I think you might want to reread my mail because you just restated my points. I don't think we're arguing.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Howdy Fletcher, > > Virtualization with Xen and 1U servers is a bit different from a > ThinkPad with a 10Gig free partition. I use Xen quite a bit(20U of > servers just for Xen) and yes you're right that virtualization in the > server world is common place, but this is a totally different matter. > > If you want a crash course in Linux you install it rather than "play" > with it in a VM. Bailing out by rebooting is far more admirable than > just closing the VM and going back to ms Paint and msn messenger. The > big thing is realizing that Linux can accommodate you in your daily > needs. You're just dabbling with a system when you run it in a VM. Lets > not forget that these are multitasking OS's so while that VM is running > in windows the user is doing various other things outside of the VM on a > non Linux OS; further deepening reliance on it rather than Linux. You > learn by utilizing and being engrossed. Desktop VM's get you to the > cliff but to install is to jump off and experience the feeling. > > Times have changed but to make it through a *BSD/Linux install used to > be a mark of excellence itself. If we all relied on VM's for our needs > then where would the state of our kernel and device support be today? > VM's are awesome, but even with the newest motherboards it's a foreign > system that negates all the benefits of buying specific hardware. The > reality is that windows has things that Linux doesn't, just as FreeBSD > has things Linux doesn't and you can't experience these things unless > you are running that system natively. > > Photoshop or Solid Works in a VM? - ZFS filesystem in a VM...I think not. > > Bryan > > Fletcher Bonds wrote: > | I both agree and disagree K7AAY (what is your name really? I feel weird > | addressing you that way). > | > | What are you solving for? Because that really effects the choice of > | solution. > | > | Bryan makes a valid point in regard to having real time experience with > | real hardware. If your intent is to learn everything you can about > | running Linux - a virtualized install isn't the way to go. > | > | A good use of virtualization at that level is for instance testing > | Windows client side applications agains nix server side apps on the same > | box. Larger scale virtualization is to make 4 1U servers in a rack act > | as a dozen virtual servers with a product like Xen. Larger still.. > | Make a piece of big iron like a Z series mainframe act like dozens or > | hundreds of servers with Z/VM. Point is virtualization has it's place > | dependent on what you're solving for. > | > | I'm still not a fan of multi-boot though - especially if what your > | solving for is a crash course in Linux. I've seen far too many people > | approach Linux this way professing to want to /learn the OS/, but every > | time something isn't Windows-intuitive to them or momentarily in their > | way.. Windows is only a reboot away and they bail. > | > | IF (big if here) Learning Linux is the objective. You have to first > | accept as a given that Linux can do everything Windows can (and much of > | better than Windows can) and make the switch. Do a full Linux install > | and make a commitment to hit those Not-the-way-Windows-does-it moments > | and prevail (Google knows all - just ask it). Otherwise you'll spend > | most of your time in Windows with a chunk of your drive dedicated to an > | OS that doesn't often see the light of day. > | > | On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Bryan Smith <[email protected] > | <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > | > | > | Well K7AAY, > | > | I strongly encourage you to multi boot your system with as many > | OS's/distros that you can. Someone gave you a suggestion to run the > | distro in a VM. Running a system in a vm really cheats you out of > | serious interaction with the bootloader and using the Linux kernel with > | real-time performance. With VM's systems you'll really never know what > | modules or chipsets your devices use because the kernel sees virtual > | hardware. I don't know your intentions but you already have proficiency > | in Windows. If anything run Windows in a vm and learn to cope with > | Linux. It's cool to run a VM but not as cool as installing Linux on your > | box. > | > | You should create an extended partition with several logical partitions > | within it. Linux is not like Unix and other systems when it comes to > | booting from partitions. You can put that kernel ANYWHERE and it'll boot > | as long as the boot loader knows where to find it. Ff you had enough > | space you could actually make one Extended partition and have a bunch of > | logical ones inside it. Then you can put Linux on anyone of them. Here > | is my drive on my laptop > | > | Number Start End Size Type File system Flags > | ~ 1 32.3kB 10.7GB 10.7GB primary ntfs boot > | ~ 2 10.7GB 17.2GB 6440MB primary ext2 > | ~ 3 17.2GB 56.9GB 39.7GB extended > | ~ 5 17.2GB 32.2GB 15.0GB logical reiserfs > | ~ 6 32.2GB 55.8GB 23.6GB logical reiserfs > | ~ 7 55.8GB 56.4GB 535MB logical linux-swap > | ~ 8 56.4GB 56.9GB 535MB logical linux-swap > | ~ 4 56.9GB 80.0GB 23.1GB primary reiserfs > | > | This drive has 3 separate Linux installs and each share a /home and load > | balanced swap space between 2 partitions(7,8). Partition 1 is XP, > | Partition 2 is Linux, 3 is the extended container that's 40 Gigs. 5 is > | Linux, Partition 6 is the shared /home. 7-8 are both swap and 4 changes > | from OpenBSD-FreeBSD-BeOS-RHEL 5, depending on how I feel. > | > | Unix(Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc) requires a primary partition to > | boot. Yet Linux can boot from logical partitions...how nice. > | > | There is no need to shrink your Windows partition in this case. Just use > | that unallocated space and make it a logical partition. The only issue > | might be the size of your home partition which I highly recommend you > | making separate. No swap means no suspend to disk so in light of that > | and the possibility of using logical partitions I'd make one that is > | 512MB at least. 7-8 Gigs for root and 2 gigs for home. > | > | Have fun > | > | Bryan > | > | K7AAY wrote: > | | 149GB hd from factory in my Lenovo SL400. Vista's Disk Management > | snap- > | | in shows this partitioning for Disk 0: > | | > | | Letter Volume Size Status > | | -- ----------- ------ > | ------------------------------------------- > | | S: SERVICE003 1004 MiB Healthy (System, Active, > | Primary Partiion) > | | C: SW_Preload 135 GiB Healthy (Boot, Crash Dump, > | Primary Partition) > | | unallocated 10 GiB recovered from C: w/ Disk Mgt > | snap-in & by > | | shrinking Q: w/ EASUS Part. Mgr. > | | Q: Lenovo 6 GiB Healthy (Primary Partition) > | | > | | It's my intent to install a Linux (eLive? Kubuntu? pcE17OS 2nd Ed.? > | | Dislike GNOME, fer sure) and I've been given to understand there's a > | | maximum of four (4) Primary Partitions on a hard drive, so how do I > | | overcome that? With extended partitions? Linux wants two partitions > | | (well, three, but since I have 2GB RAM, I think Linux will do OK sans > | | swap). > | | > | | Your on-topic responses are truly appreciated. > | | | > | > > | > > - -- > A healthy diet includes Linux, Linux and more Linux. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkoAiRoACgkQh+MLjl5SKYS5UACfU5dsc673VKRSmChDXfOPBBUu > tHcAnjRwjJ1HD8WYDk7lYEDZsFB2Nf47 > =rlAx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
