Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
When changing the screen resolution in the display settings, it says I have to log out and restart the X server for the changes to take effect. What exactly does that mean? I save changes, log out and login again, and the res. is still at 800X600.
I think you have to be above newbie level to understand anything.
If some of these guys wrote assembly instructions for a bike, it would go like this:
POSTER: Help! I'm having issues with the assembly of my bike. I can get the wheels to go on, but when you turn the pedals, nothing happens. What do I do to fix it?
Take the bike out, put shafts through the center where gears connect, tighten the brake, make sure the derailer is connected, and then you're good to go! Ride like the wind!
My point: This *is* the newbie forum. Most people who've just installed Linux and are looking at the main desktop for the very first time have no idea what "try redhat-config-xfree86 command" means, it's pretty vague, and makes about as much sense as "bodk flinf, blufgrer whon tiggit".
Originally posted by Anth3m When changing the screen resolution in the display settings, it says I have to log out and restart the X server for the changes to take effect. What exactly does that mean? I save changes, log out and login again, and the res. is still at 800X600.
I guess a good question is, how are you changing the display settings in the first place? What's telling you that you need to restart the server?
In RH9, I go down to where the start menu would be and click on the red hat. I go to "System settings>Display", and then enter my password for root, as asked.
I then get a window with "display settings" at the top, and two tabs; one says "Display" one says "Advanced".
From the drop down menu on the left of the display tab where it says "Resolution", I select 1024 x 768 and click OK.
I then get the message:
"Display settings changed
You need to log out and restart the X server for the changes to take effect.
Configuration was written to /etc/X11/XF86Config, original configuration saved as /etc/X11/XF86Config.backup."
I log out, and when I log in the resolution is still at 800X600 and I go through the whole process all over again.
I'm stuck, and this close to putting in XP again. I mean, linux is great, but if the simplest changes can't be made without a week of searching the internet and joining specialized forums for help, what's the point? I'll play again when it becomes more user friendly. As is, it's just too unfriendly toward new users. XP, microshaft as it is, is simple for anyone to use. I can change the resolution in seconds. With Linux, it's akin to going into DOS within windows and manually configuring changes in text and then having to restart the kernel or something. I mean, I've had Linux on this machine for a week and a bit, and I can't change the resolution? Ick. I don't know whether to Love Linux, or to slowly and methodically torture it and kill it byte by byte to satisfy the homicidal rage it brings out in me. (In that happy "geek" sort of way.)
Thanks in advance for any help.
*edited so many times because I'm my own personal spelling Nazi*
I hear you. I am going through that rough transition right now. I have tried Linux on and off for years now and each time I end up saying: 'I will try back in another year or so and see where it's at and in the meanwhile I will get some real work done (e.g. app dev and not stupid system config bunk).
You will hear Linux experts say that us newbies "just don't want to use their brains" and that we're "lazy" because of the Windows conditioning... That's fine. They can excuse their lack of usability understanding by saying such ignorant things. I would rather spend my time writing enterprise distributed apps and web services than trying to figure out how to do some of the time consuming, high learning curve activities such as configuring a resolution display or getting a device to work in Linux when M$ can settle it in a few clicks.
I have a job to do and short time to do it. I am interested and like Linux but I don't have that kind of extra time to worry too much about these kinds of things. I'm trying though.
Amen. Like a friend (who works for Sun in Calgary) just told me on ICQ:
"The trick is... and I'm about to commit blasphemy here. Linux geeks always think that Linux is just inherently better than windows. It isn't. Both OS styles have their advantages, and do different tasks extremely well. So, don't learn it for the sake of learning "the best". Learn it for the sake of learning something different."
I think Brenn hit the nail right on the head.
Linux is free and all that, sure. But I think that if it was as mainstream and as practical (for the end user at least) as windows is, it would problably cost money as well. The fact that it IS difficult to use and understand is what keeps it free in the first place. If they tried to charge for Linux as it is at this point in time, I'd definitely buy Windows over Linux.
For me, as one person at least, Linux is a passing interest, I wouldn't (and couldn't) rely on it for everyday function. Windows is for work, Linux is for play. Or something like that.
Truth be told. I'm trying to learn it because I've come to the point with Windows that there's rarely anything challenging facing me during a session. With Linux, I sometimes find myself yearning for the simplicity of windows. Which in itself is a catch 22, the simplicity of windows is what drove me to look harder at linux in the first place. It's like marriage. You think you're gonna get laid more and have more fun, but whoops. They lied to you.
When it comes to the future I always think of simplicity. I imagine that computing will take on a form in the future where speech, occular and facial recognition technologies rule input... This isn't my imagination, this is research being done and implemented. The point of saying this is that these technologies are being designed so that it is easy to input and access information. Computing is being abstracted more and more away from the hardware and its configuration. Why else would there be a continual surge towards higher level programming languages and markups like Java, .NET and XML? Linux heads can criticize all they want, but given its history - they are complaining against inevitability and yet conceeding to the demand of simplicity. First releases of Linux didn't even have GUI's and now more and more effort is being put into building them. I would argue that the recent surge and growing popularity of Linux is due to its growth in the UI space.
As I read earlier:
Unfortunately there are a lot of malicious bastardos out there that think it's funny to drain the US (not to mention, world) economy billions of dollars a year (that's how many jobs worth?) in their religious pursuit (zealousness) to show Windows' vulnerablilities. Every bit of software is vulnerable, I don't care who wrote it. Sure, I would agree that the surface area of attack in Windows might be greater than the Linux counterpart but that is rapidly changing.
Here is one other point to consider: how many more virus/worm writers (attackers-terrorists) are out there targeting Windows compared to Linux? I would bet the lefty that there are orders of magnitude more Penguin-Qaida out there than Windows-Hamas. That alone could account for the perceived differences in vulnerability arguments. It could be argued that if you had as many hackers targeting Linux as you do Windows the media might be painting a different picture about Linux.
I am going to take this to the dramatic extreme so make of it what you will... Hacking is electronic terrorism. Many will justify their hacking efforts and laugh at this parallel I draw but honestly, what is the difference? Billions of dollars and countless jobs are lost trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again and it is no different than any other act of terrorism because the intent is the same: malice. When is malice ever justified? A lot of people say they don't trust Microsoft's software... There may be reason to that, but who DO you trust then? Would you rather trust the community contrary to Microsoft that is primarily responsible for these attacks? To me, that's like Al-Qaida saying they don't trust the United States and its allies... Sure, they might have reason, but certainly not justification for their actions and ironically their actions are more volatile and mistrusted than perhaps the very entity that has spurned their creation.
As for you my friend yearning for a challenge... If you are into programming then get to know .NET (http://www.microsoft.com/net) and its Linux counterpart the Mono Project (http://go-mono.org)... It is very exciting work that is being done and it is guaranteed to keep you busy and the great thing is, it will be on every platform.
Usually, I would go to terminal mode and run XFree86config command as root and in screen resolution section I would choose only 1024x768 pixels only in all modes (8,16, and 24 bit). Also read the man page regarding the XFree86config file.