Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #75070 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-24 00:02 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-09-28 01:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 00:02 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:43 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 15:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 14:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 22:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 00:26 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 01:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-28 10:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 19:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 09:37 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-04 12:04 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:12 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 09:43 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-04 15:22 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-04 17:38 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-04 20:34 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 20:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-04 22:56 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 09:51 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-06 02:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-07 09:56 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:55 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-08 12:58 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:02 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 17:35 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:29 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:58 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:45 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 14:02 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 21:17 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-11 00:55 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:35 -0400
Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 14:54 -0400
Re: Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:15 +0000
Re: Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:35 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:13 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:37 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 15:07 +0000
inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:45 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 00:57 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 15:28 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 23:46 +0100
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 02:42 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:13 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:53 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:49 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:51 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:10 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-09 09:00 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:24 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:52 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:11 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:56 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:50 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-05 20:25 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-04 20:35 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 09:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 11:08 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-28 12:19 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:07 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:36 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 23:35 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-29 00:28 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-28 21:08 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 05:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-29 16:32 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 18:36 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:30 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 10:12 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:33 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-29 19:50 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:31 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:15 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-28 00:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 11:19 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:22 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-28 18:07 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 19:18 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 23:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 09:53 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-10-02 18:28 +1000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2025-10-02 21:44 +0300
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-03 00:10 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:35 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:32 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:21 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-10-04 12:55 +1000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-24 06:49 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 11:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 16:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 14:35 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 15:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 21:32 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 00:04 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-09-25 00:44 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:07 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:48 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 15:52 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:09 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:44 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:04 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:48 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:15 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 21:06 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:10 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 21:09 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-06 23:30 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-07 15:16 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 02:34 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 11:06 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 14:14 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:44 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-09 21:10 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:54 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:57 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:49 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:29 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 14:32 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-10-09 12:50 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-09 21:11 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:37 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-10-10 11:19 +0200
Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:51 +0200
Re: Phone wallet c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:30 -0400
Re: Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 14:32 +0200
Re: Phone wallet c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:35 -0400
Re: Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 14:48 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-10 06:51 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 03:29 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:10 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 13:18 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-10-09 03:09 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-10-10 02:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 23:44 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:38 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 15:16 +0000
Faraday cages (was: Re: Floppies - Actual Question) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 17:02 +0100
Re: Faraday cages Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 18:48 +0000
Re: Faraday cages The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:49 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:47 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:52 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:38 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 05:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:59 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-26 01:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:12 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 13:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 03:11 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:22 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:03 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-30 09:32 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-26 15:19 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-24 08:41 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 12:04 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 14:34 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> - 2025-09-24 17:11 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> - 2025-09-28 01:00 -0700
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 00:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Floppies - Actual Question |
| Message-ID | <J1udnSMU2v_98E71nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
Recently got a USB floppy reader. Now either ALL my old floppies have mysteriously gone bad or ....... Used "ueifloppy" to reformat. First pass goes real slow. Second pass goes quick. BUT - no partition table on the disk, cannot mount as anything, Gparted is of no use. The usual floppy formatter utils don't help. kfloppy doesn't help. mkfs vfat dies almost immediately and the ext2 try gets further, but eventually fails. The device IS seen, but can't DO anything with it. Anybody else seen this ??? Can, probably will, buy a 10-pak of brand new floppies. MIGHT fix things ... maybe. The USB adapter is well-reviewed, MANY reviews, so I don't suspect it. Clearly same device being sold under many brand names too. HAVE used USB floppy adapters in Win and Lin in the past with no problems. MX/Bookworm. All FAT/NTFS stuff loaded. Floppies are of 'limited use' these days, but I do have a lot of old ones with good old code and such on them. Would LIKE to be able to get at that AND be able to use floppies for storage "just because".
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y_KAQ.110891$OHH2.31715@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #75070 |
On 2025-09-24, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Recently got a USB floppy reader. > > Now either ALL my old floppies have mysteriously > gone bad or ....... > > Used "ueifloppy" to reformat. First pass goes > real slow. Second pass goes quick. > > BUT - no partition table on the disk, cannot > mount as anything, Gparted is of no use. The > usual floppy formatter utils don't help. kfloppy > doesn't help. mkfs vfat dies almost immediately > and the ext2 try gets further, but eventually > fails. > > The device IS seen, but can't DO anything with it. > > Anybody else seen this ??? > > Can, probably will, buy a 10-pak of brand new > floppies. MIGHT fix things ... maybe. > > The USB adapter is well-reviewed, MANY reviews, > so I don't suspect it. Clearly same device being > sold under many brand names too. HAVE used USB > floppy adapters in Win and Lin in the past with > no problems. > > MX/Bookworm. All FAT/NTFS stuff loaded. > > Floppies are of 'limited use' these days, but I do > have a lot of old ones with good old code and such > on them. Would LIKE to be able to get at that AND > be able to use floppies for storage "just because". Back in my SCO days, I remember using doscp and friends. They could do various functions on MS-DOS floppies. I haven't tried to access MS-DOS floppies from a *n*x system for a long time. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-24 05:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10b00db$3f68s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75080 |
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:06:00 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> BUT - no partition table on the disk > > I haven't tried to access MS-DOS floppies from a *n*x > system for a long time. Also, floppies don’t do partitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68d800e1$0$16840$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75089 |
Le 24-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : > On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:06:00 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> BUT - no partition table on the disk >> >> I haven't tried to access MS-DOS floppies from a *n*x >> system for a long time. > > Also, floppies don’t do partitions. Two things. First I never heard bout that. But most importantly, I never considered that possibility as long as I used floppies. I was always wondering how I could use as few floppies as possible to put my files. I was always on the way to partition my files to manage to put hem on floppies. Never on the way to partition floppies. At the time I used floppies, if anyone asked me how to partition them I would have wondered. Why on earth would someone want to do that? There are many floppies, they can't store anything relatively big and they take ages to format. To take time to partition them and to format each partition just to have less space available is a wonder to me. If you want a technical chalenge, why not, but in real life: what for? -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ScCdnVqO_8vSt0X1nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75301 |
On 9/27/25 11:21, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 24-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:06:00 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> BUT - no partition table on the disk >>> >>> I haven't tried to access MS-DOS floppies from a *n*x >>> system for a long time. >> >> Also, floppies don’t do partitions. > > Two things. First I never heard bout that. But most importantly, I never > considered that possibility as long as I used floppies. I was always > wondering how I could use as few floppies as possible to put my files. I > was always on the way to partition my files to manage to put hem on > floppies. Never on the way to partition floppies. > > At the time I used floppies, if anyone asked me how to partition them I > would have wondered. Why on earth would someone want to do that? There > are many floppies, they can't store anything relatively big and they > take ages to format. To take time to partition them and to format each > partition just to have less space available is a wonder to me. If you > want a technical chalenge, why not, but in real life: what for? Well, partitions can be used for "organization" purposes, which can be useful. Remember too that floppies held rather a LOT of data - by the needs and standards of the time. Fooling around with floppies this week, I know you can put a MSDOS-type partition table on them, did it with gparted, but it uses up about 1.2mb. Did not try any of the more obscure partition types.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68d865c6$0$12927$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75321 |
Le 27-09-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit : > On 9/27/25 11:21, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 24-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:06:00 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>>> BUT - no partition table on the disk >>>> >>>> I haven't tried to access MS-DOS floppies from a *n*x >>>> system for a long time. >>> >>> Also, floppies don’t do partitions. >> >> Two things. First I never heard bout that. But most importantly, I never >> considered that possibility as long as I used floppies. I was always >> wondering how I could use as few floppies as possible to put my files. I >> was always on the way to partition my files to manage to put hem on >> floppies. Never on the way to partition floppies. >> >> At the time I used floppies, if anyone asked me how to partition them I >> would have wondered. Why on earth would someone want to do that? There >> are many floppies, they can't store anything relatively big and they >> take ages to format. To take time to partition them and to format each >> partition just to have less space available is a wonder to me. If you >> want a technical chalenge, why not, but in real life: what for? > > Well, partitions can be used for "organization" > purposes, which can be useful. Give me a real example in the real world. On a personal computer, I don't see any reason to have more than three partition: one for Linux, one for the swap and one for the UEFI which requires a FAT partition. And for the swap partition, I'm even not that convinced that it's better than a swap file. I'm certainly not convinced by the /home partition for example. If I want organization, I'm using folders: they are way more flexible than partitions. But here we are speaking about floppies, so we are speaking about a way to exchange data between computers. So, what example can you give me which explain the usefulness of partitioning a floppy? And I'm speaking about personal computers, of course, on servers, with LVM I understand the purpose of partitions. But LVM on a floppy, well, I'd like to see how it can be used. > Remember too that floppies held rather a LOT of data - by the needs > and standards of the time. I don't know about the time you are speaking of. The time I was using floppies, it was not a lot of data. It was the only way to exchange data between computers. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10b9vcf$21uoj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75334 |
On 27 Sep 2025 22:31:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 27-09-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit : >> >> Well, partitions can be used for "organization" purposes, which can >> be useful. > > Give me a real example in the real world. On a personal computer, I > don't see any reason to have more than three partition: one for Linux, > one for the swap and one for the UEFI which requires a FAT partition. > And for the swap partition, I'm even not that convinced that it's better > than a swap file. I'm certainly not convinced by the /home partition for > example. Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. Indeed, I would recommend having two OS partitions, one left unused to begin with. That lets you install a second OS later, just to try out, without having to wipe your existing one. And they can both share the same /home partition. And the same swap partition, while they’re at it. I agree, there is no point in creating extra partitions beyond this. Since resizing partitions is harder than resizing files, having more partitions than necessary reduces your ability to adapt to changing needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 01:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ba2j6$22ljd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75335 |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 00:26:56 -0000 (UTC), I wrote: > I agree, there is no point in creating extra partitions beyond this. Furthermore, if you feel the need to add extra drives for even more user files in the future, you don’t even need to create a partition table on them, just to define one partition: Linux will happily format the entire drive as a filesystem volume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 10:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68d90c1b$0$11422$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75335 |
Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : > On 27 Sep 2025 22:31:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> Le 27-09-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit : >>> >>> Well, partitions can be used for "organization" purposes, which can >>> be useful. >> >> Give me a real example in the real world. On a personal computer, I >> don't see any reason to have more than three partition: one for Linux, >> one for the swap and one for the UEFI which requires a FAT partition. >> And for the swap partition, I'm even not that convinced that it's better >> than a swap file. I'm certainly not convinced by the /home partition for >> example. > > Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that > you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions deployed things will have to be handled manually. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm saying I'm not convinced it's the best way. > Indeed, I would recommend having two OS partitions, one left unused to > begin with. That lets you install a second OS later, just to try out, > without having to wipe your existing one. And they can both share the > same /home partition. And the same swap partition, while they’re at it. OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer the VM way. > I agree, there is no point in creating extra partitions beyond this. Since > resizing partitions is harder than resizing files, having more partitions > than necessary reduces your ability to adapt to changing needs. My question wasn't about a real example to partition a hard drive, but to partition a floppy. Because if I'm saying I'm not convinced, I saying I understand the purpose at the same time. For a floppy, no, I don't see any reason and I can accept a real example to change my mind. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-28 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bc271$2icd5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75344 |
On 28 Sep 2025 10:21:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : > >> Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that >> you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. > > Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If > the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions > deployed things will have to be handled manually. If both distros are of about the same age, they should do. > OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is > mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer > the VM way. Then you have to copy user stuff back and forth. Not so convenient. Tradeoffs, I guess: unlike dual-boot, you can run multiple VMs concurrently. Useful for some things, not so useful for others. > My question wasn't about a real example to partition a hard drive, but > to partition a floppy. Because if I'm saying I'm not convinced, I saying > I understand the purpose at the same time. Floppies were never partitioned. OSes of the time wouldn’t even support it. It’s probably possible under Linux, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 09:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68e0eae7$0$24802$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75368 |
Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : > On 28 Sep 2025 10:21:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >> >>> Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that >>> you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. >> >> Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If >> the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions >> deployed things will have to be handled manually. > > If both distros are of about the same age, they should do. No. Updated versions of debian, ubuntu, archlinux and guix sure haven the same versions of the programs they run. And for ubuntu, you have the snap which brings a difficulty to replace ubuntu by another distro. >> OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is >> mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer >> the VM way. > > Then you have to copy user stuff back and forth. Not so convenient. I'm not saying the other way is better. I'm just saying that if the partition fix some things, it has issues to. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10brr3p$2lofh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75689 |
On 10/4/25 02:37, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >> On 28 Sep 2025 10:21:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >>> Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >>> >>>> Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that >>>> you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. >>> >>> Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If >>> the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions >>> deployed things will have to be handled manually. Then you reload the programs you need for your use. I have installed KDE/s Plasma 6 via reinstallation from a later iso file. I had to reload a lot of programs that I like to use. I have had to substitute Gmahjongg for KMahjongg and it is not as good but eventually when the new vital parts and the spectacular long awaited upgrades to the Clipboard are done I imaging they will get around to the somewhat pedestrian games I play while waiting for other matters to finish. >> >> If both distros are of about the same age, they should do. > > No. Updated versions of debian, ubuntu, archlinux and guix sure haven > the same versions of the programs they run. And for ubuntu, you have the > snap which brings a difficulty to replace ubuntu by another distro. > >>> OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is >>> mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer >>> the VM way. >> >> Then you have to copy user stuff back and forth. Not so convenient. > > I'm not saying the other way is better. I'm just saying that if the > partition fix some things, it has issues too. > I thought I had configured a backup properly but instead of saving my data it over-wrote my data. It refused for unknown reason to write the backup volume on a Flash Drive instead it over-wrote /home/user. Not completely cleaned up yet. Now with the /(root) backup with another tool when I needed to use the backup written previously and successfully to another Flash Drive the tool could not find my backups. So out of the space on the drive I created a backup volume just for the root directory. Now my tool can find a backup if I have a failure of an update. I have another directory devoted to stuff I do not use every day like .iso files. When as happens from time to time I wake up clear-headed and somewhat energetic I will add another SSD to the Dell Precision and make at least a couple of partitions on that drive and move the .iso files and home directory backups to that space. I have had the extra ram and new SSD for over a year because about this time last year I broke my right ankle. That has slowed me down a good deal in every way I am able still to be active. bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.09- Linux 6.12.50-pclos1- KDE Plasma 6.4.5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-29 14:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8m9qqlxbmq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #75344 |
On 2025-09-28 12:21, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >> On 27 Sep 2025 22:31:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >>> Le 27-09-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Well, partitions can be used for "organization" purposes, which can >>>> be useful. >>> >>> Give me a real example in the real world. On a personal computer, I >>> don't see any reason to have more than three partition: one for Linux, >>> one for the swap and one for the UEFI which requires a FAT partition. >>> And for the swap partition, I'm even not that convinced that it's better >>> than a swap file. I'm certainly not convinced by the /home partition for >>> example. >> >> Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that >> you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. > > Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If > the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions > deployed things will have to be handled manually. I'm not saying it > shouldn't be done, I'm saying I'm not convinced it's the best way. It is magical when doing upgrades of the same distribution. If it doesn't, said distro is garbage. > >> Indeed, I would recommend having two OS partitions, one left unused to >> begin with. That lets you install a second OS later, just to try out, >> without having to wipe your existing one. And they can both share the >> same /home partition. And the same swap partition, while they’re at it. > > OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is > mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer > the VM way. Not two oses to try things. To do updates. You put the new version on the second partition, then change which boots by default. Some people have an extra partition for data, and put links to it from different homes, so that the configurations are separate for each system. > >> I agree, there is no point in creating extra partitions beyond this. Since >> resizing partitions is harder than resizing files, having more partitions >> than necessary reduces your ability to adapt to changing needs. > > My question wasn't about a real example to partition a hard drive, but > to partition a floppy. Because if I'm saying I'm not convinced, I saying > I understand the purpose at the same time. For a floppy, no, I don't see > any reason and I can accept a real example to change my mind. Me neither. Maybe for hiding data. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68e0ec5e$0$24813$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75390 |
Le 29-09-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > On 2025-09-28 12:21, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 28-09-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >>> On 27 Sep 2025 22:31:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>> >>>> Le 27-09-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Well, partitions can be used for "organization" purposes, which can >>>>> be useful. >>>> >>>> Give me a real example in the real world. On a personal computer, I >>>> don't see any reason to have more than three partition: one for Linux, >>>> one for the swap and one for the UEFI which requires a FAT partition. >>>> And for the swap partition, I'm even not that convinced that it's better >>>> than a swap file. I'm certainly not convinced by the /home partition for >>>> example. >>> >>> Having a separate /home partition makes things more convenient, in that >>> you can replace the OS installation without impacting your home files. >> >> Yes, I know the theory. Now that's not that magical nor that good. If >> the OS replacement haven't the same applications or the same versions >> deployed things will have to be handled manually. I'm not saying it >> shouldn't be done, I'm saying I'm not convinced it's the best way. > > It is magical when doing upgrades of the same distribution. If it > doesn't, said distro is garbage. When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between having /home in a designed partition or not. >> >>> Indeed, I would recommend having two OS partitions, one left unused to >>> begin with. That lets you install a second OS later, just to try out, >>> without having to wipe your existing one. And they can both share the >>> same /home partition. And the same swap partition, while they’re at it. >> >> OK, with two OS installed at the same time, the /home partition is >> mandatory. But not everybody want two OS to try things. Some may prefer >> the VM way. > > Not two oses to try things. To do updates. You put the new version on > the second partition, then change which boots by default. For a rolling distro it would be a waste of time. For a versioning distro, why not. For what I saw, I'm not that convinced because it means you must have unusable disk partition just to be able to upgrade. Ok, by now, you can resize your partitions so it can be managed but I'm not that convinced. > Some people have an extra partition for data, and put links to it from > different homes, so that the configurations are separate for each system. Yes, that I understand. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10bre3q$2hofe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75690 |
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: > When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between > having /home in a designed partition or not. The two reasons most often quoted for having /home on a separate partition are: 1) Doing so makes it impossible for a user in /home to fill to 100% capacity the root partition. Arguably, this reason is more credible in a multiuser system where one of the set of users could accidentally or intentionally fill the disk. Things go really wonky if the root partition is 100% full. 2) Having /home separate makes it easy to upgrade the system without worrying about erasing /home in the process. Unmount /home, perform upgrade (naturally, being careful as to which partition is actually the root partition), then remount an otherwise untouched /home partition. Arguably, the rolling release type distros have made this less of an isssue with their ability to upgrade in place. A third reason I've seen, but it is not anywhere common, is for folks who like to play "distro hopping". They might have two or more partitions that are each the root partition of a different distribution. Having /home be a separate partition means that single /home partition can be mounted onto whichever of the plural root partitions is the one they have currently booted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 17:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv8qhq4o79.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #75697 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >> When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between >> having /home in a designed partition or not. > > The two reasons most often quoted for having /home on a separate > partition are: I believe we’re encountering the middle of this conversation... > 1) Doing so makes it impossible for a user in /home to fill to 100% > capacity the root partition. Arguably, this reason is more credible in > a multiuser system where one of the set of users could accidentally or > intentionally fill the disk. Things go really wonky if the root > partition is 100% full. > 2) Having /home separate makes it easy to upgrade the system without > worrying about erasing /home in the process. Unmount /home, perform > upgrade (naturally, being careful as to which partition is actually the > root partition), then remount an otherwise untouched /home partition. > Arguably, the rolling release type distros have made this less of an > isssue with their ability to upgrade in place. For an upgrade (whether a rolling distribution or not), this sounds like an unnecessary extra step. I’ve been upgrading one Debian stable install since the 1990s and never yet felt any need to unmount /home. If by “upgrade” you mean completely replacing your OS install that may be a different question, depending on installer behaviour. But that’s not really an upgrade, since it throws away all the system’s state apart from (possibly) home directories. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 20:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jv58rlxplq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #75697 |
On 2025-10-04 17:22, Rich wrote: > Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >> When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between >> having /home in a designed partition or not. > > The two reasons most often quoted for having /home on a separate > partition are: > > 1) Doing so makes it impossible for a user in /home to fill to 100% > capacity the root partition. Arguably, this reason is more credible in > a multiuser system where one of the set of users could accidentally or > intentionally fill the disk. Things go really wonky if the root > partition is 100% full. > > 2) Having /home separate makes it easy to upgrade the system without > worrying about erasing /home in the process. Unmount /home, perform > upgrade (naturally, being careful as to which partition is actually the > root partition), then remount an otherwise untouched /home partition. > Arguably, the rolling release type distros have made this less of an > isssue with their ability to upgrade in place. Yes, unless they fuckup. Then you need to install from scratch, or install a second partition. > > > A third reason I've seen, but it is not anywhere common, is for folks > who like to play "distro hopping". They might have two or more > partitions that are each the root partition of a different > distribution. Having /home be a separate partition means that single > /home partition can be mounted onto whichever of the plural root > partitions is the one they have currently booted. I know one chap that does distro testing, has dozens of the same distro in a single disk, plus other distros. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68e18936$0$3394$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #75708 |
Le 04-10-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > On 2025-10-04 17:22, Rich wrote: >> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >>> When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between >>> having /home in a designed partition or not. >> >> The two reasons most often quoted for having /home on a separate >> partition are: >> >> 1) Doing so makes it impossible for a user in /home to fill to 100% >> capacity the root partition. Arguably, this reason is more credible in >> a multiuser system where one of the set of users could accidentally or >> intentionally fill the disk. Things go really wonky if the root >> partition is 100% full. To begin with, as I said, I'm speaking about a personal computer. In the industry, things are different. And, as you are arguing: a multi-user system is more well spread in the industry than in a personal computer. Because on a personal computer, what's important is the data, not the system. And, OK, for today, the things are different than back in time when I was partitioning my personal computer and had issues with it. The fact is: today it's easy to change the size of a partition. So if a partition is too small, you can fix it. In the beginning of Linux, I knew of no way to resize a partition and the size of the hard drive was always too small. So if I misestimate the size of a partition, I was fucked up. So at a time, I just stopped to partition my hard drive and everything started to be simpler. Now, the hard drives are big enough and the partitions can be resized so my vision of the issues I had can be a little bit outdated. Nevertheless, I stopped to partition my hard drive a long time ago and I never saw any issue with that. But, once again, for a personal computer, I never saw a real example which shows me I would be better if I have partitioned my hard drive. >> 2) Having /home separate makes it easy to upgrade the system without >> worrying about erasing /home in the process. Unmount /home, perform >> upgrade (naturally, being careful as to which partition is actually the >> root partition), then remount an otherwise untouched /home partition. >> Arguably, the rolling release type distros have made this less of an >> isssue with their ability to upgrade in place. > > Yes, unless they fuckup. Then you need to install from scratch, or > install a second partition. I'm speaking about a personal computer, because it's different in the industry. And in that case, if you unmount your home partition, you can't use your computer during the upgrade. Which is very inconvenient to me. >> A third reason I've seen, but it is not anywhere common, is for folks >> who like to play "distro hopping". They might have two or more >> partitions that are each the root partition of a different >> distribution. Having /home be a separate partition means that single >> /home partition can be mounted onto whichever of the plural root >> partitions is the one they have currently booted. > > I know one chap that does distro testing, has dozens of the same distro > in a single disk, plus other distros. Yes, you are speaking about one guy. I mean, the reason he want, to do it are valid and he should do it. But I'd consider it stupid to say everyone should have some partition because one guy on thousand needs an extra partition. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 22:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10bs566$2o6go$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75697 |
On 10/4/25 16:22, Rich wrote: > Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >> When doing upgrades of the same distro, I see no difference between >> having /home in a designed partition or not. > > The two reasons most often quoted for having /home on a separate > partition are: > > 1) Doing so makes it impossible for a user in /home to fill to 100% > capacity the root partition. Arguably, this reason is more credible in > a multiuser system where one of the set of users could accidentally or > intentionally fill the disk. Things go really wonky if the root > partition is 100% full. > > 2) Having /home separate makes it easy to upgrade the system without > worrying about erasing /home in the process. Unmount /home, perform > upgrade (naturally, being careful as to which partition is actually the > root partition), then remount an otherwise untouched /home partition. > Arguably, the rolling release type distros have made this less of an > isssue with their ability to upgrade in place. > > > A third reason I've seen, but it is not anywhere common, is for folks > who like to play "distro hopping". They might have two or more > partitions that are each the root partition of a different > distribution. Having /home be a separate partition means that single > /home partition can be mounted onto whichever of the plural root > partitions is the one they have currently booted. > I've never trusted the idea as /home/user being for user controlled data, distinct from the installed system. This folder standardly contains user preferences/config for the OS and installed applications. If you install a difference OS or different applications, the configuration files might not be consistent. I wouldn't assume I could take /home from one system and drop it onto a different system. So if I have important data files, documents, spreadsheets, etc. I try not to store them under /home. Really speaking I only use /home/user as a cache, I accept it is under the control of the system, rather than under my control. Maybe I have misunderstood something?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 09:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvplb1ohof.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #75716 |
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> writes: > I've never trusted the idea as /home/user being for user controlled > data, distinct from the installed system. This folder standardly > contains user preferences/config for the OS and installed > applications. It does, but it also explicitly intended for the user’s own data. > If you install a difference OS or different applications, the > configuration files might not be consistent. I wouldn't assume I could > take /home from one system and drop it onto a different system. Configuration files for (say) your desktop environment might not work, if the desktop environments available on the two systems are genuinely different (like KDE vs Gnome). But for the most part there is very little real difference between the software on any two Linux distributions - perhaps little more than compiler version & flags, and maybe some details of system file locations. > So if I have important data files, documents, spreadsheets, etc. I try > not to store them under /home. Really speaking I only use /home/user > as a cache, I accept it is under the control of the system, rather > than under my control. I’ve no idea what difference you think that will make to anything. The location of your spreadsheet file makes no difference to whether your spreadsheet application can use it. If you use a _different spreadsheet application_ (e.g. Libreoffice vs Excel) then that will make a difference but the file location is irrelevant. (A MAC policy, e.g. apparmor, could prevent an application from reading files outside certain directories, but no distribution is going to stop user applications from reading their own files in /home.) > Maybe I have misunderstood something? I think so, yes. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web