Re: Linux for Dummies



"Robert Newson" <ReapNewsB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46181B67.3070405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don H wrote:

...
But then, I was trying to install on a notebook/laptop with only 60g
capacity. Did work, sort of, with SuSE 10.1, but gobbled up lots of
hard
disk space and produced a flickering screen. (even after dodging ACPI).

Interesting...I've installed SUSE 10.1 on my Notebook to duel (sic) boot
with Windwos XP. The 80G hard disk has 30G[1] allocated for Windwos,
leaving 50G for SUSE 10.1. Of that 50G, around 38G (about 75% or 3/4) is
free and available AFTER installing a LOT of stuff.

[1] of that 30G a 2G partition is formatted with vfat to allow data
transfer
from Linux to Windwos; the other 28G is formatted with NTFS.

I have also installed SUSE 10.1 on a computer with a 850M (that's MEG, not
GIG) hard disk - that currently has around 20% (143M) free[2]. Admittedly
it doesn't have X, or a lot of other stuff installed; it only has what is
necessary for its job.

[2] The missing space has gone into a swap partition.

In neither install do I have screen flicker.

...

Which latter might require initial partitioning of hard disk, but how
much
space to allot ? (varies with distro?), and of what type (eg. SuSE 10.1
uses
ext2).

My SUSE 10.1 uses ReiserFS by default. With regard to space to allocate,
the SUSE installer was pretty good at guessing/suggesting partition
sizes...it was only with the 850M drive did I have to jump in and override
its suggestion.

With regard to which fs type to use, there was a review done somewhere
which
looked at the various fs's available in Linux and depending upon the kind
of
work you're liable to do, each one had different advantages. I think
(IIRC)
that reiserfs was better if you have lots of small files, whereas another
is
better for [a few] large files (eg video editing).

I'd say that the distro makers have probably chosen their default fs based
on their experiences and what they expect the majority of users will do
with
their distro and I would guess that as a general user, your usage would
probably fall into that pattern and so using their defaults will give you
a
good system.

I've used my old desktop computer, with Win98, for years; it only has
2g
capacity, of which I've used half; but then I deal mainly in text
(essays,
poems, arguments), not graphics - and it is all those pixels which
gobble up
space.

My first Win98 install had around 30G. It has since shrunk to around 23G
as
my linux native needs on that duel (sic) boot machine have increased.
However, I also use those Win partitions as an archive data space for
Linux,
so it's not totally wasted.

A relative of mine has a Mac computer and uses Photoshop (?) to touch
up
old photos. I think his disk has 200g, which is probably about right -
lets
him store photos on his hard disk.

If you're doing photo work you need lots of storage space.

If I buy another desktop computer, I might try and load Linux, but, at
the
moment, WinXP on my Notebook does all I need.

Getting Win XP to play ball with duel (sic) booting is a headache. It
took
a bit of sneakiness on my behalf to get it to use the partitioning scheme
I
wanted - NOT a single root partition, especially when trying to share that
partition across my LAN (to aid transferance of data from a WIn 98
machine)
gives a warning that it's an insecure, stupid thing to do and could lead
to
machine compromise (or words to that effect): if they know it's a stupid
thing to do, WHY install (with no [obvious] user choice) to a SINGLE ROOT
partition? Does the left hand of MS not know what the right's doing?
[Even
now I haven't fully managed to get the Documents and Settings off the root
partition onto my preferred, data, partition - and Windwos is supposed to
be
easy.]


# Hm, MS-Windows protecting its turf? Hadn't thought of that. Your comment
about duel (sic) booting prompted the idea; also, I now have a Warning
Message on my Notebook, every time I log on. Message says that a file -
user32.dll - has relocated in memory. "The application will not run
properly"..."The vendor supplying the DLL should be contacted for a new
DLL".
But my Notebook appears to be unaffected in normal operations. Maybe only
malfunctions if I attempt to install Linux?
I know I clomp around on computers in hobnailed boots, but even I didn't
relocate the file concerned, accidentally or deliberately. This message has
only cropped up since I tried installing Linux.
External interference? Who can influence your computer?
(1) Hackers
(2) Microsoft - upgrades, like it or not.
(3) Anti-Virus protector (I have Norton on my Notebook)
(4) your ISP
Anyone else? (Wife or kids getting on when you're not about?)
Well, the message is a nuisance, but I'll ignore it if it makes no
difference to daily functioning.
If I do take my computer back to the vendor, I'll get him to strip WinXP
off, then load Linux BEFORE dual booting with Windows.
Problem solved? Maybe.


.