On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM, NARENDRA DIWATE <narendra.diw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi > > I have been using Linux for the past 5 years, Opensuse initially, then > ubuntu, both dual boot with WinXP. I moved permanently to Ubuntu about 1.5 > years ago. I like to keep my System upto date and hence that has involved > upgrading the OS every 6 months. > > I would like to put an end to this 6 monthly upgrade madness by moving to a > rolling release, i.e Arch initially dual booting with Ubuntu. > > Now pl help with these few Q's: > 1. Is this a good Idea at all for a guy not very comfortable with command > line (but can live with it if needed) inspite of a 5 year linux Exp? > If you are comfortable with Ubuntu then, any GNU/Linux distro should be fine. There a no gimics done by Ubuntu excepts a polish and regular upgrades... Infact, Upgrades have lot of cons than pros mainly waste of time. (Purely my opinion) > 2. Though Arch is considered the best Rolling release, is it the best > choice for a guy like me? Are there any beginner friendly oned out there? > Chakra is still Alpha so not so comfortable. Frankly the Arch Documentation > and Wiki are the most comprehensive and well thought out i have seen in the > recent past. > I dont have any experience in Arch, I would appreciate to know your experience with Arch till now. > 3. If I can go ahead which should be installed first? Remember dual booting > with WinXP, XP is always installed first. Ubuntu comes with GRUB2, Arch with > GRUB Old. Naturally the Rolling release will stay, while the other OS might > change. > Install XP first --> No grub Install Arch next --> since it has a rolling release so no change to grub Install Ubuntu next --> Actually Ubuntu detects more OS's on HDD than any other which I have tried. So I suggest Ubuntu to be last in the list... > 4. All my Data with live in separate partitions not along with any OS. So > Which FS type is better - EXT3 or EXT4. No WinXP, so no need of NTFS. In > addition it is backed up to a USB Hard Disk. > Depends on your use, AFAIK EXT4 has better performance with large files and many more pros than EXT3, but EXT3 is well tested since it lives longer. If you are a normal used, go ahead with EXT4. > Regards > > Narendra Diwate > > > > -- > ubuntu-in mailing list > ubuntu-in@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in > >
-- ubuntu-in mailing list ubuntu-in@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
