1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Ubuntu Linux on a ThinkPad

Discussion in 'IBM Thinkpad' started by Tom Rutherford, Jul 25, 2010.

  1. Hi, All.

    Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want Windows
    to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    when I cloned it to the 80.

    There's an article by Life Is Adventure, who did this on his T60, I believe,
    and he refers to several links. The links to the O'Reiley article on doing
    this to laptops in general do work, but the links to the articles
    specifically relating to ThinkPads don't work anymore, so I may be missing
    some details.

    What I thought I'd do is do the ThinkPad procedures on my desktop, because I
    don't want GRUB as the main bootloader here, either. It works, but it's
    ugly, and if it farkles the Access IBM button and so on, I don't want it on
    my laptop, either. Anyway, according to the Life Is Adventure article, I'm
    supposed to install Linux on the hard drive or partition I want to run it
    from (a 640GB drive, in my case), and make it bootable, and install GRUB on
    it. I did that, or at least, I think so. :) Not sure about GRUB, because
    the binary file that Windows' boot.ini refers to is nothing but zeroes. I
    make that file by copying the first 512 blocks of the Linux boot drive to a
    file called ubuntu.bin, by doing the following from a running Linux system:

    dd if=/dev/sdb1 of=ubuntu.bin bs=512 count=1

    where /dev/sdb1 is the boot partition of my second hard drive, and
    ubuntu.bin is supposed to show up in the /home directory of the functional
    Linux system I'm doing this from. I then take that file and copy or move it
    to the root directory of C:, and reference boot.ini to it by adding a line
    to the file refering to the .bin file. The boot.ini business works, but
    with the ubuntu.bin file being all zeroes, Windows lets me choose the Ubuntu
    Linux selection, then drops me into a screen with nothing but a blinking
    cursor.

    What I plan to do later today is to switch drives, make sure that Linux is
    the first OS seen, and if it boots, then I'm back to square one. If it
    doesn't, then I plan to install Linux on it one more time, and if it boots
    then, I'll switch drives back, do the make-file and copy routine (I have an
    installation of Linux on a flash drive, but it's slower than I like), and
    see if everything's kosher. If not, then I'm still back at the prime
    polygon.

    Has anyone here on these newsgroups done this, and what am I missing? TIA!

    (Later...) I did disconnect the Windows drive, and Linux booted right up.
    Linux *still* wanted to boot when I reconnected the Windows drive! I had to
    do some fancy footwork to get things back to normal. I did another copy of
    the first block of data from the Linux partition, btw, and put the file in
    the Windows boot partition. Still no joy, though it wasn't all zeroes this
    time. I wound up putting brackets [] around the Linux instruction in
    Windows' boot.ini, and that essentially took it out of the loop. When I
    figure out what's going on, I'll take those out so I can get the multi-boot
    menu.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 25, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    > <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >>series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want
    >>Windows
    >>to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >>Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>when I cloned it to the 80.

    >
    > An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    > Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    > Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.


    I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    "cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    > <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >>series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want
    >>Windows
    >>to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >>Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>when I cloned it to the 80.

    >
    > An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    > Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    > Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.


    I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    "cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 26, 2010
    #3
  4. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    > <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.

    >>
    >>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    >>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    >
    > Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    > But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.


    XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    poop in a group. My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without even
    filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product activation,
    etc.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 28, 2010
    #4
  5. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    > <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.

    >>
    >>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    >>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    >
    > Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    > But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.


    XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    poop in a group. My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without even
    filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product activation,
    etc.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 28, 2010
    #5
  6. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:46:38 -0400, in
    <i2ru7h$b56$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    >> <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...

    >>
    >>>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>>
    >>>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    >>>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    >>
    >> Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    >> But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.

    >
    >XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    >poop in a group.


    True. Windows 7 is significantly faster, both on desktop appearing and
    on ready to go to work.

    A big problem for Windows is that many people (not saying you) tend to
    blame it for the boot time of all the crap that's been added (implicitly
    or explicitly) to their systems -- there's often a great deal of
    difference versus the boot time of a naked Windows system, part of why
    I use multi-boot and virtual machines for things I don't do all the
    time.

    >My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    >next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    >and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without even
    >filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product activation,
    >etc.


    True. But I personally value my time, am willing to pay for things that
    save me enough time to justify the cost, and Windows 7 easily meets that
    test for me. Free (as in the case of Linux) often isn't enough to tip
    the scale.

    Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    --
    John You are cordially invited to participate in the
    official ThinkPad group news:comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad
    John Navas, Jul 29, 2010
    #6
  7. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:46:38 -0400, in
    <i2ru7h$b56$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    >> <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...

    >>
    >>>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>>
    >>>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use WUBI
    >>>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.

    >>
    >> Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    >> But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.

    >
    >XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    >poop in a group.


    True. Windows 7 is significantly faster, both on desktop appearing and
    on ready to go to work.

    A big problem for Windows is that many people (not saying you) tend to
    blame it for the boot time of all the crap that's been added (implicitly
    or explicitly) to their systems -- there's often a great deal of
    difference versus the boot time of a naked Windows system, part of why
    I use multi-boot and virtual machines for things I don't do all the
    time.

    >My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    >next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    >and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without even
    >filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product activation,
    >etc.


    True. But I personally value my time, am willing to pay for things that
    save me enough time to justify the cost, and Windows 7 easily meets that
    test for me. Free (as in the case of Linux) often isn't enough to tip
    the scale.

    Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    --
    John You are cordially invited to participate in the
    official ThinkPad group news:comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad
    John Navas, Jul 29, 2010
    #7
  8. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:46:38 -0400, in
    > <i2ru7h$b56$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    >>> <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>>>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>>>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>>>
    >>>>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use
    >>>>WUBI
    >>>>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>>>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>>>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    >>> But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.

    >>
    >>XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    >>poop in a group.

    >
    > True. Windows 7 is significantly faster, both on desktop appearing and
    > on ready to go to work.


    Peachy.

    > A big problem for Windows is that many people (not saying you) tend to
    > blame it for the boot time of all the crap that's been added (implicitly
    > or explicitly) to their systems -- there's often a great deal of
    > difference versus the boot time of a naked Windows system, part of why
    > I use multi-boot and virtual machines for things I don't do all the
    > time.


    Oh, yeah, but even when the icons quit straggling into the notification
    area, XP is still not ready. Of course, there is the Microsoft stuff that's
    necessary, over and above the naked OS, to make some things work. I have a
    talking clock on my XP installaion, which required .NET Framework 2.0 before
    it would even install. Then, since Microsoft Sam sounds so down in the
    dumps all the time, I had to go out and get Mike and Mary. Mary is now my
    default system voice, but I wonder if Mike and Sam are in the mix. I think
    ..NET added at least a couple minutes to the time it takes for XP to get
    ready.

    >>My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    >>next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    >>and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without
    >>even
    >>filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product
    >>activation,
    >>etc.

    >
    > True. But I personally value my time, am willing to pay for things that
    > save me enough time to justify the cost, and Windows 7 easily meets that
    > test for me. Free (as in the case of Linux) often isn't enough to tip
    > the scale.


    That's true, too. I tend to have more free time than disposable income,
    though, so I usually take the least time-consuming "free". OTOH, as with
    the latest project of mine, I've learned quite a bit, trying to get a free
    OS installed. :)

    > Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    > client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    > be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    > (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])


    Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 30, 2010
    #8
  9. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:46:38 -0400, in
    > <i2ru7h$b56$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:11:22 -0400, in
    >>> <i2n0mb$qaj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >>>>> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >>>>> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>>>
    >>>>I want to eventually get away from Windows, though. I could also use
    >>>>WUBI
    >>>>to access Linux in Windows folders, too, but either option strikes me as
    >>>>"cheating". I want to boot to Linux, not wait for Windows to get its
    >>>>bloatware loaded and get out of the way before I can run Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Windows 7 boots pretty fast.
    >>> But multi-boot is certainly a reasonable option.

    >>
    >>XP gets to the desktop pretty fast, but it takes a while for it to get its
    >>poop in a group.

    >
    > True. Windows 7 is significantly faster, both on desktop appearing and
    > on ready to go to work.


    Peachy.

    > A big problem for Windows is that many people (not saying you) tend to
    > blame it for the boot time of all the crap that's been added (implicitly
    > or explicitly) to their systems -- there's often a great deal of
    > difference versus the boot time of a naked Windows system, part of why
    > I use multi-boot and virtual machines for things I don't do all the
    > time.


    Oh, yeah, but even when the icons quit straggling into the notification
    area, XP is still not ready. Of course, there is the Microsoft stuff that's
    necessary, over and above the naked OS, to make some things work. I have a
    talking clock on my XP installaion, which required .NET Framework 2.0 before
    it would even install. Then, since Microsoft Sam sounds so down in the
    dumps all the time, I had to go out and get Mike and Mary. Mary is now my
    default system voice, but I wonder if Mike and Sam are in the mix. I think
    ..NET added at least a couple minutes to the time it takes for XP to get
    ready.

    >>My attitude toward the Redmond Menace may change in the
    >>next 4 years, and I may give 7 a shot. I'm sure it won't be free, though,
    >>and I won't be able to install it on as many machines as I want without
    >>even
    >>filling out a registration form, let alone dealing with product
    >>activation,
    >>etc.

    >
    > True. But I personally value my time, am willing to pay for things that
    > save me enough time to justify the cost, and Windows 7 easily meets that
    > test for me. Free (as in the case of Linux) often isn't enough to tip
    > the scale.


    That's true, too. I tend to have more free time than disposable income,
    though, so I usually take the least time-consuming "free". OTOH, as with
    the latest project of mine, I've learned quite a bit, trying to get a free
    OS installed. :)

    > Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    > client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    > be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    > (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])


    Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Jul 30, 2010
    #9
  10. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:13:16 -0400, in
    <i3153g$7gj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    <> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    >> client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    >> be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    >> (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    >
    >Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.


    Ubuntu, because it's arguably easiest for my client, plus it has
    convenient tools for USB flash and Windows environments.

    --
    John You are cordially invited to participate in the
    official ThinkPad group news:comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad
    John Navas, Jul 31, 2010
    #10
  11. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:13:16 -0400, in
    <i3153g$7gj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    <> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    >> client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    >> be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    >> (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    >
    >Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.


    Ubuntu, because it's arguably easiest for my client, plus it has
    convenient tools for USB flash and Windows environments.

    --
    John You are cordially invited to participate in the
    official ThinkPad group news:comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad
    John Navas, Jul 31, 2010
    #11
  12. Tom Rutherford

    Hugh Oxford Guest

    On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    > <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want Windows
    >> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >
    > An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    > Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    > Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >


    I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.
    Hugh Oxford, Jul 31, 2010
    #12
  13. Tom Rutherford

    Hugh Oxford Guest

    On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    > <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want Windows
    >> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >
    > An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    > Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    > Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >


    I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.
    Hugh Oxford, Jul 31, 2010
    #13
  14. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:38:34 +0100, in
    <4c5489ca$0$12168$>, Hugh Oxford
    <> wrote:

    >On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    >> <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >>> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want Windows
    >>> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >>> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >>
    >> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.

    >
    >I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.


    What makes the most sense depends on what you want to do.

    --
    John

    "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
    [Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
    John Navas, Aug 1, 2010
    #14
  15. Tom Rutherford

    John Navas Guest

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:38:34 +0100, in
    <4c5489ca$0$12168$>, Hugh Oxford
    <> wrote:

    >On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    >> <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my R51
    >>> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want Windows
    >>> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve the
    >>> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >>
    >> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.

    >
    >I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.


    What makes the most sense depends on what you want to do.

    --
    John

    "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
    [Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
    John Navas, Aug 1, 2010
    #15
  16. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:13:16 -0400, in
    > <i3153g$7gj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    >>> client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    >>> be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    >>> (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    >>
    >>Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

    >
    > Ubuntu, because it's arguably easiest for my client, plus it has
    > convenient tools for USB flash and Windows environments.


    Yes, it probably would be best, for now. It's why I chose it, because I was
    told that it's a good distro to learn with. So far, so good, though I
    haven't really done much. Depending on how much hand holding there is in
    it, and how annoyed I get by it, I may or may not stay with it. There are
    tons of distros out there, and they all have their proponents. Good luck to
    you and your client.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Aug 1, 2010
    #16
  17. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:13:16 -0400, in
    > <i3153g$7gj$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> Today I'll be using Linux to work on a new RADIUS back-end system for a
    >>> client, but still mostly using Windows for other work, so I'll probably
    >>> be running Linux in a guest virtual machine hosted on Windows.
    >>> (I recommended BSD, but the client wants Linux. [sigh])

    >>
    >>Which distribution? They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

    >
    > Ubuntu, because it's arguably easiest for my client, plus it has
    > convenient tools for USB flash and Windows environments.


    Yes, it probably would be best, for now. It's why I chose it, because I was
    told that it's a good distro to learn with. So far, so good, though I
    haven't really done much. Depending on how much hand holding there is in
    it, and how annoyed I get by it, I may or may not stay with it. There are
    tons of distros out there, and they all have their proponents. Good luck to
    you and your client.

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Aug 1, 2010
    #17
  18. "Hugh Oxford" <> wrote in message
    news:4c5489ca$0$12168$...
    > On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    >> <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my
    >>> R51
    >>> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want
    >>> Windows
    >>> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve
    >>> the
    >>> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >>
    >> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>

    >
    > I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.


    That's my plan, eventually, at least to see how it works. So far, I'm
    impressed with Ubuntu Lucid Lynx. (Wonder what the next version will be,
    Manic Mamba? Munching Mule? <g>)

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Aug 1, 2010
    #18
  19. "Hugh Oxford" <> wrote in message
    news:4c5489ca$0$12168$...
    > On 25/07/10 16:43, John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:05:39 -0400, in
    >> <i2g69p$ic0$-september.org>, "Tom Rutherford"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eventually, I plan to put some distro of Linux, probably Ubuntu, on my
    >>> R51
    >>> series. The computer now has an 80GB hard drive with 40GB dedicated to
    >>> WinXP, and 40GB of freespace in which I plan to stick Linux. I want
    >>> Windows
    >>> to do the booting (no LILO or GRUB in the MBR), and I want to preserve
    >>> the
    >>> Access IBM and the hidden partition, copied from the original 30GB drive
    >>> when I cloned it to the 80.

    >>
    >> An option worth considering is running Linux in a virtual machine with
    >> Windows as the host. I use Windows 7 as my host, with Windows XP and
    >> Linux as guests. More details available if you're interested.
    >>

    >
    > I would do it the other way round. Run Windows in VirtualBox.


    That's my plan, eventually, at least to see how it works. So far, I'm
    impressed with Ubuntu Lucid Lynx. (Wonder what the next version will be,
    Manic Mamba? Munching Mule? <g>)

    --
    -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
    "She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
    Tom Rutherford, Aug 1, 2010
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mark4asp
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    681
  2. Frank Hahn

    Ubuntu Linux on Gateway 7510GZ

    Frank Hahn, Aug 10, 2005, in forum: Laptops
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    327
    Frank Hahn
    Aug 12, 2005
  3. slake
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    343
    Good Man
    Dec 14, 2005
  4. Zack

    ubuntu or dam small linux

    Zack, Oct 17, 2006, in forum: Acer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,132
  5. Tom Rutherford

    Ubuntu Linux on a ThinkPad

    Tom Rutherford, Jul 25, 2010, in forum: IBM Thinkpad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    559
    Tom Rutherford
    Jul 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page