h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi fellas,

I want to try to set up some kind of Linux on my system, but I'm sure you'll sympathise when I say it seems a bit intimidating. A friend is getting me a copy of Mandrake, but I want to ask is, before I start can you give me any hints, tips, advice, background, perhaps even some essential "absolutely don't do this or your computer WILL explode" type stuff

Oh, and maybe a bit of reassurance too!

That "new to Linux" guide you're doing looks like it could be really helpful when it's got a bit more finished (the first part's already excellent ). In the meantime, if you want some feedback from a genuine bona fide (and enthusiastic!) newbie, I'll be more than happy to contribute!

Do you have either a spare (old) computer that you can install it on. At least that way you know your main machine won't be killed by it. The other way is to have a second hard drive just for linux rather than trying to repartition the one with windows/macos/whatever on and suddenly finding you no longer have that vitally important file.

Most installations are quite easy now but do check what hardware you have actually got inside the case (writing down a list so you don't forget is good) then if the installer atuodetects something (or doesn't) you know if it's right.
Common sense and patience is needed. You're going to learn a lot of new things.

Oh and have fun

Mandrake's a good choice for a newbie. Easy to install and pretty easy to get used to as well.

My guidelines would be:

1) if you can't install onto a seperate hard drive, defrag your Windows drive and give Linux as much space as you think you can afford. My own Linux system has a total of 30GB of space, but that's because I use it a lot. That's spread over several partitions as well, because of the way my system expanded, and because I like to keep /home seperate for safety when mucking about with upgrades. Not something you should worry about yet
2) make sure you make your swap partition large enough. Linux doesn't have a swapfile as Windows does, it uses a special partition for it. This is faster, because the filesystem on that is designed for the kind of access swapping uses most. How much you need depends on quite a lot of factors (and who you listen to) I don't know what Mandrake would recommend, but I'd say you should make sure RAM + swap = at least 512MB for a modern system. That may be a little excessive though...
3) back up your important stuff from your Windows system - just in case
4) read the stuff in the installer, and check the CD for pre-install instructions to make sure you know what's going to happen to your computer
5) have fun

Oh yes, Mandrake makes the creation of a user account optional. I strongly recommend doing so, as running as root all the time is exceedingly dangerous. A normal user simply CANNOT delete anything important to the Linux system, and we find this to be good, especially when you're learning.

Mandrake sounds like a great idea - the newer releases do a great job of setting up 'modeern' hardware (sound cards, graphics, USB, etc ...) automagically.

I only use windows on a laptop these days when I need to run specific programs for client projects - and that system dual-boots (can run either windows or linux). Dual Booting is great, but running linux on a second system will let you play with networking, which is where linux really shines!

One of the 'Penguins' in our house lets us share one internet connection between all the other systems in the house, and even sets up their addressing for us automatically, so new machines can be added easily (DHCP).

If you are going to dual boot, you _might_ want to consider adding a second hard drive to your system. They are cheap, and then your windows system can be untouched. Whenever I split a drive, I always seem to wind up deciding later that I wish I had split it differently.

Mandrake will include a lot of software to get you started - you can spend a lot of time digging around. The KDE Desktop or Gnome are a lot like MS-Windows, so you will feel right at home.

There are programs like Open Office and Applixware that work just like MS-Office, and use compatible file formats; But the "unix way" is to write in plain text, and then use programs like LaTex to get nice formatted output.

There are lots of linux books around, but you really don't need to buy any. The best way to learn linux is to read the documentation that comes with it or is available on the web. Your system will have lots of Howto's installed, or you can find them on sites like linuxdoc.org.

One site that I find really useful is: http://www.dsl.org/cookbook/
This is just stuffed with great tips - Even I find new stuff there all the time.

Most importantly; Have a Lot of Fun!

aloha,
dave

"Have Fun"! I can't imagine anyone wishing a new Windows user that!

Thanks for the help so far. Unfortunately, I don't have a spare computer lying around, I don't think my housemates will appreciate me messing around with their beloved boxes . Even more unfortunately, student-level resources mean even a second harddisk is just not practical at the moment, so it looks like fun and games with partitioning and dual boot gizmos.

I am always a little nervous partioning disks, which is probably good considering what might (possibly) go wrong. But more than anything, it's a hassle, so I'd like to get a reasonably flexible, safe and efficient arrangement from the start and again, sugestions would greatly appreciated. Specifically, what is "root" and "home", and why might I want them on separate partitions?

Also, how fussy is Linux regarding it's actual location on the disk? Are there limitations, or can I just bung it anywhere? I know some OSs can be quite particular, again I'd like to get it right first time

I should be able to annexe about 5 or 6GB in total quite easily, maybe a bit more - more than I've managed to fill over two years of Windows use, so I hope I'll be OK for space.

Thanks again for the help so far... be sure I'll be back!

Dolt, looking forward to the fun to come

5-6GB should be fine.

As for partitions - Linux doesn't care where you put it, you just need to make sure to install the bootloader, which loads the Linux kernel or passes control to Windows for that to boot itself, is put in the MBR on the first partition of your first hard disk (or /dev/hda1 in Linux terms). Mandrake's installer should take care of that for you though.

Now, the root and home thing... that's to do with the way Linux handles its filesystem. I shall explain the basics.

In Linux, all disks and partitions are seen as part of one huge filesystem. The base of the filesystem is called the root, and is denoted by a /. All other directories in the filesystem are underneath it. Virtually all systems will have directories like /usr, /home, /sbin, /bin, /var, /etc and /mnt. /usr is where most program binaries, libraries and other resources are stored. /home is where each user's personal files and programs are kept, and is usually the only part of the filesystem save for bits of /var that they have write access to. /sbin stores system binaries, things like the 'shutdown' command and 'mount'. /bin is for some other vital programs ('cp' and 'mv' for copying and moving files I believe). /var is for 'variable' data - /var/tmp stores temporary files for instance, and /var/log is for system logfiles. /etc is for system configuration files (there are lots). /mnt is often where one will find the mount points for Windows partitions and CD drives.

Now, a mount point is simply a directory in the filesystem somewhere. When nothing is mounted on it, it looks like an empty directory, but when a partition is mounted (using the 'mount' command), the contents of it become miraculously placed within the mount point folder. This is very handy, because, for example, you can put /usr on a seperate partition, set your system up to mount that partition as /usr at boot time, and nobody would ever know the difference - except for you, because you'd have more disk space (that's about the only reason to do it, although some people seem to do it out of habit or a need to help safeguard data). On my system, /home is set up in just such a manner, to keep my documents and stuff neatly out of the way when I'm mucking about with things like reinstalling the system. I just unmount it while I'm playing, then mount it again afterwards and it's perfectly safe unless I repartition things accidentally.

My Windows partitions are set up to appear under /mnt - /mnt/c, /mnt/babelfish and /mnt/megadonkey (those last two are called e: and d: respectively by Windows). These too look like they're all part of one big partition to the untrained eye, even though they're different filesystems (my / and /home use ext3, a Linux filesystem that's quite popular these days and rather nice, /mnt/c is NTFS for Windows XP, /mnt/babelfish and /mnt/megadonkey are FAT32). You do notice it when doing some things though, as they don't support all the things ext3 does, and also because NTFS write support in Linux is marked as DANGEROUS so I don't turn it on. No point tempting fate, after all.

Did that explain enough, or do I need to say more about some things?

... I think I get most of what you're saying. To put it another way, the "mount" command maps a disk or partition to a directory in the Linux filesystem (a tiny bit like using a shortcut in Windows, perhaps?). By putting /home on a separate partition and "mounting" it, you are effectively putting all your documents and stuff on a giant floppy disk which you can "remove" (by un-mounting it) for safety when you're playing with the system.

Not sure about "all disks and partitions are seen as part of one huge filesystem". I can't very well say *why* I'm not sure about it though, so I guess the best thing to do is wait 'til I've got it in front of me...

Thanks for explaining that... have virtual on me! (I'd make it a real one, but all the pubs are shut. Must be time for )

Well, once a drive is mounted, if you're looking around the filesystem you can't really tell what's on what partition - unless you know where stuff's been mounted of course (and anything in /mnt is a bit of a clue...) this goes for floppy disks and CD-ROMs and Zip disks too. Any disk has to be mounted for it to be used - Windows does this transparently in the background. Mandrake, I believe, has a thing called supermount for auto-mounting CDs, but Gentoo, which I run, doesn't, and I prefer it that way to be honest, because I know what's going on. But that's just me.

If you pay close attention to the bootup messages (which the default Mandrake install won't let you see), you'll notice that even the root partition has to be mounted. It's mounted read-only to start with, then later on it's mounted read-write. This helps avoid data corruption if your system boots badly for whatever reason.

Aha... in the clear light of day (and after a good night's sleep) all becomes clear... drives / partitions aren't actually part of the file system *until* they're mounted, and once they are mounted they're effectively indistinguishable as separate entities, unlike in Windows... got you. I think.

I'm off to get the installation CDs off my friend now, so expect a barrage of confusion sometime soon...

(yet again!)

And it's so much a better system than Windows, with the pseudo-root 'desktop' it's playing with now, and the horrible A: C: D: most people seem to have these days. Lunacy. If it was on a UNIX-like filesystem model, you could split your Program Files directory off onto another partition or disk if it got too big - or a Zip disk if you really wanted (Although that wouldn't be very useful).

Well, you could always use something like TweakUI to change the registry to put Program Files in a different location... but that's cheating isn't it?

For the record, this is my first ever h2g2 posting using Linux...



Now trying to work out what I'm going to do with it all

Which web browser are you using? Since it's Mandrake I'd have a guess at Konqueror, since Mandrake likes KDE as the default desktop environment.

[Back in the well-padded confines of Windows for a while, to try and get some work done...]

I was using Galeon, actually. I took a slightly more involved role in the installation process than was probably advisable, and through random chance ended up with a Gnome desktop. It all seems to work, though maybe I should try doing something more than sit and stare in stupefaction before I say that.

If I was in any way superstitious and DNA-obsessed, I would take it as a good omen that while setting up the printer I discovered it's serial number was 42... surely nothing can go wrong now!

Aaah, GNOME - that's my personal preference

So what's the difference? I'm sitting here tapping away in Konquerer/KDE now, and apart from a few cosmetic variations it all seems much of a muchness. I must say though, I prefered Galeon to Konquerer.

I guess it might be a good idea to read some of those How-tos, find out what's actully going on here...

There are differences. The biggest ones come when you write programs for them, but they're not much of a muchness. I believe Mandrake doesn't incorporate GNOME 2 yet - Mandrake 9 is the first with it and that's not quite out yet. GNOME 2 is quite considerably different to KDE in some places, but it has always been different.

Mandrake, though, like a lot of vendors, modify things a bit so they do seem more similar than they would on a frehsly compiled system like mine. Red Hat have taken that to extremes though - they've made themes to make them both look the same right down to the icons, and have mucked about with a fair few other things as well.

The main difference I have found between KDE, Gnome and X windows has to do with bloat, and is often down to the maker of the distribution.

X windows programs tend to be small, fast, and fairly independant of other stuff (and often front ends to console programs).

Gnome tends to have more dependancies, but usually they are from a small common set, and they often have a common front end to configure different programs of the same type, making things easier to maintain.

Kde tends towards more of a kitchen sink approach. While in principle it is no more dependant than Gnome, in practice, they have much bigger packages, which are much more broadly defined (often including stuff that should be in a seperate package), and because of this, it tends to be harder to not install what you don't need. They also have a tendancy to make their programs embedable only with other kde programs, so if you are using a kde word processor and you need to embed a bit of a spreadsheet, it has to be a kde specific one.

Personally I go for a minimalistic approach, only adding extra layers as I find that I need them. so I use a lot of console stuff, a few X windows programs, and the occasional Gnome program. I did use one KDE program, but I found it arkward to use on other systems which didn't have kde installed by default, so don't use kde specific stuff much.

* nods *

GNOME packages got split up even more for GNOME 2.0 - the current Gentoo portage tree shows 36 packages in the gnome-base category, and there are more after that... admittedly you don't need all of them to run a GNOME desktop or a particular GNOME app, but you might need all of them in the end. Most of them are fairly small though - what's in Gentoo's gnome-base section might make up perhaps one or two packages in KDE. I find that quite nice actually. It also makes GNOME a bit easier to hack on I think.

I think that there is a lot to be said for the way debian do it.

they are almost fanatical about spliting things up properly, and then making those smaller packages minimally dependant. I think it is to do with how much they support, to compile from the same source on 11 different platforms.

by splitting it up properly, you are increasing the likelyhood of transportability.

not keen on the rest of their system though.

Several people in my house run Debian, two of us run Gentoo. We like them both

I've never actually run Debian myself though. I was going to try it, but then I discovered Gentoo.