Installation...

[aged hippy]

Last week-end i installed Kubuntu 804.1 from a cd, and i'm very impressed with it, especially the (minor) desktop effects which i like - it saves running Compiz.

Having said that, i think that the method of install needs to be thought about, because one seems to be severely restricted as to what mount points are available.

I have two hard disks, hda has 8 partitions (including the extended), one is NTFS and the others all ext3/swap, and hdb has two partitions, one NTFS and the other ext3.

It took me quite a time to work out how to allocate the mount points (after many refusals by Gparted(?)), until i finally realised that only one partition can be mounted as /media, one as /usr, one as /opt, etc., and i had to leave one partition 'Unused', as i'd run out of mount-points.
Fortunately, i have only two NTFS partitions, one with XP on it, and the other for storage for XP files.
As there were only two mount points available for Windows partitions, /windows and /dos, any other partitions would have to have been 'Unused'.
This all could be due to my unfamiliarity with mount-points.

When i finally booted i realised that i had apparently lost quite some bit of data, as it appeared to be in locked directories, and not willing to hack about too much as root, i left it as it was.

Access to those other partitions meant navigating through /opt, /usr, or /media - where-ever i had mounted them, which made getting around a bit of a bugger.


I think that from the point of view of someone totally new to the inner workings of hard disks, partitions, and Linux systems this would provide quite a learning curve......


I have now -- mainly from the ease-of-navigation point of view -- re-installed Kubuntu 7.1.0, it is so simple to click the System Menu and be able to see all mounted partitions/drives with all their contents via Storage Media.

I hope that this isn't taken as a whinge, i just think that it's important to make things as simple as possible for new-comers.


Having said all that, i am highly impressed with Hardy, although it is quite a jump from Gutsy.
I was even more impressed when i found that i could <whinge> remove that awful black panel thing <whinge />, add some widgets for the Task Manager and Pager etc, then treat them to the Glassified effect;

Edited to add:
I should have said that i'm waiting until after midnight to do a 'Full Upgrade' then a 'Version Upgrade' .... that's when i get free bandwidth.

[jglen490]

Re: Installation...

Last week-end i installed Kubuntu 804.1 from a cd, and i'm very impressed with it, especially the (minor) desktop effects which i like - it saves running Compiz.

Having said that, i think that the method of install needs to be thought about, because one seems to be severely restricted as to what mount points are available.

I have two hard disks, hda has 8 partitions (including the extended), one is NTFS and the others all ext3/swap, and hdb has two partitions, one NTFS and the other ext3.
...

I think that from the point of view of someone totally new to the inner workings of hard disks, partitions, and Linux systems this would provide quite a learning curve......

...

Wow, it can be overwhelming at times, but let's think about it ...

Yes, it can be tough for someone (and I'm not talking about you!!) with no Linux background to understand (most of us have been there - maybe some of us farther back than others) how the disk partitions and the filesystem partitions can relate to each other. The same thing applies to Windows users. I've run into too many folks who think that what's inside a computer is Windows. Yeah, hardware and stuff, but it's Windows. And someone should do something about that. Why don't we start here and now? I'll throw some stuff out and maybe someone else can come up with some more of the conversation.

Disk partitions:
Most fresh disks are either not partitioned or may have one (DOS or Windows). Most new machines (if it comes with an OS) will have one or two partitions already set up with the OS, a recovery partition, and maybe one more for various media. I'm sure there are other variations, but for the most part vendors will keep things simple.
As noted, it's possible to have up to four primary partitions. One of those primary partitions can be an extended partition which can hold any number of logical partitions. Each hard disk in a computer system can be setup in that manner, if needed. Such a need is done by thoughtful intervention, or at least intervention .
For the most part only one primary partition is ever "required".
Let's not discuss RAID configurations here for the moment.

Filesystem partitions:
Windows simply assigns a letter to each primary and/or logical partition.
Linux (and the other *nices) have a naming convention that follows a hierarchical model with the highest level identifier being simply "/". Under that are /home, /etc, /opt, /bin, /usr, and a host of others. Under each of those there may be still others and it goes on until all the needed levels are defined with some unique name.

The problem:
What configuration is required, and what configuration makes sense?
Windows "requires" only one partition - all the others may be useful for a particular functionality, but are not required.
Linux (and the other *nices) requires only one partition for the OS. You can argue (with no push back here!) that swap is also "required", and that would be conditionally true. And again, all the other possibilities may be useful for a particular functionality, but are not required.

The decision:
What is the desired partition configuration for the number of OSes on a particular computer?
If there are to be multiple OSes, there should be a boot loader of some sort with an appropriate choice mechanism ( to keep it simple, let's not discuss virtualization, at the moment). So the boot loader will need to know where each OS is located and where it needs to point to invoke a specific OS.
For each OS, figure out what functionality would be best supported by a separate partition (primary or logical is unimportant at this point). It might be useful to consider whether separating an individual OS's partition needs across multiple disks is useful. Multiple processes accessing a single disk or even a single bus can cause slowing issues. However, that's not an issue for most users with modern, fast hardware.
Now for an example, two Oses (WinXP, Kubuntu). The user wants media to be separate from the rest of the WinXP installation and the user wants a separate /home partition with swap and doesn't care about the WinXP media partition for purposes of the actual media stored there. Looks like a total of five partitions are needed.
If there is one disk, that could be handled with one primary and one extended with the extended having four logical partitions. Or it could be handled with two primaries and one extended having three logical partitions.
If there are two disks, each disk could have one primary and one extended, with logical partitions enough to handle the left over needs. Or each disk could have only primary partitions.

There are other examples and each could have their own variations, but the point is that computer setup needs to be a rational process, and it can only be a rational process if the user understands what is available for use in setting up their computer. It's not rocket science, and not even computer science, but it is communication and helping folks to overcome ignorance or fear, or uncertainty, with facts.

[aged hippy]

Re: Installation...

Well, i tried the version upgrade, but i had to re-install, because the version upgrade was broken - both via the internet and the alternate CD, so i put 8.0.4 on from a CD.
I've now gone back to 3.5.9, simply because i disliked the way things seem to be done with 8.0.4.

For example, i use the other HD for irreplacable back-ups, sdb (mounted as - i think - usr/local) so after the re-install i copied everything from there to sda5 (mounted as /temp), as i wasn't allowed another /media mount point, because i'd already used that one on sda7.
On re-boot, the disks fried eggs for quite some time, and when the desktop appeared, i found that all the 14-15Gb of files which i'd carefully copied had been deleted.

Luckily, i am anal about backing-up crucial files, but if i had moved them instead of copying them, at this point i would have returned to XP, and given up on Linux altogether.
If i hadn't already had a good experience with 3.5.9, i probably would have done so in any case.
To say that i was annoyed is an under-statement.

[ ... ] There are other examples and each could have their own variations, but the point is that computer setup needs to be a rational process, and it can only be a rational process if the user understands what is available for use in setting up their computer. It's not rocket science, and not even computer science, but it is communication and helping folks to overcome ignorance or fear, or uncertainty, with facts.

I couldn't agree more.

I feel -- strongly -- that you make a crucial point, the installation of Linux (and up-grading from Windows ) should be a process which is explained in as few as possible easy-to-understand words. Let's face it, many people who will be installing *buntu don't have any special knowledge of computer file-systems, mount points, etc.

If - prior to the install process - it is explained that they need to mount one Linux partition (~10Gb) as /, and that is is wise to mount one (with however many Gb they can spare) as /home so that they can access their files and the rest of the computer with ease.
And for the partitioner to automatically mount everything else as /media. This would make things a lot simpler.

This explanation could be a simple .txt file which loads in Kate when the desktop appears, with the first line reading something like:
"Before you click on "Install", please read this"
it then gives the simple explanation which i outlined above, with a section lower down to explain the process for those who may have a grasp of the workings of their computer and drives (HD and Raid), etc., and who need a more in-depth explanation.

The same thing applies to Windows users. I've run into too many folks who think that what's inside a computer is Windows. Yeah, hardware and stuff, but it's Windows. And someone should do something about that. Why don't we start here and now? I'll throw some stuff out and maybe someone else can come up with some more of the conversation.

I spent two years teaching people how to use their computer - but especially the internet - and i can honestly say that the majority of those people i taught didn't realise that Internet Explorer is only a web-browser, and that others such as Mozilla (then) and Opera even exist.

Both BT and UKonline had (then) an icon on the desktop named something like "Broswe the Web" which was simply a short-cut to IE.

As things stand, it seems to me that Windows assumes that all its users have scrambled eggs for brains and that they need to be told what's best for them, whereas Linux (at least - Kubuntu) assumes that people already know how to arrange partitions, mount points, etc., and leaves them to get on with it.

Somewhere in-between is what i feel would be a wise route to take.