[gk245 (old)]

bleh, Mandrake.

Try this one:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

It has just been released, but its based on debian, which has been around forever. And when you say 'try another OS', that just means trying another distribution of linux. They are all linux, they just do a few things differently.

For very recent experiences with ubuntu, here is a thread worth reading through:

http://episteme.arst...&m=647005316631

Also, are you sure your hard drive is not dying on you? Did you run any diagnostic utility on it recently? Make sure your HD is in good condition first before doing anything.

Here are some very good (probably the best i have seen) instructions on install quake3 on linux:

http://www.linuxgami...o.uk/quake3.htm (yes, you're gonna have to install your graphic drivers first, but thats another story altogether).

Good luck.

[HoboHumpinSlut (old)]

maybe your chipset isnt really supported by linux/mdk?

[mitsubishi]

Quote

It is crashing during bootup, when transfering files or doing anything harddrive intensive.

Crashing? A more detailed description is needed. Like the exact error message or/and logs.

BTW, I don't think this forum is proper at all for general linux questions.

Quote

I am wondering if the linux partition doesnt like the fact it is living with windows

no way.

Quote

Would getting a seperate drive work better?

unlikely.

Quote

Also, I decided to see if quake worked. I got the pk3s installed, then I downloaded the 1.32 patch to get the exe. Everything appears to be there, but when I load quake, my screen goes to 640x480 and nothing happens. What causes this? I don't really need games on linux, but I was curious to see how it faired as a gaming OS.

You just said you can't go past bootup, how did you try quake3?



uhm, just noticed you said about other crashes so I assume you got passed bootup. ok, again more details (error messages) are needed and again, I don't think this forum is the best at all for general linux help.

Quote

Should I try a different OS?

All linux distributions are the same os. linux. other oses like freebsd run on pcs but I wouldn't advice it as more user-friendly than linux.

BTW, mandrake is fine for beginners. Avoid fanatics that are 1 year or less on linux and scream "that sucks this rulles" and BS. Other easy distributions to use are fedora core, suse, ubuntu or knoppix to try with only a cd - no installation.

good luck.

ps. I usually google and groups.google linux problems before anything.

[6th|illogical]

The smartass in me wants to quote...

From http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/linux-the-big-picture.html ...
[quote]Linux itself is only the kernel of an operating system. The kernel is the part that makes all other programs run. It implements multitasking, and manages hardware devices, and generally enables applications to do their thing. All the programs that the user (or system administrator) actually interacts with are run on top of the kernel. Some of these are essential: for example, a command line interpreter (or shell), which is used both interactively and to write shell scripts (corresponding to .BAT files).

Linus did not write these programs himself, and used existing free versions instead. This reduced greatly the amount of work he had to do to get a working environment. In fact, he often changed the kernel to make it easier to get the existing programs to run on Linux, instead of the other way around.

Most of the critically important system software, including the C compiler, came from the Free Software Foundation's GNU project. Started in 1984, the GNU project aims to develop an entire Unix-like operating system that is completely free. To credit them, many people like to refer to a Linux system as a GNU/Linux system. (GNU has their own kernel as well.)[/quote]

So yeah, it is not a "linux distribution", it's a "GNU/linux distribution".[/quote]

[HoboHumpinSlut (old)]

i heard http://kernel.org distributes linux

[mitsubishi]

I use debian - for ages supporters of the gnu/linux naming - for the past 3 years, but I tend to go with just 'linux' and also call the linux kernel just linux(not that anyone disagrees on the latter though). Not because I hate stallman or anything, I think he's pretty cool and sometimes brave to go out and say what he says about closed code and patents, but that campaign about gnu/linux is an overkill in my opinion. It is also weakened by the fact gnu have not completed their own kernel yet. I doubt they'd insist in calling linux gnu/linux, if just 'gnu' was in linux' working condition and popular.anyway, boring and old discussion this one and insignificant compared to real problems (patent and gpl related international laws).

[mitsubishi]

I may want to support the philosophy of free speech for opressed bananas. I won't call my fridge Banana/Fridge just because it contains some bananas in it

Anyway, neither "linux" or "gnu/linux" is "right" or "wrong". CScience hasn't defined OS clearly enough to know where the "OS" ends and starts being userland.