No actually it wasn't clear at all. You made an argument on virtualzation in opposition to a statement I didn't make. I gave progressive examples of virtualization usage. I at no point said that Xen servers and a Thinkpad's disk utilization were in anyway equivalent.
You then raised emotion-laden point about what was and wasn't "admirable" in comparison of reboots and VMs. In response to what? I made no statement to the contrary. Your entire second paragraph was a rant in opposition of nothing I said. I in fact suggested that in the instance of crash coursing Linux it was better to go all the way than either rebooting or virtualizing. Bryan I'm wholly uninterested in any emotional investment you have in the multi-booting. I don't say that to offend you, but this is a technical discussion. It should be dry and factual. I have an opinion of my own; one based on *my* experience and devoid any concepts of admiration, which is: multi-booting is a fundamentally flawed idea. It presents a model of resource usage that is inherently wasteful. It's just my opinion though and there's no need for you to agree with me. My objective is merely to share my opinion with K7AAY and the group. Not to convince you. I'm not arguing. Disagreeing, but without ego or the need to be right. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you disagree with me that you accurately represent my statements that you disagree with and make your points devoid of ego or emotional-laden comments about what is and isn't admirable. That to me is a reasonable discourse and all that I'm interested in having. Thank you. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I read it right the first time; we have different points in the end. I > was primarily addressing your dislike of multi-booting, ie running each > OS in a native environment(for desktop purposes). Where we both say the > same things is where we agree, yet where we differ is clearly evident. > > Bryan > > Fletcher Bonds wrote: > | 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] > | <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > | > | > | 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]> > | | <mailto:[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 > > iEYEARECAAYFAkoAmJEACgkQh+MLjl5SKYRNmwCdFCaPqaVABHMF3jv0Qje9ousa > XYMAoJXUZT0KHoYcZxxqU+BJsY7NpOq6 > =UY45 > -----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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
