From cameron.purvis at gmail.com  Sat Oct  1 12:54:29 2011
From: cameron.purvis at gmail.com (Cameron Purvis)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:54:29 -0500
Subject: [Tuxaloosa] Linux laptop - sold without Windows?
In-Reply-To: <CAOEp0FekuvNDYxwA=7V3T7GAhwZigj5gRuss7T2aV-fmN7+gfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO2Q8Ogz8za0btJBVaMnJjQ5V+-=hjozK=TX=3=sNzJr=gvJsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOEp0FekuvNDYxwA=7V3T7GAhwZigj5gRuss7T2aV-fmN7+gfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO2Q8Ogm3KVBoDonG2Zgba4UAaFzQv6f1b04wqMJ1MsqcHFgUw@mail.gmail.com>

That looks really promising... hrm...

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Erik Hanson <leprkhn at gmail.com> wrote:

> System76?
> On Sep 30, 2011 3:26 PM, "Cameron Purvis" <cameron.purvis at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I've been asked about buying a laptop with Linux - specifically, buying a
> > laptop with *no* Windows attached. The easiest thing in my book is pick
> the
> > one that 'feels' the best, make sure it's compatible, and run with it,
> but I
> > think that part of the point in this purchase is for him to not give MS
> any
> > money.
> >
> > Dell appears to have one single Vostro 13.3" n-Series (ubuntu
> pre-installed,
> > I think). Dell's kind of a known quantity for better or worse. Does
> anyone
> > have any recommendation for a pre-installed Linux laptop?
> >
> > It's tempting to tell him to just order a ThinkPad and have it delivered
> to
> > me to set up, then scrape the Windows stickers off and preinstall
> whatever
> > distro he wants. I'm not sure how much of the point, as I said, is just
> > avoiding MS completely.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUXaloosa mailing list
> TUXaloosa at tuxaloosa.org
> http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/listinfo/tuxaloosa
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tuxaloosa.org/pipermail/tuxaloosa/attachments/20111001/f1ca9a0d/attachment.html>

From allen at ua.edu  Tue Oct 18 16:25:05 2011
From: allen at ua.edu (Beddingfield, Allen)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:25:05 -0500
Subject: [Tuxaloosa] Question about /boot
Message-ID: <4E9DA861.4040906@ua.edu>

Okay...  I recently kicked off a filesystem layout holy war on a 
SUSE-centered mailing list, so I thought I would get opinions here.

I normally create a 500MB /boot as a primary partition, and format it as 
ext3, then use XFS for everything else.
The source of the holy war on the other forum was my advising someone to 
configure their /boot as above.  It seems that there are a large number 
of people out there who think /boot should only ever be ext2....and as 
many others who think it should always be ext3.
Opinions?

FYI, the normal layout I will do is:
If partition based
/boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
swap
/ (usually just one large XFS  "/"  for most systems- the source of 
other holy wars) primary partition
Depending on the role of the server, I may also do a /srv or /var with XFS

If LVM based:
/boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
volume group name:  vgroup-system
logical volumes:  lv-swap, vl-system-root
Sometimes lv-srv or lv-var
If the /srv or /var are a different disk system, vgroup-srv or 
vgroup-var, with lv-srv and lv-var

Allen B.

-- 
Allen Beddingfield
Systems Engineer
The University of Alabama


From wrmilling at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 17:47:02 2011
From: wrmilling at gmail.com (Winston Milling)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:47:02 -0500
Subject: [Tuxaloosa] Question about /boot
In-Reply-To: <4E9DA861.4040906@ua.edu>
References: <4E9DA861.4040906@ua.edu>
Message-ID: <CAOoVq6w-HiZYXquOb5QN-iMs+TQ-G9yUS8BPT4Rs+UgLMJZvKQ@mail.gmail.com>

I don't even remember where I started doing it like that, but I do it very
similar to you. I actually just installed Arch Linux (again) a few days ago
and I did:

/boot (100mb) ext2
/       (Remainder) ext4
swap (equal to ram)

I am not sure where I started doing this, I have only recently used ext4,
but I used to use zfs (it was on a friend's recommendation just to try out).
I don't actually have a bias on ext2 vs ext3 on the boot, not sure that
helps you as an argument though. Though really, I don't do much in the way
of production systems. Every linux box I have online is a VPS using OpenVZ
so all the installs are template based. There is only one that is a KVM and
I let it do default drive formatting with debian.

Winston Milling

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Beddingfield, Allen <allen at ua.edu> wrote:

> Okay...  I recently kicked off a filesystem layout holy war on a
> SUSE-centered mailing list, so I thought I would get opinions here.
>
> I normally create a 500MB /boot as a primary partition, and format it as
> ext3, then use XFS for everything else.
> The source of the holy war on the other forum was my advising someone to
> configure their /boot as above.  It seems that there are a large number of
> people out there who think /boot should only ever be ext2....and as many
> others who think it should always be ext3.
> Opinions?
>
> FYI, the normal layout I will do is:
> If partition based
> /boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
> swap
> / (usually just one large XFS  "/"  for most systems- the source of other
> holy wars) primary partition
> Depending on the role of the server, I may also do a /srv or /var with XFS
>
> If LVM based:
> /boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
> volume group name:  vgroup-system
> logical volumes:  lv-swap, vl-system-root
> Sometimes lv-srv or lv-var
> If the /srv or /var are a different disk system, vgroup-srv or vgroup-var,
> with lv-srv and lv-var
>
> Allen B.
>
> --
> Allen Beddingfield
> Systems Engineer
> The University of Alabama
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> TUXaloosa mailing list
> TUXaloosa at tuxaloosa.org
> http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/**listinfo/tuxaloosa<http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/listinfo/tuxaloosa>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tuxaloosa.org/pipermail/tuxaloosa/attachments/20111018/252034ba/attachment.html>

From leprkhn at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 18:39:20 2011
From: leprkhn at gmail.com (Erik Hanson)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:39:20 -0500
Subject: [Tuxaloosa] Question about /boot
In-Reply-To: <CAOoVq6w-HiZYXquOb5QN-iMs+TQ-G9yUS8BPT4Rs+UgLMJZvKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9DA861.4040906@ua.edu>
	<CAOoVq6w-HiZYXquOb5QN-iMs+TQ-G9yUS8BPT4Rs+UgLMJZvKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOEp0Ff0v6ga+bamkMaMRYLhhQUc6z17g1dS_UriCBrYU+sXKA@mail.gmail.com>

I might be completely wrong about this, but it was my understanding that
ext2 was commonly used on separate /boot partitions for space issues. You
wouldn't want (or need) a journal taking up precious MB on that small
partition.
I think that the GB to $$ ratio these days makes that a little moot. Though,
if you are using a journaled FS, maybe increase the size of that /boot
partition to account for the journal.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Winston Milling <wrmilling at gmail.com>wrote:

> I don't even remember where I started doing it like that, but I do it very
> similar to you. I actually just installed Arch Linux (again) a few days ago
> and I did:
>
> /boot (100mb) ext2
> /       (Remainder) ext4
> swap (equal to ram)
>
> I am not sure where I started doing this, I have only recently used ext4,
> but I used to use zfs (it was on a friend's recommendation just to try out).
> I don't actually have a bias on ext2 vs ext3 on the boot, not sure that
> helps you as an argument though. Though really, I don't do much in the way
> of production systems. Every linux box I have online is a VPS using OpenVZ
> so all the installs are template based. There is only one that is a KVM and
> I let it do default drive formatting with debian.
>
> Winston Milling
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Beddingfield, Allen <allen at ua.edu>wrote:
>
>> Okay...  I recently kicked off a filesystem layout holy war on a
>> SUSE-centered mailing list, so I thought I would get opinions here.
>>
>> I normally create a 500MB /boot as a primary partition, and format it as
>> ext3, then use XFS for everything else.
>> The source of the holy war on the other forum was my advising someone to
>> configure their /boot as above.  It seems that there are a large number of
>> people out there who think /boot should only ever be ext2....and as many
>> others who think it should always be ext3.
>> Opinions?
>>
>> FYI, the normal layout I will do is:
>> If partition based
>> /boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
>> swap
>> / (usually just one large XFS  "/"  for most systems- the source of other
>> holy wars) primary partition
>> Depending on the role of the server, I may also do a /srv or /var with XFS
>>
>> If LVM based:
>> /boot (500mb) ext3 primary partition
>> volume group name:  vgroup-system
>> logical volumes:  lv-swap, vl-system-root
>> Sometimes lv-srv or lv-var
>> If the /srv or /var are a different disk system, vgroup-srv or vgroup-var,
>> with lv-srv and lv-var
>>
>> Allen B.
>>
>> --
>> Allen Beddingfield
>> Systems Engineer
>> The University of Alabama
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> TUXaloosa mailing list
>> TUXaloosa at tuxaloosa.org
>> http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/**listinfo/tuxaloosa<http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/listinfo/tuxaloosa>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUXaloosa mailing list
> TUXaloosa at tuxaloosa.org
> http://tuxaloosa.org/mailman/listinfo/tuxaloosa
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tuxaloosa.org/pipermail/tuxaloosa/attachments/20111018/42f6133a/attachment-0001.html>