i would like to update to slackware 12.0 but also install arch linux 64bit distro to check it out --and also finally remove my window$ partition since i managed to cope pretty well with gnu/linux.

-should i first install slackware or arch.
-i know slackware uses lilo and arch uses grub. will that be a problem.
-how to partition the disk.

cheers

I think it does not matter which distro you install first. As for the bootloader - after installing the first distribution, you could simply skip overwriting the existing one and add the last installed OS to the current bootloader (the one of the first installed distro). I think that this is the better option - both GRUB and LILO could find already installed system, but setting things on your own is much better IMHO.
As for partitioning, logic dictates that about 10 gb for each / and the rest for /home will do it. You may use different names for your users, if you don't want to mess up the personal settings.
Good luck! :-)

a lot depends on how much you plan to use each one, but in general i would install arch first (with grub) which will make your life a whole lot easier when pacman upgrades the kernel. just don't forget NOT to install a bootloader during slack install.

partition any way you want. i'd probably do the typical / for each, share /home and swap, unless you had any special requirements (e.g., is one a server, etc.)

Hi,

The install would depend on your experience with the bootloader. If you are familiar with lilo then by all means use Slackware 12.0 as the original. Then add Arch Linux. Update the '/etc/lilo.conf' file for Slackware then write the lilo.

If you want grub then reverse. But you will need to add Slackware to the grub menu. The flavor depends on your experience and taste.

You could use an initial bootloader then chain to each installation via the superblock. That way you can have a lot of installs. Just keep chaining to the one you are comfortable with. The initial bootloader would just point to a secondary which in turn will be the primary to the others. I set my initial to a small timeout and then the secondary to a longer timeout. Make sure you set the default to the one you want to load after the timeout.

As for the partition scheme, that can be a very debatable subject. I tend to set most of my desktop development systems with;
For a server the setup would be set for the use/environment loads.

again, just to reiterate, when you run pacman periodically (as you should) and it installs a new kernel (which happens from about every week to every couple of weeks), it will write to your grub/lilo config file so you can boot the new kernel/init image. if the arch grub/lilo isn't your default bootloader, you'll have to rewrite your slack grub or lilo file manually each time, which could become quite a hassle week after week (especially if you forget and then can't boot into arch until you fix it ).

so just keep in mind that if you install slack first with lilo, you'll have to remember to reboot into slack every time pacman upgrades your arch kernel, manually change your slack lilo config, and then run lilo before you can reboot into arch. if you use grub with slack, you can just mount the slack grub menu file from arch and change it, but you'll still have to remember to do it manually each time. a shared /boot partition with grub might be the best solution if you want to install slack first, although i haven't tested that and *perhaps* there would be an unforeseen permissions or systems problem with pacman writing to the slack config (although i doubt it -- i'm just adding the caveat b/c i've never tried it myself).

so in reality the actual order doesn't matter because you can change your bootloader anytime you want (i.e., if you install slackware/lilo first you can change it to grub, or arch lilo, or arch grub, etc.), but i'm just trying to save you time and trouble by giving you the path of least resistance. that would mean installing arch first with grub so that it can auto update the config file for you when pacman upgrades the kernel.

finally, if you plan to use your own kernels with arch, of course the whole issue is then a moot point.

gl

Hi,

My, MY! That's another reason to love Slackware. I really don't like someone else doing anything to my system but me.

That's your choice, naturally. But do you write all your own software, too? Probably not.

The Arch method isn't really someone "doing something" to your system that you haven't initiated. It's just like installing any other software, including typing configure, make, make install. If you know what's happening and what to expect, then you are just making an informed choice about what's happening on your system just like with anything else.

And of course you can always compile your own kernel in Arch, either in a traditional way or with ABS. As someone with experience with both distros, I was just trying to point out a potential pitfall that he might encounter if he wasn't aware of how the Arch kernel upgrades typically work. The overall point isn't really which to install first (you could even install slack first and then just overwrite lilo with the arch BL), but that the arch BL ultimately should be the one that's installed if what you're after is the best ease and convenience in using both systems.

gl

Hi,

Yes, it is my choice. That's why I and many others use Slackware. I do not automate upgrades or installs of any kind. My choice again.

As for your statement;
You can put the smilie where the sun don't shine!

Know you not me! Reverse the thought. Sorry, the thought someone would make such an awkward statement just to try an belittle or support an argument appalls me.

<BLONK> Oh! This is not a NG. But I could block, but I like to follow a thread in it's entirety.

That's the LQ way to share and be helpful. Maybe I'm being too sensitive.

I understand the drift of your reply. Just don't agree.

but the thread's not about you, is it?


chill out, dude. you started in with a very elitist sounding comment about "doing everything yourself," etc. i was just pointing out there that you (very likely) did not do everything on your system yourself, that in fact you do rely on others to "do" things for you, even when you type "make install."

the OP expressed a desire to install both distros. i was merely providing information for him to make a more informed choice about what he wants to do. no need to turn it into a flame on anything other than slack with all the "My My!" etc. that's not really necessary.

Hi,

No the OP was not about me but you directed statements to me therefore a reply was warranted. As for the smilies, that shows the professionalism you have!

As stated before, you don't know me. And I do perform all the work on the systems under my care. Yes, there is open source that someone else generated. But that is the way it is. Yes, I do write software. Nit picking aren't we;

If you really want to get down and dirty, then the original masm and other compilers along with libs were the basis for a lot of open software generation originally. People decided to create their own but that still took some time to produce the compilers, libs and such. But still based on other peoples work.

As for being 'very elitist sounding comment about "doing everything yourself,' your inane judgment again. My comment stands for itself, I do everything relative to my equipment. Do you make your own tools, screwdrivers, wrenches and such? No! Most people don't! But they could if the need were there and the proper materials available.

Just like software, why re-invent the wheel? You can modify, adjust or just use as is the available open source software. But that doesn't mean that you wrote the software but improved or adjust to suit your needs. Much like the OS, we modify, adjust or maintain to suit our needs but others provide the base.

So if I hurt your 'ARCH' then my apologies. Nowhere did I state anything negative about ARCH.

As for the posts to the OP, I stand by my recommendations. My viewpoint! And My style. If you don't like it then don't respond.

Your argument is weak and you know it! I am speaking about the issue(s) between you and I.

So too use your style "chill out, dude".

Whatever, dude. It's pretty clear from the posts that I was trying to help the OP by giving him/her specific things to think about directly related to his questions that the other posters (including you) weren't mentioning. And then when you didn't like it b/c it contradicted what you said, you started in with the attitude and the "My MYs."

Because if he did it your way, he would have run into a hassle (or at least more work) the first time he upgraded the arch kernel. I should know, I have both arch and slack installed on my laptop. And I guess you didn't like me pointing that out, so you copped an attitude instead of the "professional" thing to do (since you seem to be so big on that ), which would have been simply to acknowledge a relevant point and move on. I never even addressed you until you started the snarky comments, so why don't you just drop it now? it's not really helping anyone.

i agree we shouldnt really argue about these things people. there are so many problems already.

true enough. i have no desire to argue with my fellow linux-ers or fellow slackers. i apologize to onebuck that things were starting to get out of control. he posted some useful information and examples regarding the layout of the partitioning.

to sum up the other issue: install whatever distro you want first, it really doesn't matter. just be aware of the issues that exist with the bootloader when upgrading the arch kernel, in case you want that done automatically.

gl