Username or EmailPassword
(No, nouveau is not fast enough for me, at least yet).
Try this repo:
(It's the official NVIDIA repo from Novell, the documentation just hasn't been updated yet.) Edited 2010-07-20 19:44 UTC
actually, it appears that the doc page was updated shortly after I posted that :-)
ftp:// didn't work but this does:
I compiled the NVIDIA driver manually because they're so slow at releasing the NVIDIA binary. Novell should have the repos ready by release.
My guide here http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2288580&postcount=12
I love zypper already
ville@dhcppc2:~$ sudo zypper in spectacle
Problem: nothing provides PyYAML needed by spectacle-0.18-1.1.noarch
Solution 1: do not install spectacle-0.18-1.1.noarch
Solution 2: break spectacle by ignoring some of its dependencies
Choose from above solutions by number or cancel [1/2/c] (c): 2
I don't think that's possible with apt-get.
I have never had any problems with dependencies or conflicts with apt.
The only systems I ever hosed have been rpm based
That said, I stopped distro shopping when 11.2 came out
11.3 looks even better!
Though I would like conflict free package management debian style
Ugh, don't --force-all! You're asking for trouble by hiding problems you haven't seen yet. I know you meant --force-depends.
If you did in fact see a broken dependency problem you are either (1) tracking testing, (2) tracking sid, (3) performing an unsupported upgrade (e.g. skipping a major release), (4) using a third party repository, or (5) some combination. If encountered any of these scenarios I hope you filed a bug! Edited 2010-07-21 16:35 UTC
i still prefer the package manager that Foresight Linux uses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conary_(package_manager Conary.
This kind of friendly I don't want.
Yes, you could write an apt front end that prompts you and asks "Would you like me to break your system?" The reason this hasn't happened is because it's a bad idea and nobody sane wants it. Breaking things *should be hard* and require much more deliberate action than just saying "yes" to a prompt you didn't read anyway.
A better reaction to the above prompt would be to ask "Who released a distribution with broken dependencies?" What is spectacle and why did it get into a release repo without its required dependencies?
There exists a perfectly good "3 minute workaround" for apt, too, which I know you already know based on your other comment. The only difference is apt doesn't tell you which command to run. That's not a big deal to me and I like that it requires more advanced knowledge to get in to real trouble.
Incidentally, it's aptitude these days. apt-get is unmaintained.
If you get the error you have the deb already. It will be in /var/cache/apt/archives/packagename_version_arch.deb, so you can normally just say dpkg -i --force-depends /var/cache/apt/archives/packagename*deb since you are not likely to have more than one version (especially if you auto prune).
I agree that the breakage of --download-only makes no sense from a user perspective.
being a longtime linux user, I thought the same, but I looked it up on wikipedia and lookie what I found:
<blockquote>The company started its activities as a service company, which among other things regularly released software packages that included SLS and Slackware, printed UNIX/Linux manuals, and offered technical assistance. In mid-1992, Softlanding Linux System (SLS, now defunct) was founded by Peter MacDonald, and was the first comprehensive distribution to contain elements such as X and TCP/IP. The Slackware distribution (maintained by Patrick Volkerding) was initially based largely on SLS, and the SUSE Linux distribution was originally a German translation of Slackware Linux.</blockquote>
Learn something new every day.
No, you were NOT!
OpenSuSE is based on SuSE Linux, which (a long time ago) was forked from Redhat (RPM based).
Well.. openSUSE is actually the successor to what was SuSE Linux Professional, but it's really "different". So you could really say that SuSE Linux Professional "died" and now we have openSUSE.. that's probably more correct. Yes... openSUSE has evolved to become what it is today.
Neither SuSE Prof. nor openSUSE had ANYTHING to do with Red Hat with the exception of the adoption of the "Red Hat" Package Manger. Prior to that, afaik, it used the tar-ball format like Slackware (the earliest roots of SUSE Linux).
SuSE Linux Professional was known for including non-free elements which prevent it's free distribution (unlike Red Hat which was freely and WIDELY distributed under the Red Hat trademark by hundreds if not THOUSANDS of would be money makers in a plethora of commercially available formats, stores, etc.). Some of the non-free elements included things like commercial trial prodcut ware and originally, YaST. YaST was eventually made totally free (Novell actually helped support many freedom moves after the acquisition). The 3rd party add-ons (anything with a non-OSS approved license) were moved to a separate repository so that it was possible to download a totally OSS version of openSUSE and distribute freely (as long as OSS license terms were met). Thus, like Fedora (for example), there could be a distributable distro protected by trademark (something that I think you argue that Red Hat lost back in the 90's by NOT preventing the plethora of resellers using their name).
Anyway... history is interesting.
Even I've had some minor troubles here and there - great work, hope to spent some time to help the distro regarding the java development packages - there are some problems there....
NEWS FLASH: It's no longer 1996 and Linux is not difficult to install. Documenting how easy the install process was is about as useful as commenting on how nice the wallpaper looked. Oh, gee? Really? Gosh I guess it must be a cutting edge distribution!
Are you writing reviews for Windows users? If not then don't tell me what software came installed by default unless it actually, you know, matters. Comes with OpenOffice? Well shucks! I would have never guessed. Has it got an *media player*, too? Amazing what they can do these days! It's almost as if *every distribution and every version of Windows I've installed in the last 15 years didn't have one*!
Please, PLEASE write something useful about the distribution. Find *something* that is remarkable, or different, or worked well, or didn't. Please don't mention the installer unless it didn't work. Don't mention hardware support unless things were really broken out of the box, or worked *surprisingly* well. We're long past the days when hardware detection was a distribution selling point; if it doesn't mostly work today then something is wrong!
If today, right now, all you can say is "Well guys, I installed it and it looks like it runs," then you have told me precisely *nothing* about how good it really works. We're not competing with NT4 ("detecting CPU architecture...") here! I'll bet you that Mac OS X installs and seems to work, too. Hell, even QNX-on-a-floppy booted and looked good a decade ago! Care to tell me something I *can't* assume? Care to try and actually *DO* something with it and report on how well it does that? No? THEN DON'T WRITE A 'REVIEW'.
It seems it doesnt work with unetbootin so while I would really like to give it a try (and even have the kde livecd iso) I won't be able to since my cd drive is busted and thus unetbootin is needed.
Unfortunately this laptop can't boot from usb.