aRTee

Yeah, and the most important thing: enjoy Linux! :P

I'm still confused here, linux_learner, in that you state with certainty that: As for the number of options, I don't think that is relevant - it's all about essential and important options. And as for those, I don't think apt has any that urpmi (etc - I don't want to type urpmf/q/e etc the whole time, you get my drift) lacks. Anyway, as for number of options, if you want to go down that alley, I can count the number of options of apt and the number of options for urpmi(etc) and I'm sure the result will favour one or the other, but not in a meaningful way. If you state with certainty that apt is more powerful, I call you on it, and so far you have just shown that you don't really know in what sense. So all I can see is that you are repeating the words of those have intimate knowledge of apt, but don't know urpmi and therefore assume certain things. If you're so certain urpmi(etc) lacks options and so is less powerful, please tell us why. As for the points you make: I gotta admit, I don't know what rpmdrake does when you use it to upgrade, in the gui you can select what package you want to upgrade and it does just that, including dependencies - I don't use the cli for that, since I like to read the description etc, the gui is more convenient for that kind of browsing. Anyway, I think it's just a matter of: urpmi --update [packagename] to do it. So, there is no difference in functionality. Which you could easily have found in the FAQ. Next point: Howabout: --clean Remove all packages from the cache in directory /var/cache/urpmi/rpms. Straight from the FAQ, which I missed before when I hinted to use rm -f /var/cache/urpmi/rpms... So, again, no advantage to apt as opposed to urpmi. I don't see what you mean, I'm serious, not trying to wipe your argument from the table. What scenario are you hinting at? Why did the package get hosed on the installation, and what was the result? And in what way would apt be able to recover cleanly from that problem? It seems to me that if a package is broken (badly built, no proper dependency info inside, not offering the files it should or whatever) there's nothing that apt or urpmi can do. Please explain. You may well have a point here (in fact, it would be the only one you have, as far as I can see), and this may or may not be an important one. Lastly: I'm not (we're not?) just discussing with linux_learner, I'm trying to debunk all the wrong thoughts about apt vs urpmi, and that they are really equivalent, different, but both tools serve the same purpose and serve it well. In this case, it just happens to be linux_learner who's taking the stance of the apt favouring party - but don't hesitate to jump in if you have compelling arguments. I have seen many times that people say there is no equivalent to apt, but when asked why it's superior to tools like urpmi, in the end, it always turns out there is nothing really much better about apt, and the proponents have just not known about some urpmi feature and assumed it didn't exist, or not know about how urpmi works and therefore assumed that it's lacking (as with the --noclean vs clean options, different defaults, that's all). Sure, there may be some options that urpmi doesn't have, and the other way around. But on the whole, there is nothing essential or important missing from urpmi compared to apt, which is what your very first statement about options and 'more powerful' leads to believe. The only big thing that I can see about apt is where bvc mentioned it's capable of installing from source. Well, on mdk that's just not in the cards for urpmi, you have to get the srpm and rebuild it. But the whole idea of a packaging distro is that all desired packages are there for the user, no compiling involved. If not, it's better to move to portage/emerge straight away. And as for our discussion, you, linux_learner, never mentioned that point, so I guess that's not what you meant when you stated that apt is more powerful.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Finally something there to rebut. apt-get upgrade <packagename> = urpmi doesnt seem to have this Why not? If you use 'urpmi --upgrade', that's what you get. Note: urpmi will normally get tthe latest package with a certain name, unless you specify the older name exactly. apt-get clean = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have this apt-get autoclean (a variation of clean) Nope, true. The normal behaviour is to clean up. If you want the mdk equivalent of this, howabout: rm -f /var/cache/urpmi/rpms/* Like I stated, urpmi downloads in sets, and installs those. If there is an issue (broken mirror or whatever), the whole set won't get installed. So urpmi doesn't need this, unless I misunderstood. we all know some times durring installation a package will not install right (break). this does occur in urpmi. Actually, no, I don't know this. And if things don't install it's because either the mirrors are not updated, or the database of installable packages (hdlist) has to be updated. Or dependencies are not properly indicated in the rpm/hdlist... although then it does install but just not run (properly). It's not so clear to me what the -f option does, and I wonder if it can really fix things. So I still have the feeling that when you say: "apt is more powerful" and "has more options" you are just repeating things, but up to now you can't seem to repeat what exact options and features those are. Let's get back to the initial idea of this thread/topic: Mandrakelinux getting apt or not - and the ensuing discussion: should Mdk move to apt instead of urpmi. I have yet to see a compelling technical argument to do so. And please don't point to the apt manpage or websites, you were quite firm in your statement, so I take that to imply that you know exactly what makes apt more powerful and option/feature rich.

About me shouting RTFM this is not the standard RTFM to tell people to find their own answer. I just didn't feel like having to refute all the apt commands point by point by indicating the urpmi/f/q/e equivalent. Please read the first post of linux_learner in this topic - and sequential ones. He's basically telling me and others who don't agree with him to read all kinds of links, the faq of the apt4rpm site, and pages linked through that. I went there and read all that. And wasted my time in doing so. Then I concluded that he was wrong, so I returned the suggestion in kind. To all useful apt commands there is some equivalent in apt-less systems. And my question to linux_learner and all others is: if you disagree, please tell me which command or feature urpmi (and consorts) is missing. I'm not attacking anyone in person here (and I don't think linux_learner took it that way, I just asked in a less practical way what adamw said more clearly and concisely: Please don't point to manpages, if you're so sure that apt4rpm or apt sport important features that urpmi doesn't offer, and these make apt(4rpm) more powerful, as you wrote with high certainty: so it should be so much work to indicate these more powerful options?If you can't indicate what you think are the more powerful options of apt, then I call you on it that you are just repeating hearsay. That's all - nothing personal, but as has been said before, lots of people are still down the old alley that apt is superior, as things once where. I don't take issue with you, but I do with those statements. If you state that, than please back it up with an example, or mention that you are just repeating something from a knowledgeable source. In either case, there will be something that we can try to refute and if we can't, then the statement stands. For now, there is just an empty statement without any precise backing. My statement: in no relevant way is urpmi (and related tools) missing anything essential, compared to apt/apt4rpm. Your turn to give an example of what cannot be done with urpmi that apt can do.

Please don't give me a list of options like in your first message then claiming that apt is superior. RTFM man urpmi and related commands (urpmq, urpmf urpme) and then please tell me what one cannot do with urpmi. Because I'm not seeing anything, and until I do I'll keep insisting that apt is in no way superior to urpmi. Please note: the urpmi page you point to is a mini howto. Read the real manpage to have the full info, including all options.

linux_learner, just by quoting something from some site (that's actually the site for apt4rpm) doesn't mean you're right in your assumption that apt4rpm or apt itself is better in any way than urpmi. It is not, not by any link or page or site you referred to, and not by any info put forward by people in the know. Taking your quote: actually tells me they see apt4rpm as an equivalent, not a superior system to urpmi. So again, apt or apt4rpm are NOT superior to urpmi, not by the wordings of people of the apt4rpm site, nor is anyone else in the know claiming that. Have a look at a link from the faq of apt4rpm, from that very quote you gave: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/192/ Sorry, I'm not in the mood to correct the formatting. All points that urpmi doesn't score well on in this comparison are either wrong or irrelevant; they claim urpmi has no non-interactive mode, but --auto --autoselect is just that (not sure if I got that 100% right, but anyway); that urpmi has or doesn't have a curses interface is not so important, you can use the cli or the gui, whichever you like. What they don't mention is the point I mentioned before, namely the downloading in sets of installable files, and installing in parts/sets. AFAIK only urpmi does it that way, but then I don't know about apt, just hearsay. I don't know if that's really relevant, but in any case, in terms of features and so on, there's nothing that makes apt superior or inferior to urpmi. So again, your statement: is nonsense. apt doesn't have any relevant options that urpmi doesn't have, and it's not a more powerful tool. The big difference is that urpmi is not advertised as much, and people somehow started believing that apt is the only proper dependency resolution system. And now there are people who use Mandrakelinux who are starting to believe that too, and repeating it... [formatted by spinynorman]

.deb packages that work only with deb based systems? And built for Linspire? Hello closed system Linux... :( Mordaine, welcome to the board! Good that you have a friend who's showing you around, that should make things a lot easier to get started. Anyway, enjoy Linux!

I'd say: with 3.2 from the dvd, make sure you update your system - usb key problems all around if you don't. The kde3.3 is included in the dvd, but no updates for that, so it's not really supported. So I would use Thacs but I have yet to find a truely compelling reason to use kde3.3 instead of 3.2...

To mount with giving your user access, use the following option: mount /dev/sda /mnt/removable -o uid=501 This is assuming your used id (uid) is 501, which is the common situation on Mandrakelinux. I have come across a lot of variations. Check in the file /etc/passwd, you will find your username toward the end, then an x, then a number, and possibly the same number again, all separated with colon symbols. That first real number (like I said, usually 501 or 500..) is the uid for that user. You can also find the uid if you start userdrake, it is shown there too. Lastly, you can use diskdrake to mount the drive/partition, and you should even be able to add the uid option. If not, just have the drive mounted with diskdrake, then close diskdrake and check the fstab line, add uid=501 in the latter part - ask here if you don't know how, just post your fstab.

Linux_learner, you're comparing apt with rpm. That's a no-no. Compare apt with urpmi. Check some slashdot comments from Ranger / Buchan Milne for instance, he's debunked the superiority of apt quite a few times. Actually, he even mentioned some advantages of urpmi, though I can't recall what they were (downloading in sets of interdependent rpms and installing those, so doing full dependency resolution on a partial set of requested packages, I think). Repeat: apt is not better or worse than urpmi. Both beat rpm as a program to install packages. Don't compare apt with .rpm packages either - not that you're doing that, but lots of people still talk about apt vs .rpm as a package format. The counterpart of .rpm packages are .deb packages, and the idea that apt is so much better comes from the pre-urpmi / yum / yast times. Remember that RH has not had an equivalent for urpmi for quite some time. Some people can't get it into their heads that the rpm based distributions have actually also solved the dependency issues for quite some time now. Those on debian have just not bothered to look back, and keep repeating the same old 'lie' that once was truth. You are arguing along the same lines by pointing to an article that compares apt with rpm, not with urpmi (or yast, or yum, etc). Why this is a big deal? Because people who don't know but just repeat that stuff are the ones that keep insisting that it's bad for LSB to have taken rpm as a package standard - and they keep insisting there are dependency resolution problems. Well, there are, but they are not due to having .rpm (or .deb) as a package standard. They are due to mixing wrong packages, etcetc. Can you break or mess up your system badly? Sure. With both urpmi or apt, you can break everything, if you don't stick to the rules.

Hey Steve, I hear you man! Luckily I do get some 'thank you"s sometimes for my website, but half the email I get is from people who think I have all the time in the world to fix their problems, although they would have been able to fix their own problems had they read my site, or had they come here and asked about it. I don't even expect anything anymore in return, and if someone then does write some 'thank you'-note, it really makes a difference. Enough to motivate me more? No. Just enough to not feel stupid about the time I 'wasted' here and on my website. Of course, I do make myself sparse here from time to time. I've been posting answers for the past week, but a month ago I wouldn't read the help requests for weeks on end. BTW I had a ROFL moment I noticed bvc make that root command advice - and like you, I first tried it,.. you just don't know, maybe the guy figured out a more direct way, just like shouting 'beer!' in some pubs will get you that... I agree that someitmes it's hard, it seems there are many that just don't really know and they are many, and those in the know are few. But for instance a guy like adamw is a top notch 'new' member, he's got lots of experience and know-how, we can't leave a guy like that alone! :P So the point is: relax if you need to, before you get too tired with it. It's okay to take some time off or just take it easy. No one is paying you. No one is expecting anything from you. So the thing is, why do you do it? Why do we do it? Why do I do it? I don't know about you guys, but I'm into spreading Linux. And I've seen the light lately. Let me explain.... First, I thought it would be cool if I could go into the shop and get hardware and use that with Linux, just any kind of hardware, a scanner, a webcam, etc. And I wanted Linux to pick up steam, to get more software and hardware, etc. So my point was: if Linux is more used, all issues are solved: hardware compatibility (no hardware vendor is really against Linux, but they don't see the point, and today with Linux and _no_ MSWin on what, 2% of all desktops, they're right, somehow...), software available (games),.... So I wanted to spread Linux. Just from my egocentrical point of view. Because it would make my life easier, surer to have my digital freedom, my Linux, my .. precious.... Then I realised: I have my usb drive, webcam, scanner, printers, ... actually, my hardware needs are none. And hey, I don't care for games, but what there is in FOSS land also fulfils my needs, and then there are some proprietary Linux games I once bought, good enough for me. So from my egotistical point of view, it would be time to stop with all this. So not too long ago it dawned on me. People don't seem to care about FOSS, digital freedom, etc. Because they don't know, don't understand, don't see the imminent dangers and risks. They don't care enough to see the upcoming issues and problems. But that doesn't mean they should not be able to _have_ digital freedom. It's like healthy people who only realise the 'value' of their health once they've lost it. So I keep on spreading Linux and FOSS. And even if a person doesn't acknowledge that my efforts helped them, if they did help them, it's o.k. Yeah, makes you all warm and fuzzy - we're all saving the world after all.

Not sure about orientation, can you try krandrtray (menu - system - configuration - hardware - screen resize and rotate)?

I don't have hands on experience with ndiswrapper but my brother has used it on Mdk, and I put the info on my website, config page. If you can't run the command ndiswrapper, maybe you have to do su and type your root password, to get admin (root) rights...? Oh, welcome to the board!

Goes to show, you're never too old to learn. Thanks adamw, that was very informative (+5) I'd say. I think this info should be appended / added to the rpm or software installation howto stuff. For instance this entry: http://www.mandrakeusers.org/index.php?showtopic=10615 Hmm, who can/will do that?

I second Cannonfodder's comment - btw check my site for info on nvidia and dvd playback. Most of all: enjoy Linux!

Yeah, I guess adamw is right - just since so many here seem to have troubles with usb in kde and not in gnome, I got into the standard posting mode...

Darkelve, thanks for fixing that link. I won't change my post since that would make yours redundant, now it's just very funny and helpful - bedankt! Pepse, indeed or should I say: naturally, the firmware update tool to flash under Linux is not from NEC, but from someone who goes by the nickname Liggy. It works great though. As for dual layer, it's partially 'mine is bigger than yours' but also: if there are loads of drives sold with dual layer capability, there will seem to be a larger market, so it will attract more vendors, hence the prices will drop faster. And considering the price, there's no need anymore not to buy a dual layer burner. Last thing: if you can choose between a dual layer dvd+r9 burner or a dual standard dual layer (+ and - dual layer), take the latter. Something most people bitch about are the 2 (3) standards in dvd burning, but that's the only reason why media and burner prices have come down so fast - the standards competition. Bring it on, I say, for Blu-ray vs HD-dvd! So for dual layer discs to become cheap, just wait for the dvd-r dual layer discs, and make sure people buy dual standard dual layer drives. Today there are only dvd+r9 discs, so they are all miliking the market. In a month or so, there will be dvd-r dual layer discs too, and you can expect the prices of dual layer discs to drop faster than a brick. My guess is that mid 2006 dual layer discs will hardly be twice as expensive as single layer discs - so just slightly more expensive per GB. And I know I said that if your burner dies, you just get a new one, but on the other hand, you are hoping to use your drive a bit longer than just one year, right? Just some thoughts. Later, aRTee ;)

Hi adamf123, welcome to the board and thanks for contributing! neilinoz, thanks for reporting how to do the changeover.

If things go like bamboo_spider mentions that usb devices don't work with kde but they work with gnome, update your system. Then they will work with kde again too.

urpmi mplayer will actually only give you the command line player - you have to also do: urpmi mplayer-gui and then you will get the mplayer entry in your menu. Oh, make sure your sources are setup properly, etc...

Did you update your mdk10.1 with the KDE updates? Follow the white rabbit,.. ehm, the easy-urpmi link at the top of each page here, and set up your update repository, and update your kde stuff. I'm not sure if this is related, but I know that stock 10.1 OE with KDE has loads of issues with usb removable storage...

Welcome to the board. So if I understand correctly, you want to use the static network address, but if you set it, you cannot ping the machine? And if you set up the nic with dhcp, all is fine? Set things up with dhcp and check the ip address: /sbin/ifconfig See if you can ping the machine from other machines, etc.. then, check the routing table: /sbin/route Then make sure all stays the same, except the network address; you could try this just by shutting down the nic, and starting it again with the static ip. Related commands: ifconfig ifup ifdown route and possibly lots more, but those should help out. Let us know how you're doing!

bvc: root as a command?? Nah, don't think so. bvc meant: type su followed by your root password, then you can execute other things as root/admin. kristi, don't think startkde is going to work, since even starting X doesn't work....

First thing: the Continue (y/n) doesn't do anything since there's nothing else to continue with. You would have to install it with some other option so it will actually ignore the missing dependencies. It may be that perl(run_program) is referring to some perl addon,..? Do you have regular perl installed? What options do you get if you try: urpmi --fuzzy perl ? BTW if you just want to install a few packages you don't have to create a complete repository, you can just do urpmi [package1.rpm] [package2.rpm] etc, as long as all dependencies are solved between the packages or they can be solved with other sources (main, contrib, etc), the packages will be installed.

Bravo364, for the screensize: look in the file: /etc/X11/xorg.conf, there you should find the screen size in the section "Screen" (toward the end); if it says something about a virtual size, you may want to comment that part out. BTW Welcome aboard! pepik, are you still having this problem?