Thinkpads Forum

Hi all,

So now I'm into Linux. Which filesystem is best to use. I downloaded and burned a bootable Ubuntu 7.10 64-bit already and it works, but I stopped it when it was trying to partition my drive. XP taught me that lesson when I partitioned from within XP, which rendered Vista useless. I guess I'd like a dual-boot config. I have two HD's installed in my system at all times, so I may not even need to partition it, but I just want to try it out first, to see if I would even use it. I definitely want to learn it for the experience!

I've read FAT32, other sites say FAT only, etc., etc.

What say you, guys?

Thanks!!

Crunch:

I wouldn't recommend FAT or FAT32 - those are older file systems that aren't very robust. For Linux I would recommend ext3 - it's a modern, journaling file system that is the default for the Ubuntu distros.

If you are just installing for the first time then why not use the current Ubuntu release (8.04) instead of 7.10? Download the Desktop CD version first and try it out on your hardware before committing to an install. If you like it then go for an install.

There is Wubi, which lets you install Linux without partitioning at all.

And Ubuntu is supposed to be able to partition without messing Vista up, although there's always a slight risk of something bad happening with any sort of partitioning.


Ignore FAT32. It used to be that you would end up with at least three parititions, the original NTFS, a FAT32 partition, and an ext3 partition (Linux can't be installed to FAT32). This was because Linux used to not support NTFS properly, so you'd copy files you wanted to move from Linux to Windows to the FAT32 partition. This is not the case anymore.

Thanks for the reply, guys!

Well, I did some research and yea, I am using the ext3 journaling file system, and everything works fine. It was very easy to install. In fact, it felt like I was just installing an application! By the way, it is Ubuntu 8.04, not 7.10.

Anyway, I guess I don't get it. What am I looking for here? It has the OpenOffice Suite, and a few other apps that most of us use I guess, but it looks and "feels" like a weak OS without much room for expansion, or am I missing something here? Hmm...I really don't understand what's so great about Linux. Granted, I haven't used it a lot, as I can't do a lot of things that I need the powerhouse that is Vista Ultimate for. Hmm...

I don't mean to crap on Linux. I am only inquiring. Are openSUSE, or Fedora, for example, similar in their setup and operation? I chose Ubuntu for no specific reason. I just wanted to try one flavor of Linux. Are other versions more powerful?

I can see one scenario for Linux, though, and that is for occasional computer users who don't need something as big as Vista, and who also don't have a very powerful computer, and have too little RAM, etc. Again, I don't mean to come off as arrogant, but I don't get it...so far.

Thanks again for your help, and I'd love to hear some more suggestions as to which version of Linux I should maybe try next, to get a possibly different experience, or if Ubuntu does represent the extent to which ANY Linux operates.

Thanks again!

They are all basically the same. Just a little different in look and feel.
What exactly is it you want to do with Linux? It does not come with everything under the sun pre-installed. You must choose your apps and install them. Open the package manager and use the search tool to find the apps you want. It is highly customizable and you can make it look and feel like anything you want.
Powerful is a subjective term. What are your requirements?

carbon_unit wrote:Powerful is a subjective term. What are your requirements?

Well, I need to be able to run SlingPlayer for my SlingBox and be able to use my 802.11n gear. Then, I need to be able to watch Bluray's, and I do a LOT of VoiP calling. I can do all of the above *simultaneously* because of my wireless-N setup, which now works perfectly.

So lotsa video and audio streaming, while AT THE SAME TIME having my SlingPlayer open watching channels in HD, and while AT THE SAME TIME talking "on the phone" using VoiP, and that also wirelessly by way of Bluetooth!

All of that works flawlessly thanks to 802.11n, and the rock solid, seemingly uncrashable powerhouse that is Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Amazing.

Then there are smaller things like sync'ing the two PDA's that I use, for example. One is a Treo 750, and the other one a Blackberry Curve 8310.

Would I be able to do all of that with any version of Linux?? If not, who is Linux really powerful enough, or, in the case of light computer users, appropriate and useful for? Again, I have a bunch of friends who are light users when it comes to computers. In my humblest of opinions, not really knowing what the deal is with Linux, I think it would be great for them, as it is light, and doesn't require (please correct me if I'm wrong) a strong set of hardware specs (CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.) for them to be able to run it smoothly, and have a positive experience! Would it really be a VIABLE(!) alternative to Windows or Mac OS X, for either power users, and/or light users?

Your thoughts, and anybody else's??

Thanks!

I think your much better off sticking to Windows for the things you listed.

It's not "powerfulness" so much as "compatibility". Linux would not have a problem doing the things you listed *if* you can find suitable Linux-compatible programs to do those things (which I kinda doubt...). I doubt Blu-ray works, dunno what app you're using for VoIP, Slingplayer needs Wine to work, syncing those particular phones will probably be a pain, etc.

On the other hand, you really need to take a look at "Add/Remove" under the "Applications" menu. Should give you a better idea of the many things available.

Not everyone uses their computer the same way, but the way you use your computer Windows is the best way to go. For others with different requirements Linux may be a viable alternative.

If you have the Windows software, I would suggest setting up Windows to run inside a virtual machine as a guest on your Linux host first.