Problem: Here is my boot process, step by step.

• bios checks itself
• lilo prompt
• i choose appropriate option
• before mounting things and starting linux, it prompts me to choose a resolution
• i choose, everything boots

I'd really like to not have to choose a resolution every single time. When I use a 2.4 series kernel, I can just have vga=778, and it works great. Not so for 2.6, where I only get a really small screen unless I set vga=ask and input 315 when prompted.

Experience level: I've been a linux user for several years now, but am still mostly a semi-competent curious newbie who likes to rtfm. I am comfortable compiling the kernel.

Caveats: My linux box is a wreck, and has been since January (the withdrawal symptoms still haven't dissipated). I'm forced to use this winbox for anything more productive than experimenting with different resolutions at boot time. This means any screen output you want to see has to be captured by camera and uploaded via my dial-up connection. I've got the time if you've got the time.

Add
to /etc/lilo.conf near the top (at least above the first image = ... line)

Then run

Heh, that's too easy of an answer. Imitation as a form of experiential learning I can do.

Switching to vga=315 makes the monitor display nothing but blackness.

Maybe 315 is an invalid value? But then what sorts of values are valid? I remember reading through various Linux-HOWTOs and deducing that 315 is the value wanted. But why will it only work when fed through vga=ask and not vga=$value ?

try the decimal equivalent in lilo.conf
eg: 0x0315 == 789

Likewise you coulde just use 0x0315 in lilo.conf. I thought 315 was awfully low. Now it makes sense.

It works! Such a little thing, but all the little things wrong with my poor computer add up.. Thank you, drumz and kodon.

So how did you make the leap from 0x0315 to 789? And why are the values different between the two kernel series?

Numbers starting with "0x" are in base 16. So 0x0315 = 0*16^3 + 3*16^2 + 1*16 + 5. Base 16 is really conveniant when working with computers, because it is very easy to go between binary and hexadecimal, and a number like 789 only needs 3 digits (0x315) instead of the 10 you need for binary (0b1100010101).

Neat. Are there more base identifiers? I'm assuming 0b identifies binary. Where did these come from? Or rather, point me to a manual so I don't bug you all : )

Wikipedia is probably a good spot to catch up on binary and hex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal

I've already got a feel for working in different bases, I was just wondering if there were more standardised identifiers like "0b" and "0x"; say for base 9. I see from the hexadecimal article that these are used in C.

Since googling hasn't turned up much, I guess I could just assume that these prefixes are not standards, just C conventions, and that since usually only binary, decimal, and hexadecimal numbers are needed, there aren't any more prefixes.

I don't think there's a standard. The closest thing to a standard would be including a trailing subscript for the base. "0b" and "0x" are pretty well recognized, so everyone should know what you're talking about, but I don't think there are prefixes for other bases. I think the reason those are well knows is because that's what C uses. I doubt there are prefixes for other bases in C (could be wrong), and that's why there aren't any other well known, established prefixes.

is there any rule to partition harddisk in linux