Kev:
Thanks for your reply.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Kevin Anderson wrote:
> This isn't the Windows world. There is no registry, so stupid problems
> like what you are describing simply do not arise. Linux uses a much
> cleaner and simpler system, more like DOS, or Windows pre95...
All these and several more are the reason why I'm trying to use Linux. The
road is a bit bumpy, however.
> ... Unlike Windows, Linux gets faster and more powerful with every
> release. Windows gets arguable more powerful, but it's definitely slower
> with every release. (a 486 can't physically address enough RAM to even
> load the Win2K kernel, for example...) On the other hand, if you run RH
> 8 instead of RH 7.1, it will run faster on the same hardware, and you
> have the advantage of having a more up to date (security wise) product.
Neither does it have some stupid feature where you have to log onto
someone else's server and ask permission to upgrade or add a new feature!
> I believe the 2 TB limitation was with the 2.2 Kernel. Regardless, this
> won't be an issue for a home user any time soon.
At least probably not in my lifetime. However, I remember what Bill Gates
said in 1981 ("640K ought to be enough for anybody.") and wonder.
> Personally, I'd suggest that having so many little partitions will just
> make things more difficult for you. It shouldn't be a problem from the
> OSes perspective, but I would never do it, and from the sound of others
> on this list, they wouldn't either. My suggestion would be to devote 1
> HDD to Linux, and 1 to Doze, then let the Linux installer auto-partition
> the drive for you during it's install. That's a good way to start.
Difficult, yes. Impossible, doubtful. We make progress by blazing new
ground. So far no one has given me a really solid reason why I should use
larger or fewer partitions except in vague generalities. I'm still waiting
for a solid, practical reason for not doing so. I am not holding my
breath.
Fifteen years ago the concept of having more than 1 hard disk was
outrageous and the technology may not even have existed for partitioning
disks. At that point in our history we neither owned enough files to make
use of such extravagances nor the drives that would support them. Today my
Window$ operating system lives in 1 partition and encompasses 10,237 files
by itself! (I counted them.) I have a 1Gb partition reserved for only 3 of
my larger applications that's about packed full with 10,037 files! I have
another 1 Gb partition for the rest of my apps that holds 8,557 files.
I haven't had the opportunity to count the Linux files but that'll
probably happen as soon as I get it up and running smoothly.
In that same period of time, hard disks have increased in size by a factor
of 750 or 800 and the prices have dropped from almost $1,000 for a 10 Mb
monster to about $138 for an off-the-shelf 40 Gb.
How do we deal with this incredible explosion in complexity and
application & storage media size? The answer is right before our eyes:
chop our disks into pieces that can be handled more easily.
My system for partitioning my disks and organizing my applications and
data may not fit the "party line," but that party line is going to have to
change and my guess is that it'll have to change pretty soon. The
technology mandates it.
Maybe I'm just ahead of my time by a few months (or a little behind!).
Maybe the others are just a little behind or ahead, that's probably just a
matter of perspective or personal opinion. The facts are that there should
be no reason why I can't spread my files over 20+ partitions. The problem
isn't whether I can or should, but rather why I can't and how can I fix
it.
Enough of my soap boxing! Thanks again for all your help.
Peace, health, wisdom and wealth. Live long and prosper.
Stan Schultz
Techno-Geek wannabe
Home: (403) 230-1911
Work: (403) 220-8570
FAX: (403) 270-8928
Webpage: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~schultz
