I know it’s supposed to be easy but this is driving me up the wall. My only experience with Linux is in fact with Unix over 12 years ago and I didn’t do too much techie with that.
I have two questions. Why does the Ubuntu installer seem desirous of partioning the drive I want to install on into 21GB and 56GB? Why? I thought I could just stick the bloody thing onto /dev/sda(1?) and be done.
The second one is my real buggerator though. I had previously installed (sort of - it crashed towards the end) SuSE. Well, I decided against that and went Ubuntu. That crashed umpteen times - faulty CD writer (on another computer) or CD drive (on this one) - sorting that conundrum . This left the HD a right mess. So I use a USB stick with Ubuntu on to install and it all goes swimmingly. I selected the “erase all” so imagine my horror on reboot and I have a fully functional SuSE 11.4 with that fucking chameleon grinning at me! So, that is the first time (recall it crashed on installation (the dodgy disk/opti drive issue I mentioned no doubt) I have had SuSE on the machine. Also had the weird and unbidden partioning.
SW: Ubuntu 11.10, SuSE 11.4, USB stick install.
HW: XP3000+, 2GB DDR, Geforce MX400 64MB (not that that should matter), 74GB striped RAID (2x WD Raptors), 80GB Maxtor on IDE.
I am now trying an install on the Maxtor (which is of cause not as fast) as a temporary measure in the hope of purging completely the WD array and starting again… Or something.
I’d be happy to just know if any of you Linuxites know what the hell I’m talking about. Like I said I’m buggering about in the dark here so obviously I’m not reporting this right.
I think you’re confusing Linux partitions with Windows partitions, and while they’re a way of ’slicing’ a disk, they’re not used in quite the same way. That said, though both share a similar aim, for example it is not uncommon to have a C: partition on a Windows box that is kept free on additional programs, with user programs (or software) being installed to a D: drive. In Linux land you would have /sys for as a partition, and /usr as a separate partition. (Have a look here for more information on the Linux file system hierarchy, which should show you why it is sometimes desirable to separate out different parts of the file system in to partitions; http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/ )
Still, from what I’ve seen of Ubuntu of late, I think I’d go down the Gentoo Linux route instead. Have a look, see what you think.
Got Ubuntu up and running on the IDE drive OK - it seems. My questions remain though
Am typing in it right now.
One point I forgot to add. Until this attempt I’d been installing without an internet connection. I have a wifi adaptor in it but it wasn’t - at least initially - recognized. This time I lugged it up to my wife’s office where the router lives and used ethernet.
Nick
This really isn’t what you want to hear but I have been using Linux mainly at work for nearly 15 years (web servers , database servers you name it) and the only flavour of Linux I have actually thrown in the bin due to the grief it has given me is bl**dy Ubuntu. Its various versions have done everything from refusing to install full stop , not wanting to use the entire hard drive , refusing to accept the motherboard has an ethernet connection etc etc. Even when it does go programs seem to crash in weird ways and common tools aren’t automatically in the users path.
However when I install Fedora or Centos everything just works first time and leaves me with a usable stable PC I then start to customise. How Ubuntu has become as popular as it has is beyond me.
Anyway sorry I can’t help but you aren’t alone and I feel better for that rant
I finally dumped Windows just over a year ago. Like yourself, my last experiences of Linux/Unix was a long time ago [mid 90s]. I installed Linux Mint which is based on Ubuntu, and have never looked back.
The way I handled the partitioning was to allocate around 15Gb for the root system, 2Gb for Swap and the rest of the drive to /home. One of the great advantages of that is that if I need to wipe Mint [say for an upgrade] I allocate the same size partitions but tell it not to format /home. That way all my personal stuff, including all programme settings are carried through to the fresh install.
Linux Mint is designed to be as user friendly as possible and for those who don’t like the new Ubuntu “Unity” desktop, they provide alternative desktops - Cinnamon and MATE - for old codgers like myself who have become used to the older Gnome desktops. It’s worth a look? linuxmint.com is the place to find it.
[Hah! I have just realised this looks just like all those spam comments that I happily delete daily.]
I too have limited experience of linux…
I like it most muchly but I’ve found that it creates partitions that are as impossible to get rid of as the smell of dog shite on your shoes.
Low level format the disc (search the Intermong for a free utility) and start again…
I now have a linux disc and a Window$ disc - I swap the drive cable between them and never shall they meet….
If there is nothing on the disk that you want to keep, opt for ‘manual partition’ - this is sometimes called ’something else’.
Create a new partition table and the following partitions:
/ about 10 GB
swap area about half your RAM
/home whatever is left
and then just let it get on with it. If you’re trying to dual-boot with Windows, it’s generally best to install Windows, shrink the partition (C:\) to free up some space and use the same technique. GParted will let you make all the partitions you need.
Hope this helps - you could also try the Ubuntu forums - they are very good.
Good luck!
opismath,
I tried the something else and it ust seemed to want to play les buggeurs risible. Anyway it is working now after a fashion. I just have to get proper video drivers and the wifi working. Thanks though.
Ubuntu should “just find” the drivers.
Were you using the standard installation disk, or the alternate? I’ve never had a trouble-free install with the standard disk. Alternate is miles better and far simpler imo.
Oh, and for your original question I’d have run gparted from a usb install and started again with tge partitioning, then just select them in the “something else ” menu.
An internet connection helps, although these install-from-live-CD distros tend not to need one. I’d be surprised if that caused any problems.
The Ubuntu installer uses its own partitioning tool, if I recall. The best plan, I always find, is to get something like System Rescue CD or PartEd Magic and use GPartEd to set up your partitions before you even start. You can always let Ubuntu alter the filesystems, but at least you have the set of primary partitions that you want: a couple of roots - one for Windows if you’re that way inclined - a /home, and some swap, usually.
Yeah, a bit late now, I know, but it might be worth installing it on your now-working Ubuntu, just to see what you’ve got.
Of course, Vista and 7 mung that up a bit by grabbing two or three primary partitions for themselves - you can only have four on any given disk - so you have to resort to LVM on the Linux side. That can be a bit confusing (it’s easier now that GRUB 2 can boot LVM’s logical partitions) but other than that it’s pretty straightforward with GPartEd.
I have to say I hate the way Linux distros are going all Windows/Mac-ey, trying to second guess what you want to do, then “helpfully” doing it for you, or ignoring configuration changes unless you do it with the “proper” GUI tool. Drives me up the pole. I like Arch. It does what it’s told.
Everything breaks every time they upgrade libPNG of course, but nothing’s perfect.
Oh, and +1 to opsimath’s suggestion of checking the forums. What people often forget, coming from commercial OSes, is that you’re not buying a product; it’s more like joining a club. A Linux distro is its forums.
Disks being as cheap as they are, when doing a major upgrade I usually buy a brand new one. Then I can just mount the old one later and grab anything off it I need. And I always manually partition. I like to have separate partitions for /boot, /, /home, /usr and /var but maybe that’s just showing my age. The only way that can bite you is in the rare case where something that should have been linked statically needs a shared library after non-root partitions have been unmounted during reboot or before they have been mounted during startup, in which case the required libraries can be moved from /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib to /lib.
I’ll be putting Ubuntu Oneiric on a machine pretty soon. Since it’s fairly generic hardware and a long way from the bleeding edge I don’t suppose I’ll have too much trouble. In general, the last few installs I’ve done I’ve had less trouble with Linux than Windows.
As Sam Duncan says, the forums are your friends.
Thanks folks! Yeah, forums etc are a big thing for me. I of course fix-up systems (Windows hitherto) and gor blimey strike a light Mister they have got me out of some holes - and vice-versa. Sam, it was a Live CD and it picked up feck all in the way of drivers. It got sound and it sort of got the GFX - sort of but refuses to have anything to do with the wifi card which is an epic pain. I’ll dig further. I’m learning apart from anything else.
Yes, drivers might be an issue. Your video card’s probably too new for the open-source ones that come on the CD, so you’ll have to “enable restricted drivers” for decent performance and 3D. Should be straightforward enough if you’re online, and the good news is that nVidia’s proprietary Linux drivers are pretty good.
You might find you actually need to use Windows drivers for the wi-fi, believe it or not. You’re looking for a thing called ndiswrapper in that case, although you might not need to know that. As I say, Ubuntu isn’t my strong point. There may be some “friendly” graphical tool thingy for installing them. Mint has one.
I’m assuming you know exactly what wi-fi chipset you have. ‘Cos you’ll probably need to, if it hasn’t been detected. Try installing Hardinfo if you don’t.
Sam,
Too new! It’s bloody ancient. It was (I think) in my first PC built autumn ‘99!!! Wifi eventually just installed itself and prompted me for the WEP key and bish, bash, bosh - job done.
Damn. I didn’t recognise the model number, and just assumed. That was way, way before my PC days.
I suppose the 64Mb should’ve been a clue. That’ll teach me to post too late at night. And now it’s too early…
If you have a choice in the matter, try Fedora. If you have even more choice consider freeBSD, PC-BSD, DesktopBSD or Solaris.
I don’t much like Ubuntu these days.
Yeah, Fedora is not as easy to use (which is actually a plus for me) for example going into GNOME as root is a pain in the arse, but it’s a lot more stable than Ubuntu.
I’m about to upgrade my wife’s PC - previous one is 10 years old and still running W2000. Is it worth keeping it as a linux box do you think? I want to play around with it. I’ve done my web site with Joomla and moved over to Open Office so if I can eventually dump Windoze for most purposes I would be very happy.
Pretty much any computer will run Linux or FreeBSD, but you need a bit of memory to run a graphical front end. they struggle on 256 MB, work ok with 512MB.
How much does your wives computer have?
Cats
I think you mean “wife’s” unless ian is not telling us something
ian(nto)b,
I wouldn’t even attempt to run anything modern in the way of a GUI under the full gig. I suspect given the machine’s age you’ve probably got under that. It might in general be worth upgrading the RAM if you got spare slots and can find the right stuff on eBay or similar.
I bow to Cats over BSD (of which I know very little) but it might be worth mooching around for an older Linux distro because the new ones are like rabbits in the headlights of the Aqua/Aero Mac/Windows UIs. The rehabilitation of old computers is a bit of a hobby of mine - you can’t sell ‘em - but I think you need a sort of purpose in mind. For example by the end of today I should have three desktops. This here Ubuntu box which I rebuilt mostly from my old primary PC (XP) for the porpoise of recreational mathematical programming (yes, I’m that dull), my new “Deathstar” for most purpose (and games, natch) (Win7) and an XP machine I’m about to rebuild to function as a hardware testbed.
Anyway, top marks for keeping the old bugger projing on this long! Keep it. You can use it to scare the iPad generation. “But I touch the screen and nothing happens!”. Reminds me - must get a new keyboard membrane for my 48K Speccy. That will put the fear of God up anyone under 25!
You can definitely have a graphical desktop in 512Mb, but you do need to know what you’re doing: all the flash stuff like Gnome, KDE and Ubuntu Unity are out for a start, so you can’t just download an ISO and throw it on. There are specialist distros which boast of desktops in 256 (used to be 128 for some of them, but they’ve been struggling to keep to that lately) so 512’s certainly doable. My main machine’s only a gig, and it’s fine.*
But as I say, you really have to know what you’re about, and you might as well add RAM if you can get hold of the right stuff from antique dealers.
“Lightweight” distros for older machines, if you really want to give it a try (they’re all relatively small downloads as these things go, and bootable “live” CDs, so you’ve nothing to lose): Slitaz, Bodhi, Puppy, and (my current favourite) WattOS. Slitaz might be a bit too minimalist, but the rest shouldn’t be any harder to get your head around than anything else.
*It seriously struggles with the pre-SP1 Vista that it came with, which is mind-boggling - I added RAM when I acquired it - but it boots to a Linux desktop in a flash and runs Firefox like a champ. Memory usage on my 512Mb netbook is something like 60Mb before I start any applications up. Nobody else can fathom how to use it, of course, because it’s all keyboard shortcuts and tiling windows, but that’s the charm.