Re: Linux distros

I have tried many distros over the years and I have yet to find one that *doesn't* muck up the partition table even when you install on (and boot load from) already existing partitions. Often, after installation, non-Linux based partitioning software will no longer work on the disk.

George

I haven't done it for awhile, but old Fedoras didn't do that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

George Neuner wrote

That's a very fatal kind of mishap isn't it? Under what conditions does it muck up the partition table and do you have any clue as to WHY?

I think you're probably correct that really old versions (circa 1.x kernels) didn't have the problem. But more recent fdisk, parted, etc. allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that have "illegal" sizes.

I have found that the "easy" GUI installs - which you can count on most people using - very often create non-aligned partitions even when the entire disk is given to Linux. And they all seem to rewrite the partition table even when you tell them to use (and install grub on) already existing partitions. Getting multiple distros - or even multiple versions of the same distro - to coexist on the same disk can be a vexing problem. Getting any distro to coexist with another OS can be extremely difficult if you don't want to use grub to do the boot selection.

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others may yet want to do it.

YMMV, George

Linux has *allowed* that for awhile, but earlier versions of the tools didn't _force_ partition boundaries to be unaligned. The Fedoras I was thinking about would have been about V7, i.e. 2.6ish kernels.

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W past next April.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On a sunny day (Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:05:13 +0200) it happened David Brown wrote in :

On the Raspberry Pies I simply changed the /etc/passwd entry for 'pi' so 'pi' has root permissions and shell in /root Never sudo again...

Usually I ssh -Y pi@IP_ADDRESS to those, the default password is still 'raspberry' in there... I develop a lot of stuff compiling and assembling on the Raspberry. It is small, powerful, low power... and very stable. As JTAG programmer:

That is for the 'techies' ;-)

That is almost true. I had only minor problems installing pure source packages, provided all dependencies were met. The main problem usually is the shortsighted programmer who distributes his/her masterpiece that depends on the very latest, or worse, beta version of everything, which sometimes forces the user to break a package based system.

I can't say I have used any non-Linux partitioning software, other than a plain Windows installer. (I thought most partitioning tools these days, except Windows own tools, used Linux.) But whenever I want to do something complicated with a disk setup, such as raids or LVM, I usually use System Rescue CD to set up the partitions and then boot the distro installation. I haven't had any problems getting the installer to use the existing partitions.

If I want to have several different systems on the same machine, other than a dual-boot Windows/Linux, I usually use either VirtualBox for desktops or openvz for servers. That avoids all partitioning issues. (With openvz I typically have LVM and logical partitions per virtual machine.)

How far do you predict MS will go to kill off XP?

I started hedging my bets years ago by buying DELL computers. That's mostly what's available in the "free or almost free" box at garage sales. The whole system is WAY cheaper than buying a license.

They self-activate, as do many OEM's. I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

I didn't phrase my posting well. I've found that Gentoo has ebuilds for pretty much all the software I need to use. When I was using RedHat/Mandriva/Debian, there were a _lot_ of things for which packages weren't available from the distributor. Sometimes you could find them from third-parties, but then you ended up in a hellish maze of circular library dependancies. So the only resort was to to go the tar/configure/make/install route, which resulted in a constant series of breakages as libraries got upgraded.

True, but I pretty much never have to do that with Gentoo while I had to do that constantly with Redhat et al. Since the stuff installed manually from tarballs wasn't hooked into the package management system, things were continually being broken by upgrades.

And don't get me started on the disaster recovery efforts that always accompanied major revision upgrades -- I eventually gave up trying to upgrade across major revisions and just did a clean install whenever I got to that point. And it wasn't for lack of experience or trying: I ran multiple RedHat systems starting back when they didn't even have version numbers: I think I started with either Mothers Day or Holloween releases (before that I ran Yggdrasil and Slackware). I ran RH up until 8.00 came out in 2002. 8.00 was such a disaster I switched to Mandriva for a couple years before switching to Gentoo. I've been running Gentoo for almost 10 years now, and since I switched I spend a lot less time maintaining systems. Some of my Gentoo installations are almost 10 years old, and I've been able to keep them up-to-date without the periodic clean reinstalls that were always required when I ran HR/Mandriva. The oldest one doesn't have any of the same hardware it started with except for the case.

Maybe things in binary-distribution land have improved, but my recent brief expeditions into Ubuntu and RH/CentOS territory haven't given any indication that's the case.

If all you want to do is browse the web, listen to mp3 files, and spend the rest of your time trying to learn the desktop du jour, then any of the binary distributions are probably fine. If I had to use one it would probably be either plain Debian or Xubuntu.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I am not sure I believe that Gentoo has more ebuilds than there are Debian packages, especially when you include additional repositories (like Ubuntu PPA's) which usually work fine, but I am not going to argue without researching for statistics.

There are, of course, other ways in which Gentoo might suit better - such as the more "bleeding edge" versions of software. Debian stable and Redhat (as distinct from Fedora) are often slow at getting updated packages.

I've started pulling down the individual "updates" so that I can reapply them manually. And, kept track of the install log for a typical autoupdate in case there were some prequisites in the order by which updates need to be installed.

A Dell machine "without OS" (i.e., COA but nothing actually *on* the disk) is $10-20 here. Regardless of whether it's a workstation,

IME, they don't need to talk to it, *ever*. I have (Dell) machines that have never directly been on the 'net and they neither nag me to "activate" nor "quit running" due to lack of activation.

Note that you need Dell media ("Reinstallation CD") as retail media will nag you just like every other non-Dell.

Of course, the preponderance of (desktop) machines out there seems to fall between IBM, Dell & HP. The "oddballs" have a much smaller market (Acer/eMachines, etc.) including the "build your own" sorts.

This, however, can be a major ordeal as A requires B and C. But, B requires P and Q while C requires M and N. And each of these requires...

When I build a new *BSD system, I research the release histories of the various "packages" (not always the correct term) available to decide which "bug sets" I am willing to live with. *Then*, the next step is to figure out which order to build each package (including the dependencies that I probably didn't explicitly think of when forming my initial "package list"). With a fair bit of planning, I can eliminate the need for the build of A to deviate into the fetch/build of B (and P and Q) and C (and M and N). It's just easier for me to keep track of where in the process the machine happens to be, currently in the event that I have to SIGKILL/SIGINT it.

Or, that requires a specific version of a .so -- perhaps not the "most current". Helps when your system allows multiple versions of a single .so in the "library" and uses symlinks to sort out which is "current" (so you can build against a particular

IME, biggest problem with "packages" is the folks who undertake their maintenance/packaging aften don't understand the actual app. Their criteria for success is: "Hooray! It built with no errors (from the compiler/linkage editor)". Even packages that have test suites available in their basic distribution don't always get built (by the packager) *or* understood!

Of course, those that have *no* formal test suites leave you at the mercy of the packager: "What do I know about the quality of this binary compared to the intended quality from its original author??"

My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I like about the former is the package management system. It's far superior to that used in RHeL et al.

I mean: apt-get update apt-get upgrade

That's all it takes to keep your system up to date.

And if you want an app:

apt-get install mysql

It gets all the dependencies necessary too.

Have you found a source for legit XP "retail" licenses? I really could use one...the OEM license is not supposed to be run in a virtual machine. Natch, that;'s what I need it for!

Bill M

I never said Linux "forced" unaligned partitions - the simple fact that Linux tools permit them is what made them (semi)incompatible with non-Linux tools.

Linux tools make only minimal effort to inform a user that a partition is not aligned and may be a problem for another OS. They do nothing to help the user in sizing a partition so it will be aligned.

VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts 8-)

VirtualBox does a good job for some guest OSes (and it gets better every time I look at it), but so far VMware works more smoothly, handles more devices and can run a wider selection of guests OSes without problems.

YMMV, George

Don't forget

apt-get moo

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:14:15 -0700 mike wrote in Message id: :

They don't "self activate" whatever that means, they just don't require activation.

For the record, Microsoft has already stated that they will issue a patch when they shut down the XP activation servers.

I know you didn't, I did. That's what pissed me off so badly about Ubuntu. I carefully partitioned the disc on cylinder boundaries, and told the installer to use the existing partitions. Then it went away and did its own thing, all to save a quarter or half of a cylinder. It did the same thing on the text-mode install procedure.

Brain-dead, arrogant, or both.

I don't want training wheels, I want it to do as it's bloody well told, and it doesn't.

Of course. But that won't preserve an existing installation.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs