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.
Thanks for the responses, moving the 0 didn't do it and I think once I finish backing up some files I will try to redo /etc/fstab
completely and see what that does. Machine starts fine and is running however the error message still appears on boot. I will also try the fsch command with the rescue disk.
Q*Bert, you are right, my knowledge of the underlying principles in Linux are somewhat lacking..that is why I am using Linux and playing with Linux and asking questions about Linux. Books only are helpful to a certain degree and not everyone learns the same way. Some people can gather more from doing and asking than reading..and I figured all that out without a Masters degree
Acid_kewpie, you beat me to it. I was also going to suggest actually looking in the /etc/fstab file to make sure there were no blank lines following the cdrom line. I didn't, however, notice the missing comma though. I'll keep a sharper eye out next time. Thanks for posting that follow-up.
Distribution: Redhat 8.0, Immunix 7.0 a few others
Originally posted by thetwin Books only are helpful to a certain degree and not everyone learns the same way. Some people can gather more from doing and asking than reading..and I figured all that out without a Masters degree
First off, a masters degree won't tell you much with what you want to know about computing. It's a research degree which means they choose what you study - the title of my masters was "Assessment of the Lyee set of tools for the development of an anxiety management system". Fascinating huh? Certainly not what you'd want to study and nothing to do with Linux unfortunately.
If none of the previous suggestions worked, I looked in my book "Red Hat Certified Engineer Linux Study Guide", Maine, Rafferty, Rogers et al, which 2000 does tell me that one of the main reasons the fstab will drop you down to a shell even when the system was cleanly unmounted, is that one of the filesystems specified in the third column of the fstab was the wrong fs type.
Are you sure the root partition is ext3 not ext2 ?
Got it. Trickykid was right and as soon as I opened VI I saw the missing tildes.. dd'ed those bastards and saved and rebooted and nio error messages and system is back to normal. I never use vi but I may try to start using it. Generally pico does the trick. Other than vi being much more flexible is there any reason not using pico to edit files?
Thanks to all that helped... 1 more thing learned...7 billion 4 hundred and 12 to go
Also nice catch Drew, I wouldn't have thought of that one...
As far vi versus pico, pico will work for general editing. I prefer to edit my config files with vi, and all other general editing (of my html files and generic text files) with pico. However, you can make it work with config files as well, but vi(m) just works so much better without tricking it into working.
uhhh, I have been using pico to edit all files, am I supposed to be doing something different when using pico to edit say dhcpd.conf or such files. I just assumed that if you are editing a file the editor that you use is unimportant as long as the syntax is okay.
Originally posted by thetwin uhhh, I have been using pico to edit all files, am I supposed to be doing something different when using pico to edit say dhcpd.conf or such files. I just assumed that if you are editing a file the editor that you use is unimportant as long as the syntax is okay.
Nah, you are usually ok, as long as the file isn't as strict as say /etc/fstab is. Vi just has a bit (especially the color version) more of a helping hand, and is the end all/do all editor. Pico allows alot of "slop" where vim requires you to actually know what you are doing, or it will show you it's wrong (well sorta, sorry, bad with words and analogies right now).
For the most part, you will be fine using Pico, however, if it's a very specific file, with very rigid params, you'd be better off using vi(m). If you are editing scripts, or if you are editing system config files that have scripts in them as a rule of thumb you should use vi. If you are editing free text fields, or a simple syntax config file, then pico should suffice.