On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:58 -0500, Evan wrote:
> I definitely agree that the single / partition isn't the best way to
> go. My preference is
>
> swap
> /boot
> /home
> /
>
> While other partitions can be useful, this covers the most important
> areas (user data, settings, and the ability to cont
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:09 -0500, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> /boot also is useful for those with very old systems and large hard
> drives. When the motherboard can't detect past a certain cylinder,
> making sure /boot is right up front can let a user have a 100GB hard
> drive on a 10 year old co
/boot also is useful for those with very old systems and large hard drives.
When the motherboard can't detect past a certain cylinder, making sure /boot
is right up front can let a user have a 100GB hard drive on a 10 year old
computer.
On Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM, Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I
I definitely agree that the single / partition isn't the best way to go. My
preference is
swap
/boot
/home
/
While other partitions can be useful, this covers the most important areas
(user data, settings, and the ability to continue to boot Windows/OSX
regardless of what happens to Ubuntu).
Jus
Am 13.12.2007 um 20:19 schrieb Emmet Hikory:
> One of the great advantages of having a swap partition is that
> everything becomes unbearably slow in a runaway memory situation,
> as opposed to the system losing arbitrary processes to the OOM-killer.
The few times I've seen runaway processes
On Dec 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, my favorite for a desktop is a two partition design. One for /
> and one for /home.
>
> If you miss a swap partition, you've read correctly. With 2 GB or
> more of physical RAM these days, there is no real need for swapping
> a
On 2007/12/13 18:59 (GMT+0100) Markus Hitter apparently typed:
> I can't find an urgent need for a /boot partition either
I wonder if you read carefully what he wrote about "/boot". Including a
primary partition that is or could be /boot makes a system more robust.
http://lists.opensuse.org/opens
Am 13.12.2007 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin Fries:
> did not adopt a more protective partitioning
> scheme like this? And more importantly, should we?
/home and the system it's self should reside in different partitions
to make backup and system reinstallation more straightforward.
Regarding your /
On 2007/12/13 10:09 (GMT-0700) Kevin Fries apparently typed:
> My first partition is Windows if it will be installed on the system.
> This way, no matter what I do with partitions in Linux, the Windows C:
> remains fixed.
Unless Vista changed something, C: is always a primary FAT* or NTFS partiti
WARNING LONG POST DUE TO IN-DEPTH JUSTIFICATION:
I was just curious if anyone knows, without starting a flame war please,
why Ubuntu went with the default partitioning scheme they did?
It seems to me, that especially with the demographic that Ubuntu
professes to be targeting, a more sophisticated
10 matches
Mail list logo
