On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Mats wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the same hd.
> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
> with the other one. Is that ok? All detailed explanation I've seen is
> about installing windows a
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Wouldn't the sleeping/hibernating system file have a unique designation?
i have never looked into what is actually done, but i would imagine that
within first few bytes of *swap partition* there would be some form of
coding to indicate if partition contained hibernation d
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Doesn't the hibernated system(s) file(s) have a unique name(s) or
> designation(s) in the swap, so there'll be no conflicts? Seems the smart
> thing to do.
It has a unique ID so it can tell if it should resume from hibernate,
but
--- On Tue, 6/22/10, g wrote:
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
>
>
> > You don't need multiple swaps: Linux can share one
> without problems.
>
> and what happens if an active linux is put into
> suspend/sleep and system
> is rebooted?
Wouldn't the sleeping/hibernating system file have a unique des
--- On Tue, 6/22/10, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:45:40 -0700
> (PDT)
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> > You don't need multiple swaps: Linux can share one
> without problems.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to hibernate one and boot the
> other :-).
Doesn't the hibernated system(s)
Jerry Feldman wrote:
> One possible solution is to set up your real home directory with
> symlinks to different desktop configurations, such as:
it is easier to have differently named home directories for each distrib
and symlink to a common directory for programs.
ie, symlink to mozilla thund
On 06/23/2010 09:21 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
>
>> My vote is for one grub to rule them all,
>
Just want to chime in a bit. I used to multi-boot Linux years ago when I
was running SuSE. When a new release came out I would multi-boot the old
and
On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> My vote is for one grub to rule them all,
I see that my phrasing was misunderstood. No matter. The issues have
been made clear.
(Was thinking of one grub to rule all the distros/OSses, not one grub
to rule all the other grubs. Must be
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:23:30 -0400
Tom H wrote:
> I don't understand the concept of a "master grub."
It is a boot partition that only exists to run grub.
I actually got mine by keeping a /boot that was left
when I got rid of an old fedora. I removed the kernel
images and kept the grub.conf and ch
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:13 PM, JD wrote:
> On 06/23/2010 04:31 AM, Steven I Usdansky was caught red-handed while
> writing::
>> My vote is for one grub to rule them all, each distro's grub goes into
>> / rather than the mbr, and the master grub just chainloads each distro's
>> grub. I had been
Tom Horsley wrote:
> You run "yum update" in 1st system, it rewrites grub.conf, making new
> kernel the default.
rewrite, yes. but rewrite [more like an insert] simply puts newest kernel
at top of menu.
> On the other hand if you have a standalone grub that does nothing
> apply to it, you do
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:13:11 +
> g wrote:
>
>
>> my question is how is it advantages over a single grub menu for all installs?
>>
> You run "yum update" in 1st system, it rewrites grub.conf, making new
> kernel the default.
>
> You run "yum update" in 2nd system, it rewrites grub.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:13:11 +
g wrote:
> my question is how is it advantages over a single grub menu for all installs?
You run "yum update" in 1st system, it rewrites grub.conf, making new
kernel the default.
You run "yum update" in 2nd system, it rewrites grub.conf, making
it the default.
On Wednesday 23 June 2010, JD wrote:
>On 06/23/2010 04:31 AM, Steven I Usdansky was caught red-handed while
>
>writing::
>> My vote is for one grub to rule them all, each distro's grub goes into
>> / rather than the mbr, and the master grub just chainloads each distro's
>> grub. I had been setting
Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> My vote is for one grub to rule them all, each distro's grub goes into
> / rather than the mbr, and the master grub just chainloads each distro's
> grub.
i do not debate your right to cast your vote. as it is a part of what many
countries have fought for for many years.
On 06/23/2010 04:31 AM, Steven I Usdansky was caught red-handed while
writing::
> My vote is for one grub to rule them all, each distro's grub goes into
> / rather than the mbr, and the master grub just chainloads each distro's
> grub. I had been setting up the master grub to point to /vmlinuz a
My vote is for one grub to rule them all, each distro's grub goes into
/ rather than the mbr, and the master grub just chainloads each distro's
grub. I had been setting up the master grub to point to /vmlinuz and
/initrd in each distro, but that involves updating the appropriate symlinks
each time
On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Mats wrote:
> Thank you very much for all the answers. What I want to do is
> installing
> fedora 13 and ubuntu 10.04 on the same hd (Maybe also debian 5.04, but
> that I can have on the other ide-disk).
No problem with any of that.
> I thought that the easiest wa
Thank you very much for all the answers. What I want to do is installing
fedora 13 and ubuntu 10.04 on the same hd (Maybe also debian 5.04, but
that I can have on the other ide-disk). I thought that the easiest way
would be to use primary partitions, and that I then will be forced to
use only four
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> You don't need multiple swaps: Linux can share one without problems.
and what happens if an active linux is put into suspend/sleep and system
is rebooted?
> A shared /boot partition is possible, too.
possible, but not practical if grubs are for different distribs that
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> You don't need multiple swaps: Linux can share one without problems.
Unless, of course, you want to hibernate one and boot the other :-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription opt
--- On Tue, 6/22/10, Mats wrote:
> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on
> the same hd.
> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and
> then the same
> with the other one. Is that ok? All detailed explanation
> I've seen is
> about installing windows and linux and
Mats wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the same hd.
> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
> with the other one. Is that ok? All detailed explanation I've seen is
> about installing windows and linux and that's not what I want
On Jun 23, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Peter Langfelder wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Mats wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the
>> same hd.
>> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
>> with the other one. Is that ok? A
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Mats wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the same hd.
> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
> with the other one. Is that ok? All detailed explanation I've seen is
> about installing windows an
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:32:53 +0200
Mats wrote:
> I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the same hd.
> If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
> with the other one. Is that ok?
You will need to deal with grub differently on at least one of them.
T
Hi,
I want to have (at least) two linux-system (no windows) on the same hd.
If I make two partitions for the first (/ and swap) and then the same
with the other one. Is that ok? All detailed explanation I've seen is
about installing windows and linux and that's not what I want.
/Mats
--
users m
27 matches
Mail list logo
