- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Jul 8-3:28 pm by eugen-b.
-
Posts
-
prox
Hi,
I had to install AntiX 17.4 in failsafe mode because when installing AntiX in normal mode, the first prompt that is shown during the installation on my computer (with the instructions how to login for an installation with the credentials root/root) is cut horizontally through the first line at the bottom of the screen, so one does not see what one has to do and what to enter to properly execute the installation.
Now AntiX starts, and I can login into AntiX, but no window manager is shown. I am not able to start X, neither with the command “startx”, nor with “init 5”.
During one installation attempt I also manually activated X11 as a service for runlevel 5, but X11 is not automatically started at the end of the boot process, only the console prompt is shown.
So among other things I thought “let me install a window manager using the programme cli-aptiX, maybe with the installation of such a window manager my system gets changed in a way that AntiX automatically starts that window manager at the end of the boot process”, but this also failed. I think I installed icewm using cli-aptiX, I cannot exactly remember. The boot process ends with giving me the possibility to login to AntiX on the console.
So how do I make AntiX boot with the effect that a window manager automatically gets displayed at the end of the boot process?
Regards,
prox
PS: I am running an old NVIDIA card in my machine (machine not this one which I used to create this forum post).
Anonymous
Sounds like you accidentally grabbed the iso for the “intended for use by experts” Core or Net edition.
If you begin afresh with the antiX Base (or Full) edition, you’ll find that icewm is preinstalled.prox
Sounds like you accidentally grabbed the iso for the “intended for use by experts” Core or Net edition.
If you begin afresh with the antiX Base (or Full) edition, you’ll find that icewm is preinstalled.Yes, you are right, thanks. I used the “core” iso file for creating the installation CD because I did not know about the difference between “core” and “base” iso files.
Would it make a difference if I would use the “base” iso file for another installation attempt?
Yes, a huge difference.
Post-installation, when you boot you will be whisked straight to a desktop session.
(ready to go, without needing to install additional packages)prox
Ok, thanks. I will then try the “base” iso file for an installation attempt and will report here after that.
prox
Using the “base” iso file I successfully installed AntiX 17.4 with the default window manager, and that window manager works fine 😉
Thanks, skidoo.
But isn’t there a simple method to turn an AntiX installation without a running window manager into an AntiX installation with a running window manager, f. e. with a special debconf script or something like that?
fatmac
That’s basically what ‘base’ is for, as against ‘full’ – for those who don’t want to run a GUI, there are ‘net’ & ‘core’ – that’s a pretty good choice, I think. 😉
Linux (& BSD) since 1999
prox
That’s basically what ‘base’ is for, as against ‘full’ – for those who don’t want to run a GUI, there are ‘net’ & ‘core’ – that’s a pretty good choice, I think.
Yes, I agree, but https://antixlinux.com/download/ does not describe the differences between base, net and core iso files, so I by mistake downloaded the core iso file.
How about adding this information on that URL? A link there to http://download.tuxfamily.org/antix/docs-antiX-17/FAQ/index.html#_pre_installation would be sufficient, plus an explanation what X is (a desktop environment).
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by prox.
fatmac
Well, ‘net’ & ‘core’ are quite well known to be console/text only in the Linux community, but maybe one of the developer team will consider it. 🙂
Linux (& BSD) since 1999
anticapitalista
How about adding this information on that URL? A link there to http://download.tuxfamily.org/antix/docs-antiX-17/FAQ/index.html#_pre_installation would be sufficient, plus an explanation what X is (a desktop environment).
Aren’t the first few lines of every release announcement not enough?
As usual, the following completely systemd-free flavours for both 32 and 64 bit architecture are offered: antiX-full (c1GB) – 4 windows managers – IceWM (default), fluxbox, jwm and herbstluftwm plus full libreoffice suite. antiX-base (c680MB so fits on a cd) – 4 windows managers – IceWM (default), fluxbox, jwm and herbstluftwm. antiX-core (c330MB) – no X, but should support most wireless. antiX-net (c170MB)- no X. Just enough to get you connected (wired) and ready to build.From: Release info
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by anticapitalista.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
prox
Aren’t the first few lines of every release announcement not enough?
Thanks for this information. Yes, of course you are right. But not everyone looks into release announcement files, like me yesterday. I wanted a fast solution, so I just picked a x64 iso file and downloaded it, but it was the wrong one. I am a newbie to AntiX.
I am for easy software handling and thus also for easy access to important information. The AntiX download page only needs some explaining sentences about the differences between net, core and base iso files, it’s not much work.
prox, I agree that additional info on the download page would be helpful.
Coincidentally, I had intended to post within the “plurality” topic later today, to mention that multiple onboarding entrypoints exist
(incl: project page at sourceforge.net, antixlinux.com homepage, project page at distrowatch.com)
and, across the entrypoints, the description(s) presented contain a few discrepancies
(192MB min, or 256? Supports PII cpu, or not?) (the current FAQ still claims PII support)a presentation like this (with horizontal dividers) would provide a clear delineation
_______________________________________________________________________________
The following completely systemd-free flavours for both 32 and 64 bit architecture are offered:
antiX-full (c1GB) – 4 windows managers – IceWM (default), fluxbox, jwm and herbstluftwm, plus full libreoffice suite
antiX-base (c680MB so fits on a cd) – 4 windows managers – IceWM (default), fluxbox, jwm and herbstluftwm
_______________________________________________________________________________Also, for expert users (who are comfortable with building up a customized debian-based linux system):
antiX-core (c330MB) systemd-free – no X, but should support most wireless
antiX-net (c170MB) systemd-free – no X. Just enough to get you connected (wired) and ready to build._______________________________________________________________________________
note: blahblah … libre
one FAQ-ish detail still not filled in, above:
Which, if any, provide libre kernel (or ability to easily remove non-free components) ?prox
skidoo, sorry for my late answer, I was not informed by mail about your last post in this forum thread. I saw your last answer yesterday evening (central European summer time).
Your info text about the different variants of the AntiX iso files looks good.
Is a libre kernel a kernel without any proprietary/non-free components?
Is a libre kernel a kernel without any proprietary/non-free components?
Yes
The non-libre antiX kernel includes an assortment of non-free modules (device drivers) that support a range of wifi chips/devices.
From terminal commandline, you can run the command vrms to view a list of non-free packages installed on your system.
(If vrms is not pre-installed on your edition of antiX, you can install the debian “vrms” package)
prox
Thanks, skidoo. I tried the vrms command in my AntiX box and it shows several non-free components. I guess it is safer to use a non-libre kernel because of all these patches for Intel and AMD processors, due to the security wholes these processors otherwise offer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
