Gregg's Nearly Interminable Adventures in Linux Land

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No. It's the other way around. 32 bit is a subset of 64 bit. You can run 32 bit programs on a 64 bit machine (and most application program code is still 32 bit.) You cannot run code built as 64 bit on a 32 bit machine.

32 bit and 64 bit refer to the amount of memory the machine can use. That value is called the machine's address space. Each byte of memory must have a unique address the system can access to load, store, change, and remove data. The number of possible unique addresses is governed by the size of the register that holds the address. 32 bit machines have addresses that are up to 2^32 in size, which means a maximum of 4GB worth of addresses. 64 bit machines us a 64 bit address register, but I'll let you do the math as to how big a number that can be. (It's a very large number indeed.)

Thanks for the explanation. And yeah, I'll get back to you with that number. LOL

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Still curious about the specs on the 505s.

http://www.cnet.com/products/dell-latitude-d505/specs/

And I've never adding anything to any of them.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

You might want to download and install Ubuntu Tweak. It's a system cleaner utility, and one of the things it makes easy is removing older Linux kernels. New kernels do not replace existing ones. They are installed in addition to any existing kernels, and a successful upgrade will have the new kernel the one that will be loaded by default. You can select earlier ones via Grub. Run Ubuntu long enough and get enough new kernels, and you can have a significant amount of stuff occupying space to no purpose. I generally clean out all but the current and immediately previous kernel, and delete the older kernels and associated kernel header packages. One such exercise recovered close to a GB of disk space, as I hadn't cleaned house in a while.

I get rid of the old kernels regularly via:

sudo aptitude remove

I too usually only leave the previous kernel, but after this latest nonsense I'll leave at least two previous kernels.

Ubuntu Tweak said it was no longer maintained. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-tweak

Do you think it will be a big help (or that much easier than what I'm already doing)?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

There is no direct connection between OS version upgrades and application version upgrades. They happen independently of each other. Depending on your setting in Ubuntu, you get notified when there are newer versions of applications you have installed when they appear. Newer versions of the apps will generally run just fine on older versions of the OS, and if there are OS version dependencies, you'll be informed of them.


If you don't go with the LTS, you are a beta guy. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and LTS releases are considered to be stable and debugged. Intermediate releases are not, and are beta code. You can have problems (and I have) by using them. They are there for testing purposes, and sometimes tests fail.

Thanks a lot. I am definitely going long term from now on. Like I said I'm not a beta guy.

Do the apps get updated (like I have Sigil and mkusb and Kate etc) via the regular 'software updates' Xubuntu sends?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

We still have the question of what all is going on before it reaches that point, but I gather once it has the system is usable and behaves as expected.

Power on and go have a leisurely coffee break, then come back and use it.

(Our friend Naomi was grousing that her Internet at home wasn't working. In fact, it was working fine. I set up her wireless router for her and her laptop automatically authenticates. The problem was, she was impatient. She was trying to use the machine and go online before it had fully booted and reached the stage of authenticating with the router. My SO said "You were trying to use it before it had its coffee. You know what you're like before you have coffee. Turn on the laptop, go have a cup of coffee yourself, and by the time you come back the Internet should be available." That she understood, and when she followed the advice, Lo! Things Just Worked. )
______
Dennis

The computer has been a little snarky (eg. When I click on a tab in Firefox about 10% of the time it will open a new browser), but I am pretty happy with things the way they are working. And I'm thinking that now that I am turning on the computer the conventional way and it's booting to the latest kernel that I should have a decent chance of the boot delay issue clearing up with the next upgrade.

Thanks for all the great explanations and help. You know, I amazed that my computers work as well as they do with as little as I know about them. Yes, like you say, I should know what I'm doing before I pull the trigger, but I can also tell you that if I waited till I knew what I was doing I would not have gotten 95% of the stuff I got done by pretty much by trusting others and flying by the seat of my pants.

The good news is the longer I'm around the more I know. I'm getting there.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

[...]
I know. But if you did wipe and redo from scratch, and 16.04 didn't work, I'd use 15.04 as it's also an LTS release. [...]

15.04 is not an LTS version, 12.04, 14.04, and 16.04 are all LTS versions. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

What did you drop on it? LOL

A good sized piece of wood.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Thanks for the explanation. And yeah, I'll get back to you with that number. LOL

The other part of the explanation is virtual memory.

Linux, like other modern OSes, divides installed RAM into pages. If you try to do something, like load another program, that needs more RAM than is currently available, the OS will take pages in RAM not recently used and move them to a storage area on the hard drive. In Linux, that area is swap, and is a separate slice on the drive. In Windows, it's the page file, and exists as a large file on the hard drive in the root of the Windows file system.

If something tries to access what is in a swapped out page, a page fault occurs, and the OS swaps the page back in to RAM.

Total memory is considered the amount of installed RAM plus the amount of allocated swap space.

One reason for adding RAM to a computer is the reduce the need to swap. RAM is an order of magnitude faster than HD. If you have more RAM, the OS can do a better job of caching disk access, and will have less need to read the disk. It wall also have less need to swap pages in memory out to the HD as RAM gets filled.

http://www.cnet.com/products/dell-latitude-d505/specs/

And I've never adding anything to any of them.

So they have the stock 256MB RAM that is the base model? I'd add more RAM. Ubuntu runs in 256 but really wants more. The other Linux flavors you switched to do better in low RAM systems.

I get rid of the old kernels regularly via:

sudo aptitude remove

I too usually only leave the previous kernel, but after this latest nonsense I'll leave at least two previous kernels.

One is likely adequate. I still don't think the kernel was your problem.

Ubuntu Tweak said it was no longer maintained. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-tweak

Do you think it will be a big help (or that much easier than what I'm already doing)?

It still works here. It's a generalized cleanup utility. Removing older kernels is one thing it does.

Thanks a lot. I am definitely going long term from now on. Like I said I'm not a beta guy.

Not by intent, at any rate.

Do the apps get updated (like I have Sigil and mkusb and Kate etc) via the regular 'software updates' Xubuntu sends?

You can always check for new versions. Most of what you have is likely in Canonical's repositories. I have a few things here that aren't or I want to stay bleeding edge on, and those have been added as PPAs to the places Ubuntu will look.

The computer has been a little snarky (eg. When I click on a tab in Firefox about 10% of the time it will open a new browser), but I am pretty happy with things the way they are working. And I'm thinking that now that I am turning on the computer the conventional way and it's booting to the latest kernel that I should have a decent chance of the boot delay issue clearing up with the next upgrade.

You can hope.

Thanks for all the great explanations and help. You know, I amazed that my computers work as well as they do with as little as I know about them. Yes, like you say, I should know what I'm doing before I pull the trigger, but I can also tell you that if I waited till I knew what I was doing I would not have gotten 95% of the stuff I got done by pretty much by trusting others and flying by the seat of my pants.

I'd advise trying to find out a bit more than you currently know before making such changes. I'm pleased to help, but I've reached a point elsewhere of simply not bothering to respond to some requests. There are people too lazy to Look Stuff Up, who do something, get bit by it, then whine at others for solutions they could probably discover for themselves, and wouldn't need if they'd actually bothered to learn before doing.

The good news is the longer I'm around the more I know. I'm getting there.

"Oh, no! Not another learning experience..."
______
Dennis

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

A good sized piece of wood.

Okay.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The other part of the explanation is virtual memory.

Linux, like other modern OSes, divides installed RAM into pages. If you ry to do something, like laod another program, that needs more RAM than is currently available, the OS will take pages in RAM not recently used and move them to a storage area on the hard drive. In Linux, that area is swap, and is a separate slice on the drive. In Windows, it's the page file, and exists as a large file on the hard drive in the root of the Windows file system.

If something tries to access what is in a swapped out page, a page fault occurs, and the OS swaps the page back in to RAM.

Total memory is considered the amount of installed RAM plus the amount of allocated swap space.

One reason for adding RAM to a computer is the reduce the need to swap. RAM is an order of magnitude faster than HD. If you have more RAM, the OS can do a better job of caching disk access, and will have less need to read the disk. It wall also have less need to pages in memory out to the HD is RAM gets filled.

Great explanations. Thanks.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

So they have the stock 256MB RAM that is the base model? I'd add more RAM. Ubuntu runs in 256 but really wants more. The other Linux flavors you switched to do better in low RAM systems.

You know, they really work great as word processors as is. The LO is lightning fast. I don't do anything with them online.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One is likely adequate. I still don't think the kernel was your problem.

Yeah, agree.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Thanks a lot. I am definitely going long term from now on. Like I said I'm not a beta guy.

Not by intent, at any rate.

Ha ha. Good observation!

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Do the apps get updated (like I have Sigil and mkusb and Kate etc) via the regular 'software updates' Xubuntu sends?

You can always check for new versions. Most of what you have is likely in Canonical's repositories. I have a few things here that aren't or I want to stay bleeding edge on, and those have been added as PPAs to the places Ubuntu will look.

But where am I checking? Xubuntu has "Software Updater" in the applications menu, but that's the same thing as the 'software updates' it sends regularly.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'd advise trying to find out a bit more than you currently know before making such changes. I'm pleased to help, but I've reached a point elsewhere of simply not bothering to respond to some requests. There are people too lazy to Look Stuff Up, who do something, get bit by it, then whine at others for solutions they could probably discover for themselves, and wouldn't need if they'd actually bothered to learn before doing.

I misspoke earlier about the 95% stuff (trusting others and winging it by the seat of my pants, that is). In the very beginning, yes, because I really had very little other choice than to trust others because the whole Linux thing was so new to me. But as time has gone by I've learned a ton on my own. (I'm just finishing up "Ubuntu Unleashed." It's for 11.04. I got it at a used book sale, but it still had a lot of great stuff in it. (I just learned how to make "hard links.")) I really enjoy learning about it.

So yeah, for me, now, I really do try to figure things out on my own. Still I have to draw the line because I'm really a writer and I really should be writing most of the time, not learning how to make "hard links." LOL

But you're great for people like me when we get stuck and you're great at explaining stuff too. (Some very knowledgeable computer guys are not.)

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

"Oh, no! Not another learning experience..."
______
Dennis

Ha ha. I'm afraid so.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Great explanations. Thanks.

You're welcome.

My analogy is with the automobile.

You can own and drive a car without needing to be a mechanic or understand the principles of operation of the four-stroke internal combustion engine.

We aren't there yet with computers, though things are better than they were. You sometimes do need to be a mechanic, and have a grasp of the principles of operation, to get the best out of what you use.

This is especially true if you venture beyond the packaged systems and try doing things like running Linux on older kit.

You know, they really work great as word processors as is. The LO is lightning fast. I don't do anything with them online.

And if they work great as dedicated word processors, that's a valid use. I do wonder how fast they are to boot, and how long LO takes to load, but if all is well once it's up, that's the critical part.

But where am I checking? Xubuntu has "Software Updater" in the applications menu, but that's the same thing as the 'software updates' it sends regularly.

You're checking Canonical's repositories for most stuff.

One complaint sometimes raised against Canonical and Ubuntu is that the repositories aren't at the current revision level for a lot of apps. There's a reason for that. Canonical is trying to play in the same space as Red Hat.

Red Hat makes its living selling support. You can get Red Hat Linux free. (The CentOS distribution is the open source version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.) But if you decide you need support, there's an RPM you can apply to change the branding of CentOS to RHEL, and you call Red Hat and say "I'm running RHEL, and I'd like a support contract. What are my options?"

Canonical offers Ubuntu in supported versions, so they'll be fussy about stuff in their official repos being stable, debugged versions, because they may have to support it. This means bleeding edge code won't get added. If you need bleeding edge, well, that's what PPAs are for.

You can install other repositories in the list apt uses to look for updates in, and can install packages directly outside of that interface, but for the most part, what the official repos have is adequate.

If you think you're missing out on the latest and greatest, it's on you to find out what the latest and greatest is, and determine whether you need it enough to look farther afield than Ubuntu's repositories.

I misspoke earlier about the 95% stuff (trusting others and winging it by the seat of my pants, that is). In the very beginning, yes, because I really had very little other choice than to trust others because the whole Linux thing was so new to me. But as time has gone by I've learned a ton on my own. (I'm just finishing up "Ubuntu Unleashed." It's for 11.04. I got it at a used book sale, but it still had a lot of great stuff in it. (I just learned how to make "hard links.") I really enjoy learning about it.

The stuff about Ubuntu 11.04 is still valid in later versions.

Links are one of the best parts of *nix. I first learned to use them in AT&T Unix System V Release 2, back before Linux was a gleam in Linus Torvald's eye.

The key to understanding them is the nature of the file system. Under *nix, a directory entry doesn't point to a file. It points to a kernel maintained construct called an inode. The inode holds metadata about the file, like what ID owns it, what group the owner is part of, and what the file's permissions are. It also holds the creation and last modified dates, the file's size, and pointers to the first blocks on disk it occupies.

Because of this, you can have the same file appear in more than one directory, or appear under several different names in the same directory. The directory entries all point to the same inode. The Unix vi editor is an example. Vi is the full screen editor. Ex is a line editor. View is a read-only file viewer. All are links to the same underlying executable. It uses the name it is called by to determine what personality to use.

When you remove a file, you are removing a link to it. The actual underlying file doesn't go away till you remove the last link.

Hard links are neat, but have a limitation - they can't span file systems. Hard linked files must all be on the same file system.

To get around that, *nix uses symbolic links. A symbolic link is similar in concept to a Windows shortcut. It's a tiny file that points to the real one. Symlinks can span file systems. *nix follows the symlink and runs the program (or opens the file, if it's not a program.)

The quirk with a symlink is that they can be broken. Removing the symlink doesn't remove the file it points to. But if you remove the file it points to, the symlink is still there. Trying to execute it will produce an error, because what it points to no longer exists.

So yeah, for me, now, I really do try to figure things out on my own. Still I have to draw the line because I'm really a writer and I really should be writing most of the time, not learning how to make "hard links." LOL

That, and there are courtesy based limits on how much you want to impose on others, because they have things they should probably be doing instead, too. Learn as much as you can on your own first, then ask questions. People are far happier to help if you demonstrate you are trying to learn on your own.

But you're great for people like me when we get stuck and you're great at explaining stuff too. (Some very knowledgeable computer guys are not.)

I remember my confusion when I was first learning to deal with computers, and if I can dispel the confusion for others, I'll try to do so. The usual problem is determining what the other person I'm talking to already knows. I tend to err on the side of telling more than might be needed, simply to insure they'll have the context to understand the answer.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Hey. I've got a new project. A Dell GX520 (see screenshot 757) crashed at work (and I got it before it was thrown out) and via "Disks" utility I saw the hard drive was bad. I wasn't sure if I wanted to try to get it going again (and the expense involved) since it's old but it's also 64 bit so I figured, What the hell. (And believe it or not the computer it will be replacing (my home computer) is even older: and only 2GB RAM and 32 bit processor)

Agreed on taking it to 4GB RAM. What's in my desktop at the moment is mostly Centon RAM. It's one of the budget lines, but entirely adequate. If I had a bleeding edge blazing fast gaming machine I might go for the high priced spread and spec Crucial or the like, but there is no need in the current system.

Since you are looking at replacing the drive anyway, I wouldn't go with either drive you linked to. Both are traditional spinning platter hard drives. I'd go with a solid state drive.

SSDs are NAND Flash memory configured to look like a traditional drive, and packaged to plug in where a traditional drive would go.

When I got the current desktop (a refurb Dell Small Form Factor model), it came with a 2.4ghz quad-core Xeon processor, 4GB RAM, Intel graphics, and a 250GB SATA HD, with Win7 Pro installed. Base price was $250.

I added RAM to take it to the 8GB supported by the Intel chipset the Dell used, a low-profile AMD/ATI graphics card with 1GB video RAM to replace the built in Intel graphics, and a 240GB Crucial MX-100 SSD to be the boot drive. Total price after my additions was about $550.

The MX-100 came with a license for a version of Acronis True Image software which made cloning the existing Win7 Pro installation on the HD to the SSD fast and simple. Clone Windows to the SSD, set the Dell to boot from it, and Voila!

(After I cloned it. I repartitioned the SSD to carve out a slice where Ubuntu would live and installed it in a dual-boot configuration. At this point, grub2 offers three choices: Ubuntu, Win10 in the SSD, and Win7 on the HD. Works fine.)

SSDs are fast. Windows boots to a usable desktop in about 45 seconds. Ubuntu boots to a Login: screen in about 30. Large apps run comparably quickly. Going to SSD was the single best enhancement I made to the system, and a "Why didn't I do this before?" experience.

Back when I was first looking at them, the opinion among the techs I knew was "Use Intel", but the technology has steadily refined and improved. These days, I'd use Crucial (a unit of long time memory vendor Micron Technology) or Samsung in a heart beat, and there are other budget priced vendors like PNY in the mix that seem acceptable. (There are about five vendors that actually make NAND Flash media. The rest source from one of them and put it in their own packaging with their own label.)

The usual concern about SSDs is drive life. SSD drives are divided up into memory cells, and the nature of NAND Flash is that there is a limit of about 10,000 writes per cell. Beyond that, the cell becomes unusable and is marked bad, like a bad sector on an HD. But the drive firmware attempts to evenly spread writes over all cells, so it will take a long time for any cells to actually be written to 10,000 times. The drives are also over-provisioned, with lots of spare cells, and as a cell reaches its limits, data is transparently migrated to a spare. You are likely to replace the whole machine before you even notice drive wear.

The one thing you'll want to do in Linux is make sure TRIM support is configured on the drive, but that's a simple change to a config file.

Look seriously at getting an SSD. I think you'll be very happy if you do it.
______
Dennis

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One is likely adequate. I still don't think the kernel was your problem.

While it may be true that the kernel didn't cause this problem, I personally feel a lot more comfortable with two kernels installed.

I run Arch Linux, granted... so we get bleeding-edge updates.
But it could still happen to anyone.

So, what happened that made me uncomfortable having only one kernel available? I usually run the linux-ck kernel from the Arch User Repository, which closely follows the linux kernel from [core] or [testing].
But the kernel which was in [testing] at the time, had a rather irritating graphics bug which mainly applied to old computers using Intel graphics. It completely fritzed the screen and made it impossible to do anything. And of course when I compiled linux-ck with the same update, it had the same bug.

I was able to reboot the computer into a usable state, because luckily I still had the linux kernel from [core] installed, so I could boot to that and revert the update. Otherwise I might have had to break out the rescue USB, because I am not quite good enough to do things blindly.

Moral of the story: don't upgrade the single most vital component of the system without a backup in case Things Go Wrong. Especially when it is that easy to keep a backup around.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And if they work great as dedicated word processors, that's a valid use. I do wonder how fast they are to boot, and how long LO takes to load, but if all is well once it's up, that's the critical part.

Thanks Dennis. Yeah, they are slow to load but only 2 or 3 minutes. No biggie.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

You're checking Canonical's repositories for most stuff.

This will be my next learning project.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Canonical offers Ubuntu in supported versions, so they'll be fussy about stuff in their official repos being stable, debugged versions, because they may have to support it. This means bleeding edge code won't get added. If you need bleeding edge, well, that's what PPAs are for.

You can install other repositories in the list apt uses to look for updates in, and can install packages directly outside of that interface, but for the most part, what the official repos have is adequate.

So that would be adding them to "other software" then, right? (see screenshot)

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Links are one of the best parts of *nix. I first learned to use them in AT&T Unix System V Release 2, back before Linux was a gleam in Linus Torvald's eye.

The key to understanding them is the nature of the file system. Under *nix, a directory entry doesn't point to a file. It points to a kernel maintained construct called an inode. The inode holds metadata about the file, like what ID owns it, what group the owner is part of, and what the file's permissions are. It also holds the creation and last modified dates, the file's size, and pointers to the first blocks on disk it occupies.

Because of this, you can have the same file appear in more than one directory, or appear under several different names in the same directory. The directory entries all point to the same inode. The Unix vi editor is an example. Vi is the full screen editor. Ex is a line editor. View is a read-only file viewer. All are links to the same underlying executable. It uses the name it is called by to determine what personality to use.

When you remove a file, you are removing a link to it. The actual underlying file doesn't go away till you remove the last link.

Hard links are neat, but have a limitation - they can't span file systems. Hard linked files must all be on the same file system.

To get around that, *nix uses symbolic links. A symbolic link is similar in concept to a Windows shortcut. It's a tiny file that points to the real one. Symlinks can span file systems. *nix follows the symlink and runs the program (or opens the file, if it's not a program.)

The quirk with a symlink is that they can be broken. Removing the symlink doesn't remove the file it points to. But if you remove the file it points to, the symlink is still there. Trying to execute it will produce an error, because what it points to no longer exists.

Yeah, symbolic links will be my second learning project. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That, and there are courtesy based limits on how much you want to impose on others, because they have things they should probably be doing instead, too. Learn as much as you can on your own first, then ask questions. People are far happier to help if you demonstrate you are trying to learn on your own.


I remember my confusion when I was first learning to deal with computers, and if I can dispel the confusion for others, I'll try to do so. The usual problem is determining what the other person I'm talking to already knows. I tend to err on the side of telling more than might be needed, simply to insure they'll have the context to understand the answer.
______
Dennis

I'm sure I was a royal pain in the butt when I first came around. I got banned from the Ubuntu forum for asking not well thought out enough questions! Ha ha. I didn't know how to ask tight questions. I was brand new!

Anyway, hopefully I've gotten just a little better.

Thanks.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Agreed on taking it to 4GB RAM. What's in my desktop at the moment is mostly Centon RAM. It's one of the budget lines, but entirely adequate. If I had a bleeding edge blazing fast gaming machine I might go for the high priced spread and spec Crucial or the like, but there is no need in the current system.

Since you are looking at replacing the drive anyway, I wouldn't go with either drive you linked to. Both are traditional spinning platter hard drives. I'd go with a solid state drive.

SSDs are NAND Flash memory configured to look like a traditional drive, and packaged to plug in where a traditional drive would go.

When I got the current desktop (a refurb Dell Small Form Factor model), it came with a 2.4ghz quad-core Xeon processor, 4GB RAM, Intel graphics, and a 250GB SATA HD, with Win7 Pro installed. Base price was $250.

I added RAM to take it to the 8GB supported by the Intel chipset the Dell used, a low-profile AMD/ATI graphics card with 1GB video RAM to replace the built in Intel graphics, and a 240GB Crucial MX-100 SSD to be the boot drive. Total price after my additions was about $550.

The MX-100 came with a license for a version of Acronis True Image software which made cloning the existing Win7 Pro installation on the HD to the SSD fast and simple. Clone Windows to the SSD, set the Dell to boot from it, and Voila!

(After I cloned it. I repartitioned the SSD to carve out a slice where Ubuntu would live and installed it in a dual-boot configuration. At this point, grub2 offers three choices: Ubuntu, Win10 in the SSD, and Win7 on the HD. Works fine.)

SSDs are fast. Windows boots to a usable desktop in about 45 seconds. Ubuntu boots to a Login: screen in about 30. Large apps run comparably quickly. Going to SSD was the single best enhancement I made to the system, and a "Why didn't I do this before?" experience.

Back when I was first looking at them, the opinion among the techs I knew was "Use Intel", but the technology has steadily refined and improved. These days, I'd use Crucial (a unit of long time memory vendor Micron Technology) or Samsung in a heart beat, and there are other budget priced vendors like PNY in the mix that seem acceptable. (There are about five vendors that actually make NAND Flash media. The rest source from one of them and put it in their own packaging with their own label.)

The usual concern about SSDs is drive life. SSD drives are divided up into memory cells, and the nature of NAND Flash is that there is a limit of about 10,000 writes per cell. Beyond that, the cell becomes unusable and is marked bad, like a bad sector on an HD. But the drive firmware attempts to evenly spread writes over all cells, so it will take a long time for any cells to actually be written to 10,000 times. The drives are also over-provisioned, with lots of spare cells, and as a cell reaches its limits, data is transparently migrated to a spare. You are likely to replace the whole machine before you even notice drive wear.

The one thing you'll want to do in Linux is make sure TRIM support is configured on the drive, but that's a simple change to a config file.

Look seriously at getting an SSD. I think you'll be very happy if you do it.
______
Dennis

Dennis! Ha ha. Bad timing. I just bought a drive this afternoon.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA5AD2N46613

(Please don't tell me it's terrible because I already bought it!)

It's not an SSD obviously but it will be a good learning project for me. When I get more knowledgeable (and get a better computer) I'll take your advice and get an SSD. I hear they are killer-good if you should happen to get a virus too.

But you say Crucial and Samsung. I checked out both but Crucial was pricey (over $50) and the Samsung was this:

http://www.amazon.com/PC2-6400-PC640...in%3A673263011

But some guy told me to get this Kingston:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012Y0QV6/?tag=pcpapi-20

Which do you think would be better?

Thanks.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

While it may be true that the kernel didn't cause this problem, I personally feel a lot more comfortable with two kernels installed.

I run Arch Linux, granted... so we get bleeding-edge updates.
But it could still happen to anyone.

So, what happened that made me uncomfortable having only one kernel available? I usually run the linux-ck kernel from the Arch User Repository, which closely follows the linux kernel from [core] or [testing].
But the kernel which was in [testing] at the time, had a rather irritating graphics bug which mainly applied to old computers using Intel graphics. It completely fritzed the screen and made it impossible to do anything. And of course when I compiled linux-ck with the same update, it had the same bug.

I was able to reboot the computer into a usable state, because luckily I still had the linux kernel from [core] installed, so I could boot to that and revert the update. Otherwise I might have had to break out the rescue USB, because I am not quite good enough to do things blindly.

Moral of the story: don't upgrade the single most vital component of the system without a backup in case Things Go Wrong. Especially when it is that easy to keep a backup around.

I hear you, eschwartz. When I did my last upgrade I had all kinds of problems and the new kernel simply wouldn't boot. If I hadn't had the old kernel (at least it let me get to a terminal) I would've been screwed.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Thanks Dennis. Yeah, they are slow to load but only 2 or 3 minutes. No biggie.

That's snail slow for most folks. It's one reason I recommend adding RAM.

This will be my next learning project.

So that would be adding them to "other software" then, right? (see screenshot)

Yes. That's the list of sources looked in for possible updates.

Yeah, symbolic links will be my second learning project.

The difference from the command line when creating links is that you create symlinks with "ln -s"

I'm sure I was a royal pain in the butt when I first came around. I got banned from the Ubuntu forum for asking not well thought out enough questions! Ha ha. I didn't know how to ask tight questions. I was brand new!

See Eric S. Raymond and Rick Moen's How To Ask Questions The Smart Way for a comprehensive set of guidelines.

Anyway, hopefully I've gotten just a little better.

You aren't that bad. The folks who annoy me seem to expect other people to do it all for them for free. Er, no...
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Dennis! Ha ha. Bad timing. I just bought a drive this afternoon.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA5AD2N46613

(Please don't tell me it's terrible because I already bought it!)

Patience is a virtue...

It's not an SSD obviously but it will be a good learning project for me. When I get more knowledgeable (and get a better computer) I'll take your advice and get an SSD. I hear they are killer-good if you should happen to get a virus too.

If what you run is Linux, viruses are a no-op. Viruses target Windows , and hook themselves into the OS. They bounce off on Linux and Mac OS/X.

And running on an SSD does not virus proof you. As for as the OS is concerned, an SSD is a disk. The fact that it's actually NAND Flash instead of spinning platters on an HD is invisible to the OS routines that read from/write to it. They just see a disk.

Malware is a somewhat different story, but the attack vector in malware is the browser. It's why I run the NoScript addon in Firefox, along with the uBlock Origin addon that serves as an ad/malware blocker.

But you say Crucial and Samsung. I checked out both but Crucial was pricey (over $50) and the Samsung was this:

http://www.amazon.com/PC2-6400-PC640...in%3A673263011

But some guy told me to get this Kingston:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012Y0QV6/?tag=pcpapi-20

Please re-read what I said. I was referring specifically to SSDs in my Crucial and Samsung comment.

As I mentioned earlier, what I have as RAM in my desktop is mostly Centon, which is another budget brand. Price was about what the Kingston will cost you.

My 240GB Crucial MX-100 SSD cost me under $100. I do not consider that "pricey" for what I got.

Which do you think would be better?

The Kingston RAM looks like it would do the job.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

While it may be true that the kernel didn't cause this problem, I personally feel a lot more comfortable with two kernels installed.

I wasn't recommending he have only the current kernel. Current + previous is good practice.

He was talking about having more than one prior kernel, which strikes me as overkill. If the prior one works and the latest doesn't, you boot the prior one. Why do you need the one before that around too?
______
Dennis