[RHL 6.2] Fresh install. XWindows Server didn't install. Can I install it manually?
 

Greetings forum.

As stated in the subject of this thread, I installed RHL-6.2 and when I got to the part of the install proceedure that asks for the GPU/Monitor information, I supplied everything that I knew to be correct but when I selected the [Probe] option, I was presented with an error.

The error said that my video configuration was incorrect but I tried every option that was even remotely applicable to my video hardware but got the same error each time.

This is the system that I am instaling RHL onto:

I decided to continue without installing the XWindows Server so, now I am at the login prompt.

Everything checks out so far.

When I remove the install CD and restart the computer I see "OK" at each step of the Kernel loading.

I am at the login prompt now and my question is.

Can I install the XServer manually at this point?

If so, how?

I found this http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/red...tml#post888660 but when I get to the instructions in step 2. and follow the proceedure listed in the above post I am getting a line at the bottom of the vi editor window that says:

"/etc/yum.repos.d/dvd.repo"
"/etc/yum.repos.d/dvd.repo" Can't open file for writing
Press RETURN for enter command to continue

I feel like I am already over my skill level here but I am willing to proceed because of the learning experience so, any help, ideas and/or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

I apologize for the leingth of this thread; I just wanted to be as thorough as possible.

Thank you again for any help.
patriot2135

PS. I choose to install RHL 6.2 because it came out at about the same time as this old computer and therefor, the OS and computer should be compatible.

Well 6.5 (rhel) or centos 6.4 would work fine as well. Strange it gave you the error. Normally intel is one of the easier device manufacturers to get going in linux. But seeeing that you are trying to use a very old version of linux, that is the issue with that.

I strongly recommend something newer. That version of redhat is not supported.

for the older rhel6.2 ( mind you 6.4 is current )
you MUST have a paid for support contract to basically install anything
and the 6.2 DVD is VERY is out of date


you use yum and the "groupinstall "
-- a paid for license IS required

normally RHEL dose NOT install a GUI , it is a "server class" operating system and is normally used in the terminal

you can install Gnome2 from the install dvd
but you have to manually set it


that is not even a bad reason
redhat IS NOT FREE
you MUST buy the REQUIRED support contract
for a single desktop install the standard 1 year license is
$ 299 / year

and 6.2 is OLD and you will need a extra support contract to keep is BACK at 6.2

6.4 is the current and 6.5 is in testing


buy the REQUIRED red hat support contract!!!
-- there are no "if's and's or but's about it


or

install the FREE rebuild of redhat
CentOS 6.4

RedHat ( and centOS) is a Long Life Distro
the major versions of software
WILL NOT CHANGE OVER THE TEN ( 10 ) YEAR LIFE SPAN
there will be bug and SECURITY updates , minor upgrades but that is it

Thank you ericson007 for your response.

I really appreciate the advice and I agree with you that intel is normally very easy to get working in Linux.

I am certainly not opposed to switching to a newer distribution of Linux. The problem that I have had there, is that I have literally burned 3/4 of a sleeve of 100 ct. DVD's and an entire sleeve of 50 ct. CD's trying to find the right distribution for a computer this old. And being new to Linux myself I don't have the luxury of experience with the OS. I am still at the low end of the learning curve I'm afraid. :(

Note: I have access to pallets of these old machines and I am just trying to keep them out of a landfill and at the same time build a usable system that I can donate to kids that want to learn computing and can't afford a new/used contemporary system.

Recently, I have been looking at Fedora 7 and 8. It seems that Fedora 7 runs well on a 400MHz processor with 256MB RAM and Fedora 8 is similar however, from what I have read, "real-world" experience demonstrates something different with F-8. These machines have an Intel 633MHz CPU and (normally) 128-256MB of RAM memory. In your opinion, do you think that there is any Linux distro. that is a valid choice for these old machines? Or am I chasing a "white elephant"?

As far as security goes, it is unlikely that any of these machines will operate on a LAN. And that if they are networked at all, they will be clients on a very small peer-to-peer network; for training purposes only. Even this is very unlikely.

I suspect that they will be stand-alone desktop machines with Internet access only through a "restricted" secure server. (yes. I realize that this is an oxymoron):p

Windows ME and 95 both ran well on these and I just can't believe that Linux can't out perform that? I understand that support for the OS is probably the biggest issue. And that most of the time, the hardware outlives the software. Still, I have to believe that these machines still have a use.

Thank you again for your response and any further advice is appreciated.

With all due respect and appreciation.
patriot2135

Thank you John VV for your candid and informative response.

After reading through your post I have to admit that I am a little *red-faced* because I didn't do a little more research before installing RHL. I was under the impression that RHL and RHEL were completely different as far as licensing is concerned.

I honestly thought that RHL was "open source" and RHEL was the licensed version. My mistake.

I had no idea that this version of RHL was under copyright. I have had enough of that with the Microsoft empire.

I moved away from Windows for a number of reasons, one of those reasons being the proprietary vice that is always inflicted with a closed source environment. I have no intention of returning to it under a different name.

I also moved to Linux for a lot of the same reasons, albeit opposite of those mentioned above.

So, thank you again for your response and for the information that you provided.

It is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
patriot2135

old operating systems like trying to install the dead fedora 7 is not a good idea

there ARE current and supported os's that will run on old hardware
i have ScientificLinux 6.4 ( a free rebuild of RHEL 6.4 ) running on a 12 year old desktop
( a DELL p4 2 Ghz and 1 gig ram and a Gforce2 mx 400 card)

i take it this 400 to 600 mgz 256 meg ram computer is a old Pentium 2 or 3

old p2 CPU's will be "fun" and so much hassle that recycling them is the best option
P4 cpu computers with 512 meg or more ram will run CentOS 5.9 ( soon 5.10 ) or CentOS 6.4 ( some minor issues )


I think the RH verses RHEL confusion is that 10 years ago redhat changed the naming .
They went from RedHat linux 9 ( RH9) to RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 ( RHEL3 )
and added the REQUIRED support contract requirement .

technically RHEL is "free" BUT there is
NO updates
NO bug fixes
NO installing of - basically anything not on the install dvd
No new software
no -- nothing

unless one buys the support contract

Now there are people who do repurpose old p2 and p3 CPU computers from the 1990's

some operating systems are more targeted at these
AntiX is one
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=antix
Debian stable and CentOS ( not good for PII and PIII CPU's )

the main problem is with SO LITTLE ram even getting firefox 25 to run is not going to be easy
and if the hardware is TOO OLD ... then .....

For example
the 3.5 in floppy is DEAD
the disks are no longer even manufactured
there are a few drives on shelves and some boxes of blank 1.44 meg disks
BUT
the current linux kernel dose NOT EVER LOOK for a 3.5 in drive any longer
and the manual option to enable them might not even be in newer kernels

have a read through
http://distrowatch.com/search.php?ca...=Old+Computers
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-light...pc-lease-life/

You are absolutely right.

This is really discouraging, I was lead to believe that if old computers had any chance of "extended life," they would need to have Unix/Linux installed as their primary OS. This, within reason, obviously.

That makes a lot of sense to me because my knowledge of, and exposure to, RHL goes back to around 1996-1998. I realize that this time frame is prehistoric as it relates to computers. As I mentioned in my original post, I am new to Linux and this OS is almost as foreign to me as it would be to someone that has had little exposure to a computer operating system -ALMOST-.

This is typical of a licensed OS.

You make a GOOD argument, and I have no defense against this kind of reasoning.:(

I think I'm going to have to reconsider the decision to use these machines for the purpose that I had originally planned.:( Bummer!

I was really hoping to be able to re-purpose these guys using Linux.

Thank you again John VV for your advice. I really appreciate it.

Respectfully,
patriot2135

have a go with AntiX
It currently is "the new kid on the block" though it has been around for a bit

"Damn Small Linux" was the "go to" operating system but it is aging ( and can NOT be installed on a win95 box with less than 64 meg ram)
"Puppy Linux " - is suppose to be decent , bu i have never used it
Knoppix ???? apparently the current version can be installed to the drive and not only ran as a live CD

Have you tried looking at some of the bsd systems?

Thyy seem popular for embeded devices so i think you might have some luck with them.

As far as linux goes, probably a minimal debian install with something like the old window managers i.e. fluxbox and the likes could give you some leeway.

There is no reason you cannot install more modern gui's but i think performance will be an issue.

Again, John VV, I am grateful for your help.

I have tried the distributions of Linux that you mentioned here and for one reason or another, I have dismissed them as an option for this hardware.

I have to admit that I am embarrassed that I may have done so prematurely. I say this because after looking back and after an exhaustive search for another alternative, because of my limited knowledge of Linux, I think I need to re-evaluate some of the options that were available to me early on.

At this point, I am going to turn my attention to "Puppy Linux" once again. If this proves to be a dead end, then I will seriously consider the reality that these computers are worth nothing more than to be recycled.

I really am trying to learn how Linux is different from MS Windows and how each of these Operating Systems work with the hardware they are installed on.

Thanks to all for your attention to this post and for your responses.

Respectfully,
patriot2135