FOCUS interview
http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
| |
| AJackson 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| Hadron Quark wrote:
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> writes:
>
I had my old computer dual booted with a Debian distribution alongside
a MS Windows Millenium Edition. But the problem was that it (MS
Windows ME) trashed my Debian partition two times, so I bought and
installed another disk for Debian. After that, it went real ok. If it
wasn't for modem support was so bad back then (WinModems), I would have
removed MS Windows ME long time ago, even back then (arond 2001?).
[vbcol=seagreen]
Haven't tried with WPA, so I cant say.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dapper includes "network manager" which is supposed to work with
> WPA. Unfortunately it doesnt adhere or work alongside the more
> traditional /etc/networks/interfaces file - I couldnt get it working at
> all either on my desktop or my portable. The networkmanager web site
> reveals a ton of bugs waiting to be fixed.
Network Manager works great, for computers that moves around, like lap
tops.
Just remove network interfaces that you want to be handled by Network
Manager from /etc/network/interfaces. But for stational computers,
like servers, you shouldn't run with Network Manager, just plain old
good /etc/network/interfaces. You don't want to have network access
started after you logged in through your GUI. :-/
| |
| Leythos 2006-10-25, 1:23 pm |
| In article < 7eudnYhgn7iIPaLYnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
linonut@bone.com says...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
> Why? Not even the wireless routers themselves default to WPA.
Have you not read anything on wireless security in the last two years?
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| |
| Linonut 2006-10-25, 7:12 pm |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> In article < 7eudnYhgn7iIPaLYnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> linonut@bone.com says...
>
> Have you not read anything on wireless security in the last two years?
Think about it. Why should the host computer default to a setting not
supported by default in a wireless router? A sure way to get a flood
of support calls.
--
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists,
volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital
rights. -- http://www.eff.org/
| |
| Linonut 2006-10-25, 7:12 pm |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, AJackson belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
> Haven't tried with WPA, so I cant say.
>
>
> Network Manager works great, for computers that moves around, like lap
> tops.
> Just remove network interfaces that you want to be handled by Network
> Manager from /etc/network/interfaces. But for stational computers,
> like servers, you shouldn't run with Network Manager, just plain old
> good /etc/network/interfaces. You don't want to have network access
> started after you logged in through your GUI. :-/
I'll have to try Network Manager. I couldn't get wpa_supplicant to stop
connecting to the first router it found, usually /not/ the one I wanted
to connect to.
Right now, I just run a home script or a work script after booting.
I run it after I log into my GUI. :-D
--
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists,
volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital
rights. -- http://www.eff.org/
| |
| Leythos 2006-10-25, 7:12 pm |
| In article < FdWdnQMABPIsVaLYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
linonut@bone.com says...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
> Think about it. Why should the host computer default to a setting not
> supported by default in a wireless router? A sure way to get a flood
> of support calls.
What the heck are you talking about - almost every router produced in
the last two years has WEP and WEP and for the last two years every
security expert has been stating that people should not use WEP, that
they should use WPA.
Why would the driver not default to having both OPTIONS available?
Most Wireless drivers for cards allow the user to pick/support WEP AND
WPA, the default install of Ub doesn't include WPA support, which seems
a little lame.
What about all the people that don't install Wireless routers withe the
default NO-Security, so that everyone in the area can't connect, that
use WPA because it's been the norm for secure networks for years - what
about all the support calls from those people?
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| |
|
| On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:23:08 -0700, Peter J Ross wrote:
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
Very likely.
| |
|
| On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:23:08 -0700, Peter J Ross wrote:
> Can I dual boot it with Windows Millenium?
For real?? I have installed Ubuntu on six Compaqs so far with no
difficulty. It may depend on exact model, but most likely it will be a
piece of cake.
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
| Linonut <linonut@bone.com> writes:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
> Why? Not even the wireless routers themselves default to WPA.
Huh? They default to nothing usually.
--
Call for details.
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
| ray <ray@localhost.localdomain> writes:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:23:08 -0700, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>
> For real?? I have installed Ubuntu on six Compaqs so far with no
> difficulty. It may depend on exact model, but most likely it will be a
> piece of cake.
>
Is this another forging?
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
| Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> writes:
> arachnid wrote:
>
>
> You can't earnestly expect Hadron to change his non-working situation. How
> would he be able to moan and XXXXX about linux then? You know, he *loves*
> linux. He exclusivly works with linux and uses windows only for games.
>
> So he tells us. He is also a "kernel hacker"
Peter, as usual, wets his panties when someone suggests to someone else
to be "careful" because even Linux has bugs.
He is so sad it beggars belief.
--
Call for details.
| |
| Your Sugir 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
|
"Hadron Quark" <qadronhuark@geemail.com> wrote in message news:87vem8byw7.fsf@geemail.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>
What a moron... Asking peewee tech questions.
Nothing like idiocy..
"How many days would it take to write Linux
in Visual Basic" ??? Pant pant...???
--
-------------------------------------------
AJ - http://ClitIn.Com e In.
(800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE,
Usenet Porn.)
| |
| Your Sugir 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
|
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:lDH%g.18678$Cq3.15079@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <1161753788.480877.186970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> sean.monaghan2@gmail.com says...
>
> I have a nice laptop that I was testing Ub on, it didn't include WPA,
> only WEP, so I abandoned it and went back to FC5.
What the XXXX are you talking about, and does anyone care?
--
-------------------------------------------
AJ - http://ClitIn.Com e In.
(800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE,
Usenet Porn.)
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
| |
| Your Sugir 2006-10-26, 1:13 am |
| Mark conversation read...
--
-------------------------------------------
AJ - http://ClitIn.Com e In.
(800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE,
Usenet Porn.)
"Hadron Quark" <qadronhuark@geemail.com> wrote in message news:87wt6o63ak.fsf@geemail.com...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> writes:
>
>
> Dapper includes "network manager" which is supposed to work with
> WPA. Unfortunately it doesnt adhere or work alongside the more
> traditional /etc/networks/interfaces file - I couldnt get it working at
> all either on my desktop or my portable. The networkmanager web site
> reveals a ton of bugs waiting to be fixed.
>
| |
| Linonut 2006-10-26, 7:12 am |
| After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> What the heck are you talking about - almost every router produced in
> the last two years has WEP and WEP
You meant WPA. Sure, they have them, but (takes hammer to your head)
the default is NO SECURITY.
> and for the last two years every
> security expert has been stating that people should not use WEP, that
> they should use WPA.
>
> Why would the driver not default to having both OPTIONS available?
Now you've changed the terms of the argument, thus ending it.
> What about all the people that don't install Wireless routers withe the
> default NO-Security, so that everyone in the area can't connect, that
> use WPA because it's been the norm for secure networks for years - what
> about all the support calls from those people?
My god, computer types can be most obtuse!
--
Don't flip the Bozo Bit.
| |
| chrisv 2006-10-26, 1:12 pm |
| Hadron Quark wrote:
>Linonut <linonut@bone.com> writes:
>
>
>Huh? They default to nothing usually.
Huh? That's what he said, cretin.
| |
| Gordon 2006-10-26, 1:12 pm |
| Hadron Quark wrote:
> Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>
http://www.akshaymehta.com/2006/09/...o-v3000-series/[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Telling you what? It wasn't directed at you - it was adding some info for
> the OP. It's called a thread. But rather than say "absolutely" I also
> added some factual links. relax.
Then respond to the post you are replying to, not one you are NOT replying
to.
basic Usenet knowledge.
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-26, 1:12 pm |
| Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> http://www.akshaymehta.com/2006/09/...o-v3000-series/
>
> Then respond to the post you are replying to, not one you are NOT replying
> to.
> basic Usenet knowledge.
How about this : go boil your head you arrogant tit.
--
Call for details.
| |
| Hadron Quark 2006-10-26, 1:12 pm |
| Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@geemail.com> writes:
> Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:
>
>
> How about this : go boil your head you arrogant tit.
ps, also note the words "adding some info". There was nothing whatsoever
wrong with where I tagged on my REAL info after your fanboi "of course"
meaningless reply. Idiot.
| |
| Leythos 2006-10-26, 1:12 pm |
| In article < w5GdnQvlVIy6P93YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
linonut@bone.com says...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Leythos belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
> You meant WPA. Sure, they have them, but (takes hammer to your head)
> the default is NO SECURITY.
And the default is to warn people not to use NO security, unless you
like a lot of unsecured spots all over the place, and when we teach
people about security we always tell them to NOT use WEP.
>
> Now you've changed the terms of the argument, thus ending it.
No, I've clearly stated that the default driver did not include WPA
ability, that it should include it, and that if they are going to
include WEP they should also include WPA, by default.
>
> My god, computer types can be most obtuse!
I could say the same about people that don't understand the human side
of computing, that don't understand security, that completely miss the
point of having a secure network/device.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
| |
|
| On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:45:12 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> ray <ray@localhost.localdomain> writes:
>
>
> Is this another forging?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|