Understanding Linux Partitions
As is the case when installing a new copy of Windows, partitioning is something that you will want to plan out before actually doing it. There are a few things that you must understand about Linux partitions before we proceed. A Linux installation will require a minimum of two partitions. One is for the operating system itself, which is represented as "/" and referred to as “root." The second is for virtual memory (or page files if you prefer) and is referred to as the “swap” area.
Which File System Do I Choose?
Like Windows, Linux has gone through several different file systems throughout the years. Ubuntu has read-and-write capabilities on Windows file systems but will not install onto them. FAT16, FAT32, and VFAT partitions can be read and written to right out of the box. NTFS file systems can only be read out of the box, but can easily be set to also write. Since Windows cannot read or write Linux file systems, you will need to transfer files to and from Windows within the Ubuntu operating system.
Other than the familiar Windows file systems, you will have the option of choosing several that you may not yet know. Among them is the ext3 file system. Ext3 is currently the most suited file system for a desktop and is the one with which we'll be concerned. The ext2 file system has, for the most part, been phased out. While ext4 is now available in Ubuntu 9.04, it is not yet stable enough to recommend. The ReiserFS, XFS, and JFS file systems have their specialized uses, but they are not relevant to a standard desktop setup. The swap area is for virtual memory use only, and unlike other file systems, it does not require a mount point.
What Are Mount Points?
Linux does not assign letters to each drive and partition like Windows and DOS do. Instead, you must specify a mount point for each drive and partition. Linux works on a hierarchical directory tree, where root ( / ) is the primary mount point, which by default contains all others. Think of / as the Linux equivalent of c:\, which is the default location for all Windows files and directories. Take /home/tomshardware, for example. You would get to the folder called “tomshardware” from the home directory ( /home ), which is located in the root ( / ) directory.
Mount points are sub-directories, kind of like how c:\Documents and Settings\tomshardware points to a folder named “tomshardware,” which is in My Documents on the C: Drive. Straightforward, right? Here is where Linux and Windows differ: because of its server roots, Linux does not care if one of the root's sub-directories is on a separate partition or drive. By specifying sub-directories as mount points for drives and partitions, Linux will detect that sub-directory and not duplicate it on your root drive or partition.
For example, /home is where all of your personal files reside. If you want those files on a separate partition or disk, you would install a second drive or create a separate partition and set the mount point to /home. This can be done for any other sub-directory. Ubuntu gives you the option to set the following mount points during installation: /boot (boot loader and kernel headers), /dev (devices and drivers), /home (user files), /opt (some additional software), /srv (system services) /tmp (temporary files), /usr (applications), /usr/local (data accessible to all users), and /var (server spools and logs).
For a typical desktop system, there is really no reason to give /dev, /opt, /srv, /tmp, /usr/local, and /var their own partitions. If you are planning on running more than two operating systems across multiple hard drives, it may be a good idea to make a partition for /boot. Creating a partition for /usr is worth doing, but should only be done if you already have a good idea of how much space applications will take up. Creating /home on a separate partition should be mandatory, while putting it on a separate hard drive is even better. You can choose to just create the minimum root and swap partitions, in which case /boot, /home,/usr, and all the rest will simply reside in root ( / ). By putting /home on a separate partition (or better yet, drive), you can essentially keep your documents, music, videos, pictures, saved games, etc. safe from catastrophe that may befall your system files on the root partition. Therefore, if you put all of the files you would typically backup into your home directory, you don't need to bother backing up for a re-installation, upgrade, or even a distribution switch.
Now that you understand Linux partitions and how the directory tree works, let's go ahead and partition the hard drive. For this desktop installation, we will use three partitions: root, home, and swap.
Latest Tweaking & Tuning News
- 19/01 – Intel's Creates New Protection Plan Just for Overclockers
- 04/01 – Tom's Hardware Benchmark Charts and Database Updated
- 04/01 – AMD Radeon HD 7970 Quad CrossFireX Stomps 3DMark Records
- 29/12 – Gigabyte's X79-UD3 With New F7 BIOS Sets X79 Records
- 09/12 – Nvidia Launches Two Tweak Guides for Skyrim
Latest Tweaking & Tuning reviews
- 27/12 – Four High-End Quad-Channel DDR3 Memory Kits For X79, Reviewed
- 23/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared
- 21/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC
- 20/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $1200 Enthusiast PC
- 19/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $2400 Performance PC
If you forget your username, you are plain stupid. But it is not an issue. Boot up in safe mode/recovery mode or whatever. Once at the recovery mode screen, choose to start terminal as root. You can type "ls /home" to list users. You're username will be there.
Type "passwd yourusername" hit enter and type in your new password type. Remember it this time dummy. Confirm it by typing again. Remember linux is case sensitive.
You've succesfully changed your password and recovered your username. Type "exit" funnily enough and boot into Ubuntu.
You win!!!
I tried out Ubuntu Ibex (dual boot with vista) for a little while a couple of months back. It was simple to install and I loved the GNOME desktop but I found that some of the software I installed didn't work and my wireless wouldn't work. I searched a lot on line (wired access of course) but every suggestion I tried didn't solve my issues. Since I loved the GNOME desktop so much though I recently tried out FEDORA 10. It's working perfectly for me (only had it a week but used it a lot already). I haven't booted to vista since bar once just to check that I can actually dual boot. I'll probably use Fed for my work and vista only for my games when I'm bored with my PS3.
I love Linux, I've been using it since my college days (actually, I needed it, along with Unix, for engineering work). I think it's a bit complicated for the average Joe that just does not know any better than to point and click, especially if you have to play with it in the cli and the actual inner workings of the OS. Linux has come a long way but it still needs to polish some rough edges associated with the OS. Some of these issues are not the OS fault for example gaming, proprietary drivers, patent ridden codecs, etc. I hate it when I have problems with my video card drivers (yeah ATI), I hate it when a printer is just not supported (yeah Lexmark). Anyways, Linux is in the way up and I think this (rough edges) is going to change soon. I will continue to use Linux for a long time, heck I never actually used Windows ME or XP as my primary OS, Linux was my primary OS before that (Debian 2.0 rings a bell, ha)
Other people may well disagree, but the last time i tried ubuntu (8.04) It took me over 30hours to get my wifi card working, and that's depsite fllowing letter for letter guides written by other people.
I wouldnt mind but I consider myself extremely knowledgeable most of the time I used to install fairly complex multi-server networks, and the card that wouldnt work is a netgear wpn311 - not even an uncommon model.
Windows - literally plug and play, less than 5 minute job including shutdown and reboot, clearly linux has a way to go before it is acceptable for everyone.
I want to love Linux, I really do, but overall Windows makes things easier. In this day and age we shouldn't need to go to a CLI, I haven't really done that in anger since I used my old BBC Micro. I hate the fact that when I finally figure out how to get one of the many different package types to finally install, I then can't find where the program has actually gone. At least with Windows you say exactly where the program is to reside. Lets be honest, most people don't care about /usr /home /var etc etc. Outside of the Linux (UNIX?) world it means nothing and adds nothing but confusion. OK it does make sure everything is in its place but it also adds complexity. If I want to install a program on Windows I double click the install program and off it goes, installs and then adds a shortcut to the start menu. Simple. Windows even now asks for authorisation before running an executable. It isn't perfect, nor as secure as the Linux way, but a darn site easier. As I said, I want to love Linux, I want it to be easy to use and simple from an average users perspective. I love computers, always have, but I like using them, not fudging around 'under the hood' when I just want to install a simple program. Until that day I am resigned to using Windows with all the risks that go with that
What people generally confuse themselves with regards to drivers is that it's not a Linux issue. The problem is with the manufacturers of the hardware. They restrict themselves to creating windows only drivers, which means the Linux community have a hard time trying to reverse engineer those drivers to make one that will work with Linux. If the manufacturers of hardware were to release Linux drivers then these issues would simply disappear.
So for those people with misconceptions about problems with hardware and drivers, think for a second where did your windows driver come from?
People fail to realise that drivers under Linux for the vast majority have been painstakingly created from little or no knowledge of the underlying hardware. For the drivers that do work flawlessly and lets come on and admit it there is a lot of them now, hats off to the dedicated developer community for persevering.
Don't get me wrong I love Windows XP, and before that Windows 98/se but I have used linux for over 5 years and the progress these developers have made is truly amazing. I am no Linux fan boy, I have been using a Mac for more than 2 years now but have other machines that run a gamut of OS's.
smartroad, the thing is, if you want to install something in ubuntu, you can do it with a gui too. Just go to System, then Administration (I don't really know the english version of it, so I might as well be wrong), and then click synaptic. Then, you will be able to search, select and install/update whatever packages are listed on your repositories. If you want to have all your applications to be in a specific location, then you should compile from source. That won't be as easy and will require a cli, unless someone writes a script for it.
But I don't think we should be afraid of cli, there are many thing you can do a lot faster in a terminal than using a gui. There are gui tools for just about everything you will need using linux, it's just that using the cli is faster and easier on experienced users, that's why we are trying to teach the cli to newcomers.
I'll switch to Linux when Adobe release their software on it.
kthxbai
I have now actually switched to UNR on my NC10 and to be fair it is a much better experiance then I was expecting. There are a few nags I have, unlike windows it doesn't simply switch to my external monitor when I plug it in, for one thing. But on the whole it is a much better and easier experience then when I first used SUSE linux back in '98
I also want to love Linux, and the only reason I still stick with Windows, is its ample game support... but that is not Linux's fault, off course...
~ Mortov Molotov