Ubuntu 9.10 Is Here!

[Supernova]

Always install Windows first. If you plan on using more than one version of Windows, install the older version first then install the newer one. To have the MBR installed to the 100MB partition, you must set the partition Active.

Note: After installing Ubuntu, you won't be able to use GRUB to boot the system until you change the Active partition from the 100MB drive to the Linux root "/".

[Prasert]

Gave Ubunto 9.10 server a try over the last two weeks. What a headache.

Apache2 - configuration files are split up compared to any other distro's. Not handy.

Bind9 - installation from repository is incomplete, several default configuration files are not installed

Cistron Radius - just impossible

The absence of a proper root environment - irritating. Even working in 'sudo -i' is still causing problems.

The only good thing about it: no graphical shell. Centos beats Ubuntu by far when it comes to a server installation.

[bendejo]

I used partition magic under xp and only left my data partition intact (I moved it to the end of the drive). If necessary I also can remove the data partition as I do have back-ups.

...

I used to use PM, then switched to Acronis disk director, and now use gparted, which I like very much. These programs that let you modify partitions can result in error messages from other programs about partitions beginning/ending on illegal boundaries and such. For a while I was getting Linux (ubuntu) install (using gparted) telling me there was no defined partition table, while it was visible to fdisk and, of course, Acronis DD, and this made installing ubuntu very difficult.

Now that all your data is backed up and you are free to do whatever to your disk, once you figure out the solution of what to put where, I suggest a redo the whole partitioning scheme using gparted. There is a live version that boots from a CD/DVD or pen drive.

No, you can't choose where to install the MBR. When you install Windows, the MBR will always be written to the first primary partition of the harddisk.

I run a dual boot laptop, and have been leaving a few megabytes at the start of the disk as unallocated, I think I started doing this back in OS2 days, when some boot selector programs required their own, self-defined, mini-partition. So, it looks like I should actually define that space as a partition. An NTFS partition? Also, is this the the primary partition that should be set to active ?

[Supernova]

I've always kept the boot files on its own mini-partition, separate from the operating system partition. It makes things very easy to manage should something go wrong -- especially in a dualboot or tri-boot configuration. Initially, I used FAT16 for the mini-partition. But due to certain circumstances (for which I won't go into here), I later changed the filesystem to NTFS.

The primary partition containing the boot manager has to be set Active in order to boot the system. Perhaps I should have worded my post differently...

No, you can't choose where to install the MBR. When you install Windows, the MBR will always be written to the active primary partition of the harddisk.

[Richb2004v2]

I have Windows 7 AND Ubuntu 9.1 on separate hard drives. Considering the price of hard drives, I find it difficult to justify dual boots. I am not a techie for sure and I once tried the dual boot. It was a disaster and I found it impossible to get rid of the Linux boot. A partition program and a complete format was required to get Windows working again.

So you put Ubuntu on a separate external hard drive? This sounds like a good idea. I was about to attempt a dual boot but have been worried about messing up my XP install. How did you do it and are there any disadvantages to it?

[Supernova]

There are no disadvantages to installing Ubuntu on a second hard drive -- many people do this. It all depends on your needs and what you feel works best for you. I choose to keep all my operating systems on a single (dedicated) hard disk, as I find it much easier to manage.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Supernova

[Richb2004v2]

So would a flash drive be adequate or an actual external HD? I guess a small external HD is quite cheap now.

Does it not make the operation slow at all?

Is it easy to set up during install, and does 100% of the OS go to the HD?

Thanks.

[Gary A]

In the past I must have made a number of mistakes. It seems like external drives of any kind make changes to main Windows drive. I always unplug my windows drive whenever I use Linux. The separate hard drive works fine for me. It's just a matter of unplugging one SATA drive and plugging the other drive in.

[TwentyBaht]

Yes, I've been using Ubuntu 9.10 and like it a lot.

That said, there have been current postings about changes/problems/BIOS read in the new GRUB 2 bootloader. From what I read, I think the GRUB 2 method of hard drive identification may be the reason for some of the postings.

For example, I'll use my own case. Laptop with Vista installed. For safety, to try the new 9.10, I took out the internal Vista drive and used only an external USB drive to install 9.10. The install went perfectly. Then, after a couple of days of trial, I put the internal drive back in. Everything good. Internal Vista drive recognized and usable in Ubuntu. Ran the system for a few days.

Then, thinking about adding another distribution to the external drive, and, to be safe again, I took the internal drive back out. And, booted from the external drive as before.

Ubuntu would not boot.

Did a little reading and saw a few things about the hard drive identification thing.

Put my internal Vista drive back in. And, booted the laptop.

Ubuntu did a file check, and booted right back up and ran as as before.

Took the internal drive back out to test this again. Same result.

Interesting. I think it has to do with installing onto an external drive. It installs originally as sda. When the internal drive is added then it becomes sda. And, the external then becomes sdb. From my experience, it would seem GRUB 2 makes a drive change one time. Or, maybe in only one direction. But, I also notice that in 9.10, GRUB 1.97 is still in alpha.

Maybe, this drive scenario is only with my laptop, though.

I want to compliment Supernova. That is a very elegant partitioning scheme.