ATTN: Bluenavigator and/or other Linux users.

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Jayce, Aug 25, 2006.

  1. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    I figured I'd take a stab and see if you folks would happen to know how to fix this issue. It's quite odd. Take notice to the pictures below. One picture, firefox is at yahoo's mail site. The other picture, firefox is at the ubuntuforums (I am using the ubuntu distro).

    Now, understand something here. Nothing changed. I still have the SAME windows open. The only thing that changed was firefox was changed to the ubuntu forums. Now let's think about this a second... WHY is it when I go to the ubuntu forums do the tasks get shifted to the left? I didn't do ANYTHING!!! :( I can go to any site. Any site at all. SF, ebay, paypal, yahoo, anything, and it's fine. Once I go to ubuntu forums, the tasks get shifted over. I can't figure out why. I've right clicked on the taskbar and went to preferences to see if for some reason that site was tagged along with a different size adjustment, but it's not. It's the same! :(

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    EDIT - It also does it with demonoid.com now too!! :(
     
    #1 Jayce, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  2. HerHubby

    HerHubby The SF Poet Laureate
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Virginia
    I have no idea if it might be a similar situation, but I have two Google search blanks and I think that it is probably the result of some adware somebody has dumped on my system. I'll find a way to get rid of it, eventually, but I wonder, in your case, if it might be a similar sort of situation where there is some sort of competing software, similar to the adware, at work here. Might be a good idea to send a private message to Ryan and see if he can help although he might see your message. Hang in there! Bound to be a solution somewhere! ;>
     
  3. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    That's interesting that program icons shrink in the taskbar. I am not sure why that happens. It could be a bug.

    I am using Fedora Core 5 and don't see that problem.
     
  4. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    Someone told me it's due to the title length of yahoo. Notice how yahoo is yahoo mail - the best web based email... the ubuntu forums, it's just that, ubuntu forums. Done.

    Still, it's annoying. I wonder if there's a way to set a maximum width for individual tasks. For example, I KNOW I can set a maximum width for the entire taskbar, but I want to set individual. Like... I want to set maximum width's for any and all windows to individually be 100 pixels. That way, if I have 3 windows open, they're taking up a max of 300 pixels total. If I have 7 open, they're taking 700 maximum. Get my drift?
     
  5. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    I'm told this is the same way Windows works. So, whatever. I guess it makes sense... the OS is just trying to display as much of the web site name as possible... and since Yahoo uses "Yahoo Mail - the best web based mail!" which is considerably longer than ubuntuforums... meh, whatever.

    Anybody have any experience setting up a Raid 1 format in linux? I have a pair of WD 250 gig 16 meg buffer 7200 RPM SATA300 drives coming on Monday, and I want to set up a Raid 1 format, as well as a 25 gig partition for XP and the remainder for Linux. I've never touched raid before, in fact I never even messed around with serial drives. :uhh:
     
  6. Joe

    Joe
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,681
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    I just set up Raid 5 on one of my drives last week, but all I had to do was click a button. I got a new LaCie "BigDrive" that's pretty nice. Firewire 800 and four 250 gb hot-swapable drives. Wasn't real cheap, but it's fast for a Raid setup, and it's much cheaper than others in that category.
     
  7. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    Isn't raid 5 just, 4 hard drives (two pair) and each pair in raid 1? btw did you set that up on a linux system?
     
  8. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    As former R&D technician at Dell, I had worked on these PowerEdge servers in both W2K and Linux OS.

    Raid 5 is only 3 HDD combined as the last drive is used for parity only. Additional drive will be used as stripped drive along with other stripped drives.

    For more information on different RAID Level, check this URL - http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RAID.html
     
  9. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    I'm angry. I have two identicle SATA drives here I want to set up in RAID1 format with Linux. That's it. Is that so hard to ask?

    What I did:

    I set up RAID1 first via BIOS in the hardware selection. Everything seemed well. Somehow the boot loader went to one disk, and the OS went to another. Yeah, problem. I had to format the discs and try again. Same thing 2nd time around. So then I took one HDD out, formatted it, and put Linux on it. Now everything works great, BUT I don't have the other disc functioning yet. It's plugged in, it's working, but it's also empty and waiting to be used.

    How can I get that drive to mirror? Everywhere I go it says that my data will be destroyed to set up a RAID format now. Okay fine. So I go through that and set up RAID1 again, and as I set it up it erases the disks. Well, now nothing happens.

    I boot up. The system POST's. Then I get a black screen. Nadda. Nothing. That's it. Black screen forever.

    If I take one drive out, it'll boot but get an error of course. I put the second drive back in, black screen.

    Somehow IDE is looking so much sexier than serial right now. How can I fix this without having the desire to lodge these hard drives off of Mt Rushmore?
     
  10. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    BIOS setup inside the RAID controller, it should work just fine. I know that it is a little tricky. Is the RAID controller stand alone or builtin on the mobo? I believe that you are using mobo with RAID controller builtin since you mentioned SATA drives. Whenever you install the OS, it should see only one drive. For Linux, you should have the latest version with SATA/RAID support. Otherwise, it will fail. What flavor of Linux are you using?
     
  11. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    Yes it's built in to the mobo. It's an MSI K8N Neo4.

    Ubuntu.
     
  12. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
  13. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    I'm using the 32 bit version, despite the fact I have a 64 bit CPU.
     
  14. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Maybe that's the problem? Why use 32 bit version? Use 64 bit version to make all of your money worth it.
     
  15. Jayce

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    PA
    Because originally I got the 64 bit version, but at the time the 64 bit version didn't support a LOT of basic shit in the operating system. The 32 bit version was world's easier to install and get configured, while the 64 bit version had a long ways to go.

    This was only 3 months ago too... I have no idea how it is now, but when I ran the 64 bit version it uh... kinda sucked. I saw no difference besides having one bigass headache from getting errors when installing simple codecs and shit.
     
  16. bluenavigator

    bluenavigator New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Undetstandable.... For myself, I usually stay away from new technology for Linux founation until everything blown all over and get better support by then.

    I don't see any good benefit from 64 bits system, unless you are going to crunch big numbers. That's all it's good for. I would go with cluster systems, than with 64 bits system. But that would be overkill for home usage, unless I have a BIG desire to find end of PI number.