Initialization problems

Warderbrad

I have read the sticky and found the part about the inserting the line of code confusing about where to add it. Anyway I am still getting an error from the phpMyAdmin saying that "cannot load mysql extension; please check PHP configuration". I have been over the documentaion and am not sure where I missed something. The DLLs are in place and everything looks like it seems it should. I have to admit this is my first attempt to install PHP or any of this. I am just really frustrated, it is reminding me of days of Windows 3.x and such where nothing was automated like it is today.

_RL_Ian

If you have no experience in setting up PHP/MySQL, you should just download a WAMP (A program that installs all of it for you with one click). Try Apache2Triad or XAMPP.

Warderbrad

will using this mess up what I have already done to set up PHP and Apache?

Warderbrad

I downloaded XAMPP and ran it. It says that the mySQL server is running but I still get the error, is there a setting or anything I need to change to initialize it for PHP or something?

Sxooter

This is one area, by the way, where the setup in a linux distro is noticeable easier. Fedora Core 4 with RPM installs of apache, php, postgresql, mysql are dirt simple there. If you've got a spare box laying around...

I'm just saying.

On the MySQL front, can you log into the mysql server from the command prompt like so:

mysql test

???

Warderbrad

I am not sure which command prompt you are refering to so I tried the basic command promt <wow been a while since I used a dos style interface> the system reply was "'mysql' is not a recognized internal or external command, operable program or batch file" I tried the command in the directory it started me in, which was the My Documents directory.

Sxooter

msql or mysql? There is no msql in mysql, but if it really said mysql is not a basic command, then I'm not sure what to do. I'm not a windows user, sorry.

Warderbrad

I went to the directory that mySQL was installed into by XAMPP. From there I was able to type "mysql test" and was responded with:
"Error 1045 <28000>: Access denied for user 'ODBC'@"localhost" <using password: NO>"

so I used the book I am learning from and put in the command tags for putting in the host name and user name and have it prompt for the password (which it did) and after putting in the password I was responded with:

Error 1130 <00000>: #HY000Host '192.168.2.3' is not allowed to connect to this MySQL server

I appreciate any suggestions you all might be able to come up with

BTW I would run Lynux but I am kinda hesitant to install it as I have heard so many horror stories about getting set up with all the dependancies. As I have a large enough drive to partition a section off and make a second bootable drive I may in the future do that but not right now as I am busy enough with what I am doing.

Sxooter

RE: Linux dependencies Those horror stories are mostly FUD. Use Fedora Core 4 and yum and it's all taken care of automagically.

Right now, it looks like you're gonna need to read the mysql manual to figure this out, or maybe wait for a mysql person to help ya out on this one. My MySQL install just works, so I've never had to muck about with these things you're having troubles with.

csn

Warderbrad wrote:
I went to the directory that mySQL was installed into by XAMPP. From there I was able to type "mysql test" and was responded with:
"Error 1045 <28000>: Access denied for user 'ODBC'@"localhost" <using password: NO>"

so I used the book I am learning from and put in the command tags for putting in the host name and user name and have it prompt for the password (which it did) and after putting in the password I was responded with:

Error 1130 <00000>: #HY000Host '192.168.2.3' is not allowed to connect to this MySQL server

I appreciate any suggestions you all might be able to come up with

BTW I would run Lynux but I am kinda hesitant to install it as I have heard so many horror stories about getting set up with all the dependancies. As I have a large enough drive to partition a section off and make a second bootable drive I may in the future do that but not right now as I am busy enough with what I am doing.

That's weird that by specifying the username and password, the connection is coming from 192.168.2.3 rather than localhost. In that case, you'll have to add permissions to connect from that IP.

I have a Redhat 9 server and completely avoid RPM - it chokes more often on failed dependencies than it successfully installs stuff. Compliing and installing programs like PostgreSQL (and probably MySQL) isn't too difficult. But things like PHP and Apache can be a long litany of dependencies - Freetype, Truetype, GD, ... [shudder].

Sxooter

RedHat 9 is pretty ancient. I've had no real problem with dependencies since switching to FC2 and FC3 on my home machines / laptop. Yum is so freaking cool. yum install packagename handles all the dependencies for you. All you gotta do is say yes or no.

As for this MySQL issue, I have not a clue what's up there. I'd suggest reading the fine manual and see if that helps...

csn

Yeah, I've had the server for years. I'd love to upgrade, but I'm afraid of the likely many many hours it'll take to install/transfer/config/etc. everything.

Sxooter

The most work will be transferring data, specifically the database and php scripts that may do things oddly with a newer version of php (of course, you can turn off most of the more bothersome PHP options if you'd rather)

The install itself is quite easy.

Why not use a spare hard drive and make it a dual booter for two versions of linux?

csn

Transferring the databases and scripts will be the easy part 😉. It's all the tons of little things I've installed/config'd over the years: iptables, dbmail, postfix, all the mail, user accounts, user config files, dspam, dbm, svn, ad infinitum. Just a ton of individual config and other files that need to be copied over into their proper places.

The server's hosted in another state. I might be able to get them to put the old drive alongside a new drive in a new server. Or just copy everything over.

The server works fine right now, so I'm just following the philosophy "if it aint broke, don't fix it!" 😉

csn

I may actually upgrade now. Probably to CentOS 4 (RHEL 4 essentially).

Hey Sxooter, know anything about Xen virtualization? Redhat seems to be very keen on getting it included in the Linux kernel. AFAICS it can separate one machine to act like many machines, or combine several machines to act like one. Not sure of what benefit it'd be to me on a single server - perhaps keep processes/programs from monopolizing CPU/memory? But there are ways to do that already.

Sxooter

CentOS is quite nice. We use it at work and are very happy with it.

Xen is pretty much the same thing as VMware. It's very useful for people who have to support multiple machines and / or operating systems.

Imagine you have a production system that consists of front end web servers, middle layer jboss machines, a job control machine, and a logging box, and a backend machine running your database.

To properly simulate all these machines, you need firewalling between them, and each may have slightly different configurations, like your databases may be hosted on RHEL 4, but your jboss machines might need RHEL 3 Update 4 to run properly, and the front end web servers might be running Open BSD for security purposes.

For operational testing, you can build all that on one machine with virualization, and test it before having to buy a dozen or more computers. Plus, every developer with a big enough box can have this setup, so problems that would be caused by this configuration, that might not be seen on a regular development box, would be more quickly found.

Lastly, it allows you to easily backup, restore, and deploy such a "server" as it's really just a file on your hard drive.

csn

Do you use desktop Linux, Sxooter? I recently tried out Knoppix and Ubuntu and was disappointed. Knoppix wouldn't load (got several read errors while loading - perhaps the CD didn't burn correctly). Ubuntu took forever to load (10+ minutes, but it did load without problem). After it did load, desktop Linux looked pretty much the same as it did years ago when I used fvwm, etc. I couldn't get it to scan for and connect to WIFI networks, mount my hard drive, and my screen kind of flickered. I like Linux for servers, but didn't see anything in desktop/windows that got me excited.

Sxooter

Wow, your experience with Knoppix and Ubuntu do not mirror mine. Keep in mind, though, that live CDs can not be expected to boot or run as fast as a hard disk installed version, since they have fewer resources and have to load from a CD. It definitely sounds like you had a bad copy of Knoppix. Can't really blame read errors on the distro.

It's hard to troubleshoot these things remotely though. 🙂 I run fedora core 2 and 3 on my machines, and it works quite well. Do you have an older monitor or video card? Sometimes auto configuration can't figure out what the max res / freq is on those ones.

What features were you looking for in a desk top that you didn't get? I'm pretty easy to please on a desktop. Stable, no crashing, and lots of windows open with cut and paste and I'm pretty happy.

I have FC 3 on my IBM laptop and it works with wifi, but I had to download the firmware and put it in the right directory to make it work. Took me a minute of google time to find the T42 / linux home page then I was set. It's a shame that IBM can't do more to support linux on their own laptops, as once they're setup they are quite nice.

The main reason I use linux over windows is I got tired of windows deconfiguring itself every 3 to 9 months and needing to be reinstalled to get back to a usable state. That and the occasional crashes for no apparent reason.

csn

I tried them both out on my Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop. I might buy a hard drive and install Ubuntu on it and try it on my desktop.

Call me a heretic 😉, but I like MS Windows (somewhat) better, for the desktop. Well, not MS Windows per se, but all the stuff that's available for it - all the latest drivers, apps, games, etc. And, well, IMHO MS Windows is somewhat more user friendly (often to the point of annoyance). I use XP Pro and Home and they've been very stable, though I think my graphics card is starting to go flaky and is causing crashes (real fun trying to figure this out since absolutely nothing gets logged, nor are there any BSOD's - the system just freezes, then reboots. I guess it's the graphics card because after soft reboots the screen is scrambled.).

Everybody raves about OSX. But I don't think I want to buy into Apple hardware. But then there's OSx86 😉.

Sxooter

I tend to be a CLI user from way back. Heck, I had an Amiga and used the shell on it all the time. So, to me the GUI is just something to interact with GUI type programs, and doesn't need a lot of sophistication.

That said, the latest Gnome and KDE desktops are quite stable and featureful, but keep in mind that many functions that Windows has trained you to think of as "windows" level functions, like adjusting the resoution of your screen, are a couple levels down in Unix.

Sorry to hear about your inspirion slowly dieing. Sounds like it could actually be almost any part, CPU, memory, graphics chip, or even the power subsystem.

The general philosophies between most linux distros and windows are quite different. For instance, device drivers. On linux, you tend to have device drivers created and maintained by the community, and they tend to be very general and long lived. This means that old hardware generally works pretty well, because the general nature of the drivers allow them to have a longer life span, but means that often smaller features get left out or are unsupported, especially in the newer version of the hardware supported.

For instance, the only external driver I needed for my laptop was the one for my wifi card. I was able to connect my camera and have instant access, and only needed a couple of programs to use my ipod shuffle and zen xtra jukebox. All the graphics, cdrom, etc... drivers were otherwise built right in. OTOH, I have no driver for my winmodem in this machine, and no intention of buying the commercial driver, as I use a modem about as often as I use hair pomade.

With Windows, I've never gotten away with using the built in drivers. I have always needed to download a half a dozen or more drivers from the web in order to make my machine work after an install.

I don't think Windows is that much more user friendly, just more familiar for most users. There are some parts of it that are more user friendly than linux, and vice versa. Note that for me, Windows is MUCH harder to use, because I am so inexperienced with it. If you do a lot from the command line, Windows feels very clunky, but it's getting better. If you do a lot from the GUI, Linux feels klunky, but it's getting better.