Can't install Trisquel 7 because of Resolution Problems
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I've been using Trisquel for the last 2 years now and I liked it a lot. I changed to Gnewsense because I couldn't install Trisquel 7 for 64x because whenever I try to boot the computer with the LiveCD it doesn't show me the resolution. The monitor says something like: "Resolution not supported". I have a Dell Optiplex 320 with an integrated Ati Xpress 200, 4Gb of Ram and an Intel Pentium D 3.00Ghz.
I had that issue before with Trisquel 6 but just with the Splash screen or the GRUB that wasn't shown (I cannot remember which one it was...) I fixed it with a program that changed the resolution. It was through GUI. Now, not even the login screen is shown. And I cannot use the LiveCD to download any tool to help me fix it.
Any idea?
I am a member!
Have you tried installing using the netinstall iso? It doesn't have a GUI by default.
I can give it a try, but I'd like to have GUI because I feel more comfortable with it, and how would I do that?
It sounds like a problem with the ATI GPU, and you'll probably have to install an old version of something to get it working.
Oh, hmmmm... yeah, but how would I do that if I can't access the OS? That's the issue...
I am a translator!
Netinstall and then when you manage to boot into the OS install the old kernel 3.10. Jxself maintains a FRESH repository for that (and it is a very fresh repo indeed!)
Well, are there any instructions on how to do it? I mean, when I netinstall Trisquel, it'll be something similar to the Text Install of Debian?
Using an older kernel may work. Take a look at https://trisquel.info/forum/screen-resolution-0
I'd say start with removing the blacklist for radeon. xpress 200 is an old card, it will probably work just fine.*
*no 3D or video acceleration or ... though ;)
What do you mean by "removing the blacklist for radeon"?
By the way, I've searched Optiplex 320 and everybody is having one issue or another while installing GNU...
Is this what you mean?
"Since Linux is a secondary contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply “GNU”? (#justgnu)
It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to do. Here are the reasons we call that system version “GNU/Linux” rather than just “GNU”:
It's not exactly GNU—it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.
It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving any credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the system. We want to get credit for launching and sustaining the system's development, but this doesn't mean we should treat Linus the same way those who call the system “Linux” treat us. We strongly disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the credit for his contribution to the system.
Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say “GNU” they may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard about."
I read it before, moreover now I think we should call it just GNU between us, because sooner we'll get Hurd as an Optional Kernel, unless we choose to call it as well GNU/Hurd... If we do, then it'd be ok to keep calling it GNU/Linux
From my experience with this issue, it's not the kernel. It's something else.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios