what's the deal w/ Linux and digital LCDs?

[X14]

Why can't Linux figure out what a digital LCD is? Seems every distro I try to load doesn't know what a digital LCD is. I get a Linux BSOD with every distro at some point in the install process. If I switch to my analog cable then it's ok but I don't want to use analog. If Linux is looking to be better than Windows than it has to support hardware as good as or better than Windows. Digital LCDs are not new so I find it inexcusable that you are forced to go analog to load Linux. I'm sure Linux experts know how to fix the problem but I'm a noob and if Linux wants to covert guys from the Windows camp they've got to make it easier.

Also, I couldn't get Fedora Project to install. It would get to a point in the install process where it was loading the image to the HD and then I'd get an error message saying HD is probably full. I'm using a 12GB HD that is empty, no partitions, non formatted, nada. There is nothing on the HD and I'm giving it all to Linux so what's the deal? Fedora says it only needs 1.2 GB or something for what I'm trying to install and I'm letting it have all 12GB.

 

[n0cmonkey]

And what if the goal of Linux isn't to beat Windows or convert Windows users?

 

[drag]

Sounds like your trying to point the installer at your CDROM drive.
/dev/hda = primary master
/dev/hdb = primary slave
/dev/hdc = secondary master
/dev/hdd = secondary slave

So if your cdrom is primary master then pointing the installer at /dev/hda (usually default location for harddrive) it's going to give the error that the drive is full since it's readonly.

Then if you have something like a promise controller then you get things like /dev/hde /dev/hdf and so on. Each partition is just it's number added onto the end of it's drive name. Like /dev/hda2 is the second partiton on the first harddrive.

As far as the DVI stuff, I don't know for sure. Sounds like driver issues, most video cards manufacturers don't have proper support for Linux. Once you install the propriatory drivers from ATI of NVIDIA then you should be able to switch back to the DVI.

But I am just guessing, try doing a search for your video card with keywords dvi and linux to see if you can find a quick answer.

 

[rmrf]

what kind of video card is it? I doubt that the latest and greatest video drivers come with your distro. you will probably have to install the OS using your analog cable, then install the latest video drivers, and then plug in the DVI. I have had really good luck with nvidia cards on linux, but I know next to nothing when it comes to ati video cards and linux. hope this helps, and you should be a little more patient next time to try and pin point what is happening. For future reference, you should not ask questions with an attitude, rather, give all relevant information and state your questions without emotion. This will help against people posting biased opinions in your thread, and you will probably get the answer you are looking for a little quicker.

:beer:

 

[Nothinman]

Digital LCDs are not new so I find it inexcusable that you are forced to go analog to load Linux

Then complain to the hardware manufacturers. The problem is drivers, even if they do provide them usually they can't be distributed with the CD so they can't be used for the installer.

if Linux wants to covert guys from the Windows camp they've got to make it easier.

I could care less about converting Windows users to Linux. Linux works great for me as is and my company has found a number of places to use it too and that usage will only grow in the future.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: X14
...if Linux wants to convert guys from the Windows camp they've got to make it easier.

Linux is not a person or single organization; it does not have a will of its own. At best, only a few of the Linux companies want to "convert" people. Most Linux users themselves, as has been pointed out, don't really care. This attitude is annoying until you realize it's also a big part of what makes Linux great.

Also, I couldn't get Fedora Project to install. It would get to a point in the install process where it was loading the image to the HD and then I'd get an error message saying HD is probably full. I'm using a 12GB HD that is empty, no partitions, non formatted, nada. There is nothing on the HD and I'm giving it all to Linux so what's the deal? Fedora says it only needs 1.2 GB or something for what I'm trying to install and I'm letting it have all 12GB.

I saw this exact error recently while attempting to install Fedora to a laptop. Looks like some kind of hardware incompatibility with the IDE controller to me - I haven't had the problem on any of several other machines I've installed Fedora to. Did your machine use the Intel ICH3 controller by any chance? There might be some way around it, but I didn't turn up anything in 15 minutes of puttering, so I gave up and installed Debian instead. As you may see in other aspects of Linux, you don't have to solve every single problem that crops up - whether it's a distro, software package, or programming language, you have several choices from which to pick. One of them is very likely to work.

 

[X14]

I'm trying to load Fedora on a Asus P4P800 Deluxe setup using an old Quantum Fireball 12GB HD I had lying around. Why does Fedora use this "copying image" installation instead of just installing files?

 

[SUOrangeman]

I use DVI successfully with Linux, GeForce4 Ti4600 Dual-DVI, XFree86 4.x, and dirvers from nVidia.

Since nVidia tends to be a lil overprotective/anal about its Linux drivers (where's the source code, eh?), most distros aren't really allowed to include them.

-SUO