Ubuntu?

[TonyRic]

The thing is this. If you install and use Ubuntu's boot loader, then you will lose Suses. So, if you remove Ubuntu, you will not have Suses left to use and will need to do a repair of the Suse install.

 

[drag]

It's easy once you get used to how it works.

There are lots of ways to go about doing this. Probably the best way would of been to probably setup a seperate /boot partition. Then use it for both installs.

If you don't have a seperate boot partition then what you do is after you install the second linux install you copy over the kernel and initrd files. (usually /boot/vmlinuz-something, and /boot/initrd-something) and then take the grub menu entry for the first distro and add it to the grub menu configuration file in the one that controls the bootloader.

But if you want to try out different distributions then why bother with installing a bunch of them when you don't have to?

This is why we now have virtualization.

There are two easy ways:
One is to use Qemu.

The other is to use vmware player.
http://www.vmware.com/products/player/

With that you can try out a veriaty of different pre-built Linux images.
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/

Redhat Linux.
Gentoo.
NexentaOS (GNU/OpenSolaris)
Suse.
Ubuntu.
Fedora Core 6
Debian Etch
etc etc etc.

Then they have a crapload of 'appliances' which are things like webservers or enterprise groupware and bunches of almost anything you want.

Whatever you want. No need to muck around with bootloaders. No need to even reboot. Just download the image and run it.

 

[Seekermeister]

drag,

I realize that it may seem wasteful, but I prefer multiboot over virtualization...probably because I just don't know any better. But, I want OSs that are totally independent of each other, and not requiring anything that might be a weak link. I think that you are correct, that I should have made a boot partition, but I didn't. I could reinstall the Linux distros easy enough and make that partition, which does have an appeal. But one thing that confuses me, is that I want my Windows OSs to be the ones in control of the MBR, and the Linux distros to be isolated from that. I have previously install distros in a fashion that they don't touch the MBR, but that means that Grub is contained with the distro's partition...not a boot partition. If I setup this partition, would it effect the MBR of any of my harddrives? I'm looking for the strongest system, where the failure of one OS doesn't effect the others.

Unfortunately, since I'm still stuck with dialup, large downloads are not easily or practically done.

f you don't have a seperate boot partition then what you do is after you install the second linux install you copy over the kernel and initrd files. (usually /boot/vmlinuz-something, and /boot/initrd-something)

I understand your comment regarding Grub, but not these. What do you mean by "copy over"?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Thanks, I did what I should have done at the start, and read the instructions on the CD sleeve. I went ahead and ran it as a live CD, but I couldn't find the dialup connection or my modem. I imagine that like before, I need to do some more reading, but when I found KPPP, it said something about it already being bundled with other apps. Thinking that this might mean that it would automatically connect when I opened Firefox, I tried, but no go. I started looking for something like YaST, so that I could configure the modem, but I couldn't find that either. It doesn't seem to see my external modem.

Good luck getting your modem to work. Its a PITA. Amazingly I actually got my software modem to work when I was still on dialup, but any advice for that wouldn't be useful since you've got an external.

Drivers for linux are bad because the hardware manufacturers don't release hardware specs so people can write drivers, but don't write drivers themselves either. Unless you have a US-Robotics external modem, don't count on getting it to work.

I'd recommend the 32-bit Ubuntu. It's a lot harder to get the 64-bit to work with everything, like Flash, or video firefox integration. The performance benefit is....nonexistent. Maybe in 5 years when everything is written to take advantage of 64-bit, there might be some speed benefit, but right now there's no difference.

 

[Seekermeister]

The problem with the modem was me, not the drivers. I figured out how to get it working. Your comments regarding x32 vs x64 is persuasive, because I'm about to get rid of XP x64, because of similar problems.

 

[Nothinman]

I'd recommend the 32-bit Ubuntu. It's a lot harder to get the 64-bit to work with everything, like Flash, or video firefox integration. The performance benefit is....nonexistent. Maybe in 5 years when everything is written to take advantage of 64-bit, there might be some speed benefit, but right now there's no difference.

Flash is crap and IME everything else works just fine.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'd recommend the 32-bit Ubuntu. It's a lot harder to get the 64-bit to work with everything, like Flash, or video firefox integration. The performance benefit is....nonexistent. Maybe in 5 years when everything is written to take advantage of 64-bit, there might be some speed benefit, but right now there's no difference.

Flash is crap and IME everything else works just fine.

Matlab? Wine? Programs running under Wine? Games are more difficult to get to work, as are printer drivers and the like. Plenty of kinks to be worked out. Unless something has changed with Edgy, 32-bit is simply better if you want it to Just Work.

 

[Nothinman]

Matlab? Wine? Programs running under Wine? Games are more difficult to get to work, as are printer drivers and the like. Plenty of kinks to be worked out. Unless something has changed with Edgy, 32-bit is simply better if you want it to Just Work.

I don't use Matlab or WINE and all of the games I play worked fine out of the box. Also, I'm not using Edgy but Debian sid instead but I doubt that matters.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
drag,

I realize that it may seem wasteful, but I prefer multiboot over virtualization...probably because I just don't know any better. But, I want OSs that are totally independent of each other, and not requiring anything that might be a weak link. I think that you are correct, that I should have made a boot partition, but I didn't. I could reinstall the Linux distros easy enough and make that partition, which does have an appeal. But one thing that confuses me, is that I want my Windows OSs to be the ones in control of the MBR, and the Linux distros to be isolated from that. I have previously install distros in a fashion that they don't touch the MBR, but that means that Grub is contained with the distro's partition...not a boot partition. If I setup this partition, would it effect the MBR of any of my harddrives? I'm looking for the strongest system, where the failure of one OS doesn't effect the others.

Well it's just a hell of a lot more convinient, that's all, to do VM. With Vmware and their kernel level driver in Linux then performance is not adversely effected also.

And on a side note if you want to use VM in real-world applications you'd use a hypervisor type setup like Vmware ESX or Xen/Linux were one OS can't affect the other. Each OS gets it's own little slice of the hardware independant from the other one and does not require another OS to setup the operating environment. (in Xen/Linux you use Linux to provided emulated I/O for disk and networking, but still the VM'd OSes run in their own slice seperate from all others). But that's not convient.

Unfortunately, since I'm still stuck with dialup, large downloads are not easily or practically done.

Well that sucks. Stuck in a rural area? (usually you can get satallite, but that's a bit more expensive)

f you don't have a seperate boot partition then what you do is after you install the second linux install you copy over the kernel and initrd files. (usually /boot/vmlinuz-something, and /boot/initrd-something)

I understand your comment regarding Grub, but not these. What do you mean by "copy over"?

The vmlinux-<kernel version> in the actual physical kernel.
initrd-<kernel version> is the corrispond initial root drive image. It's a virtual file system containing scripts, system applications, and drivers nessiciary for your kernel to access the root partition during boot time (like IDE controllers or setup raid and stuff like that).

Both files, plus the correct kernel parameters in the bootloader, are what you need to boot up a Linux machine.