carl0s Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Let me see if I've got this. I delete the partition in Vista. Start the Ubuntu install process and it will see that ex-partition as 'free space'. Is that correct? If so then I just use that and away it goes. Seems easy enough. Is there any way of seeing what's on the two small partitions? That's basically what I was thinking, yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Thinking about it, even if you hadn't hit the four partition limit, the Ubuntu installer probably still wouldn't have given you the Auto option anyway since there's no free space on the drive. Just delete that unneeded partition and let it do its thing. I've never used the Mandriva CD but downloading another CD for the sake of removing an empty partition sounds unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Just delete that unneeded partition and let it do its thing. I've never used the Mandriva CD but downloading another CD for the sake of removing an empty partition sounds unnecessary. I just happen to have one The thing was that Mandriva was: removing old partiton, format it, set up ext2,3 and swap automatically (incl. mount points) so saved me some head scratching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 I'm not sure I want to install Ubuntu now. Dare I say it, but, I'm rather liking Vista!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I'm not sure I want to install Ubuntu now. Dare I say it, but, I'm rather liking Vista!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Well, I erm.. y'see... well, it's like this. Up until I actually used Vista for the first time on Saturday I was expecting to hate it. I don't. It works. It looks nice. It runs quickly. It's done everything I've asked of it. Admittedly I did play with the Live CD of Ubuntu for a bit and that was even nicer and faster but, really, Vista isn't that bad. Is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I am tempted to try XP x64 but fista is deff not going on my machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Well, I erm.. y'see... well, it's like this. Up until I actually used Vista for the first time on Saturday I was expecting to hate it. I don't. It works. It looks nice. It runs quickly. It's done everything I've asked of it. Admittedly I did play with the Live CD of Ubuntu for a bit and that was even nicer and faster but, really, Vista isn't that bad. Is it? If you're happy with the overhead of every bit of audio and video being encrypted and decrypted as it passes through the system, and the inability to have fullscreen dos boxes, no video overlay, no decent TV-Out performance (i.e no ATI clone mode/nVidia theatre mode), and generally to have a system that's constantly busy, then go for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 XP's fine, I use it on my lappy and as a virtual machine ontop of Linux here. Linux is like "hey. I'm here. Gimme something to do. Come on.. I can do loads. What do you want me to do?" Vista's like "Bugger off - I'm busy! Go away. Not now. I'm indexing. Oh, you wanna do something? In a minute. Are you sure?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 What VM do you run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 What VM do you run? kvm - the linux kernel vm stuff. The GUI to it is virt-manager (http://virt-manager.et.redhat.com/) which comes with Fedora and also now the latest Ubuntu. Virt-manager manages Xen and KVM. I tried Xen but KVM is well suited to my needs and easy, whereas Xen required a modified host (dom 0 as they call it) operating system, i.e. I need to use a Xen'd Linux kernel as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 kvm - the linux kernel vm stuff. The GUI to it is virt-manager (http://virt-manager.et.redhat.com/) which comes with Fedora and also now the latest Ubuntu. Virt-manager manages Xen and KVM. I tried Xen but KVM is well suited to my needs and easy, whereas Xen required a modified host (dom 0 as they call it) operating system, i.e. I need to use a Xen'd Linux kernel as well. Ohh I like that, what do you use as your base OS and how easy to install is KVM? I built a Fedora box and then installed VMWare server which wasnt great, I found its actually much better under XP but the system overhead of both XP and VMWare server took to many resources. I have also tried ESX Server which I really liked, only prob was that it doesnt support IDE drives for storing virtual machines, that put this out the window for me. Currently I am running VMPlayer on XP which works ok but again the system overheads are not great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBDJ Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 I am tempted to try XP x64 but fista is deff not going on my machine. I wish I could say the same, one of my laptops has had to go Vista Under XP I was getting between 10 and 30% CPU utilisation at idle, not attributed to any process but the result of excessive hardware interrupts. Eventually I managed to track the problem down to excessive kernel calls by the nVidia driver (oddly enough it was asking the kernel for it's build number 15 million times a second?!). I had absolutely no joy resolving this under XP, other drivers were either too unstable or exhibited other problems in production use. Totally annoyed, I tried Vista and its working fine. I have however disabled absolutely everything possible to try and get back what I can from Vistas overheads. All my other machines will remain either Linux or XP for the forseeable future, and I'll definately be doing more testing on that other laptop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Gave up with Gentoo, too much pain, no gain... Ubuntu still doesn't work with my AHCI, but fedora 8 seems to be okay with a new release of fedora 9 due in about a week. Compiz seems to be coping fairly well on my old 1.73 centrino machine with the rather useless 915 graphics card... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 6, 2008 Author Share Posted May 6, 2008 What are the major differences between Ubuntu and Fedora? Obviously they look similar from a GUI point of view but what goes on under the surface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 What are the major differences between Ubuntu and Fedora? Obviously they look similar from a GUI point of view but what goes on under the surface? I couldn't really say. Most obvious difference is a different package manager - yum instead of apt-get, although there's an apt interface to rpm or yum (?) if for some reason you really wanted apt. Same idea though - "yum install ardour" to install ardour, etc. Different configuration file layouts and configuration tools, but even some of these get shared in the end if they're any good/one of a kind - e.g. Ubuntu now has virt-manager that I was talking about above, even though that's written by Red Hat.. Fedora it totally open-source as it comes - no flash player (although there is an open source flash player now.. not sure of status.. probably good), no proprietary mp3/wma/wireless/graphics drivers, but that's what http://www.fedorafaq.org is all about showing you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Ohh I like that, what do you use as your base OS and how easy to install is KVM? I built a Fedora box and then installed VMWare server which wasnt great, I found its actually much better under XP but the system overhead of both XP and VMWare server took to many resources. I have also tried ESX Server which I really liked, only prob was that it doesnt support IDE drives for storing virtual machines, that put this out the window for me. Currently I am running VMPlayer on XP which works ok but again the system overheads are not great. KVM is 'already there' - it's part of the kernel. (hence "kernel-based virtual machine"). Virt-manager (the GUI and console config tools) is a Red Hat thing, and was there in Fedora 8 and obviously Fedora 9 too, but the latest Ubuntu now has virt-manager too. As it's part of the kernel, there's not really anything to install. It's actually a sort of qemu fork, or at least what you use is a modified qemu which ties in with kvm. I remember qemu from the days of experimenting with bochs, and wouldn't have thought of qemu as a 'proper' thing, but kvm is very good. So really, the solution is known as "qemu-kvm". If you don't turn on "hardware acceleration" in the virt-manager stuff, you just get plain qemu which is obviously slower than qemu-kvm ("hardware accelerated virtualisation"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 I keep meaning to give KVM a go but not got around to it. I'm still using VirtualBox, the seamless desktop feature is fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 12, 2008 Author Share Posted May 12, 2008 Update: Despite really liking the look and feel of Vista I've been itching to get Ubuntu installed onto my new laptop. Due to some partitioning oddities I couldn't get it installed on the HDD that came with the laptop. Ordered a new 250gb drive and fitted it in about five minutes. Stuck the Ubuntu live cd in and in less than 30 minutes I had a Linux system up, running and surfing the net. I've spent the last few hours getting it all set how I like it and also, perhaps most importantly, I've had a dabble with the HDD settings due to suffering from the heavy load cycles HDD problem that seems to be plaguing many users of various Linux distros. Anyway, I'm off to grab an Apple style dock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veilside Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 debian till i die!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Despite really liking the look and feel of Vista I've been itching to get Ubuntu installed onto my new laptop. Due to some partitioning oddities I couldn't get it installed on the HDD that came with the laptop. If you are able to boot up using a linux live/rescue disk I have a nice fix for that little problem as long as you dont want to keep the data. Bootup on linux and get a shell window open and run the following command as root. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/(hdd device) bs=512 count=16 This will write zeros over the existing partition area and you shouldnt have any issues using the drive for fresh windows or linux installs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 ahhh forget linux, you should try Solaris 10 - it rocks lol - just thought I'd throw that in there for fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 ahhh forget linux, you should try Solaris 10 - it rocks lol - just thought I'd throw that in there for fun I installed solaris 10 x86 into a virtual machine on my desktop at work, seem to work without too many issues. Most of the servers I work on are solaris based but I have seen the gui in about 5 years, all the servers are console based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I installed solaris 10 x86 into a virtual machine on my desktop at work, seem to work without too many issues. Most of the servers I work on are solaris based but I have seen the gui in about 5 years, all the servers are console based. yeah, I've done the same here (and at home). Got vmware server 2.0 running it quite nicely. Using open solaris sxde 10 for development - so I do use the gui as well as the command line. Linux is the host Os though, only coz it's easy/lightweight to install. I can see Solaris could significantly gain in strength in the market in the future, there is little to compete with it and especially as hardware steps up to multiple cpus per chip. Linux can't scale in the same way. Remember, Linux is essentially derived from cut down Unix, Minix. Considering switching our products to it, using Glassfish clustering. Features like dtrace are excellent, it's ahead of the rest in many areas and if it gains momentum in the open community it could really do well. Especially now Sun bought mysql too, what an excellent development and server platform anyway, not to get off topic, good to know other people are using Solaris, if I get stuck I've got someone to PM now lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Remember, Linux is essentially derived from cut down Unix, Minix. I think Mr Torvalds would take exception to that suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.