My Linux Mint Cinnamon won’t boot up. It’s getting stuck on this screen and I don’t know what to do to proceed. Before this screen appears it shows the LM logo for a moment.
I’m a total noob and just been using this for a month or two. Did not make any recent changes that I can recall.
Reboot and get into your system’s boot drive selector f11 or del, usually make sure you’re booting off the right partion.
I would try and get into recovery mode (shift I think) if you can access the boot menu of mint under advanced>recovery
Motherboard or bios issue?
Your disks volume can’t boot, so it’s dropping you to a prompt to investigate. You need to run a disk check with ‘fsck’ at a minimum. If you’re not familiar with the CLI , just boot a LiveISO, and check your system disks from a desktop you’re familiar with.
Check maybe you have run out of space in your boot partition. Maybe you have to remove old kernels.
Best advice! +1
if you type exit, it should re-enter initramfs with the exact error, probably a disk error. If so, it will tell you to run fsck on a specific disk.
Check this Ask Ubuntu question - https://askubuntu.com/questions/137655/boot-drops-to-a-initramfs-prompts-busybox
This seems to have worked, got my desktop back. I did fsck on something like /dev/sda9 then answered yes to fix a bunch of things. Thanks for your help.
Great to hear that it worked :D It is a very common error condition.
Did your computer lose its bios settings lately? Check to see if it’s set to ahci and not raid if using a single, non-raid disk.
You can try some of the suggestions at https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/how-can-we-fix-this-no-irq-handler-for-vector-4175692269/, too.
Good luck
Possibly - the laptop battery died and the first thing when turning it on was to set system time in BIOS. But it’s not the first time doing that, just the first time it didn’t boot afterwards.
Mine did that when I chose not to format the “/” partition when installing.
Didn’t have the tooling for the fs?
Btw, i’m native german, why is it “didn’t have” and not “hadn’t”?
No, can’t be lack of anything, it was the regular Mint 21.3 installer image overwriting Debian on a normal ext4 formatted partition. Nothing should have gone wrong. Reinstalled with formatting on, and it started working.
“Hadn’t” means “had not” (not done in the past), not “had not” (lacked possession). I’m Finnish and might be wrong.
Adding even more grammar, you could use “Had no”, for lack of possession, like
It had no tooling for the fs?
Native English speaker. I started to write up an answer but the more I dig into it the more confused I am.
The subject and predicate need to agree for a sentence to sound normal. “It hadn’t” uses “had not” as the predicate which implies past action and needs a verb to sound normal.
You could say:
It had not installed the tooling.
Or It had not verified that the tooling installed correctly.
In it “It didn’t have” the predicate is “have” so a noun can follow and sound normal.
You could say:
It didn’t have the tooling.
Here is where I’m becoming confused.
Usually you can remove negatives and extra words to clarify grammar. In the sentence “It had the tooling” the predicate is still “had” but it doesn’t imply action so a following noun is fine. Also the sentence “It did have the tooling” is grammatically correct but sounds wordy and would probably be found in a legal document or technical write up. Why does the grammar change when you add a negative? “It hadn’t the tooling” sounds ridiculous but logically it should be fine if “It had the tooling” is fine! This is driving me crazy.
Somebody who paid more attention in English class will have to correct me. I guess we’re just going with " English is weird and it sounds better that way".
