C: is the default for Windows and not the case for Macs. /dev/disk2s1 is an example of what's in use on my Mac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac users, how did you find the Linux experience?
- Thread starter MacBH928
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
C: is the default for Windows and not the case for Macs. /dev/disk2s1 is an example of what's in use on my Mac.
On the contrary:
In Windows, drive names are pretty much arbitrary. Your C: may be connected to the nth port on controller number x, and you can pretty much rename drives as you wish (sometimes with horrible consequences unless you know what you're doing).
In Linux and other Unix-like systems, traditional drive names are calculated by their driver ("sd" in this case), the device connection point (a), and the partition (the number suffix). If you want to use the second partition on the drive connected to your third SATA port for your root file system, you'd specify "sdc2". Easy as pie and no magic involved.
Just like @Mikael H points out, Windows drive names are quite arbitrary in their naming convention while Unix-like OS's are more logical.
Take a standard hard drive for example in a computer with 2 of them:
- First HDD = sda
- Second HDD = sdb
HDD = sda
- Partition 1 = sda1
- Partition 2 = sda2
- Partition 3 = sda3
HDD one = sda
- Partition 1 = sda1
- Partition 2 = sda2
- Partition 3 = sda3
- Partition 1 = sdb1
- Partition 2 = sdb2
- Partition 3 = sdb3
- First ROM drive = sr0
- Second ROM drive = sr1
You can use the command below in a terminal to see drive layouts.
Code:
lsblkIf you just want to see your drives without displaying the partitions:
Code:
lsblk | grep diskFor example, here is the computer I'm on right now.
The first HDD is sda and the first m2 NVMe drive is nvme0n1. I have it configured that the nvme0n1 is my boot drive and the HDD as a secondary storage device.
Here it is again showing partition layouts.
Last edited:
Mr Sandbox i have put Linux on USB flashdrives with balena Etcher which is very easy to do as you know.I put something else but its the next part i can,t get on some of the distros they have a free space to click to change it but the ones i have tried don,t i know about the swop file and the Root / they change the first one to 8000 or something like that then it goes on about manage the flags.and mount.I wish i knew some one who used Linux but i don,t .
Try watching this video for a good beginners tutorial and explanation of how to prepare a drive for Linux. He's actually doing a similar thing as you in that he is setting up a hard drive connected to an existing computer, though he is doing it for demo purposes and is already on Linux. Don't worry about the fact he is installing Arch Linux in this video because the fundamentals of drive partitioning are all the same.
Watch it a few times to get a good understanding and then come back with any questions.
I am not arguing which has the more logical structure, its just people are used to the windows system and they do not know the breakdown of the Linux system. Remember Linux is like less than 2% of the marketshare.
what is nvme rootfs and swapfs? partition within partition?
NVMe is internal flash storage like this.
What you see in my photo earlier is this:
Partition 1 (nvme0n1p1) is the unencrypted boot partition where GRUB is loaded.
Partition 2 (nvme0n1p2) is the main partition of the drive where my OS and user data is stored, also called here, rootfs, or root file system. It is an encrypted partition within the main one. You can tell because of the hierarchy and the size is a little bit smaller than the main partition.
Partition 3 (nvme0n1p3) is just like partition 2 but for the swap space, or in Windows parlance "page file"
Code:
nvme0n1 259:0 0 238.5G 0 disk
├─nvme0n1p1 259:1 0 511M 0 part /boot
├─nvme0n1p2 259:2 0 236G 0 part
│ └─rootfs 254:0 0 236G 0 crypt / <---Encrypted partition within the main partition
└─nvme0n1p3 259:3 0 2G 0 part
└─swapfs 254:1 0 2G 0 crypt [SWAP] <---Encrypted partition within the main partition
Last edited:
I just came across this short article in my Twitter feed today.
What is the Difference Between the macOS and Linux Kernels
https://itsfoss.com/mac-linux-difference/
I just wanted to thank you for contributing so much on the topic and enlightening me on it.
No worries, it helps me out too and I enjoy it.
Are you coming close to deciding what you want to do yet?
No worries, it helps me out too and I enjoy it.
Are you coming close to deciding what you want to do yet?
I am sticking with MacOS currently, but the whole point of this thread was to check my options for future use if Apple decides to do anything funny with Mac software/hardware or if I can not afford a newer machine. I might be able to get my hands on a spare PC laptop where I can check out Ubuntu hands on.
One thing I really did benefit from this discussion is that I learned that all distros are basically custolmised version of 4 or 5 basic Linux "version" and it has nothing to do with looks. You can not go wrong with any version for the most part, and Ubuntu is the safest bet.
One thing I am still on the fence about is that Gnome seems to be the more popular GUI, but its the less capable and harder to use than KDE from what I understand which is confusing to me.
The good thing is that you can install both (or one at a time) and try them out. None of them are outright bad, but the Gnome team has made design decisions that makes the environment feel cramped to me. It may well be that another person thinks that's exactly what's needed to feel that the desktop environment doesn't get in their way.
In an ecosystem where choice is abundant it's a lot less critical if one of the alternatives has a polarizing design. On the other hand, when Microsoft or Apple decide on a change, most end-users simply have to live with the new reality.
Well said.
I wouldn't say Gnome is hard to use. Pretty much all DE's (desktop environment) are easy to use. They just look different and do some things a little differently. Now, WM's (window managers) are difficult to use, and I'm still learning mine.
As pointed out, you can install multiple DE's on your distro of choice and at the logon screen, you have the option to choose which one you want to use for that session.
I find it best not to install both KDE and Gnome on top of the same system, because you need both GTK and QT and the duplicate programs are horrendous. Gnome, Cinnamon, Mate on one system KDE, LXQT, LXDE on a different system.
I also wouldn't start with Ubuntu, I'd probably start with an easy to install Debian spin since Ubuntu tends to go their own way. In the end though it doesn't have to be either or you can have both, my Linux box sits right next to my Mac Pro and likely always will.
I also wouldn't start with Ubuntu, I'd probably start with an easy to install Debian spin since Ubuntu tends to go their own way. In the end though it doesn't have to be either or you can have both, my Linux box sits right next to my Mac Pro and likely always will.
Last edited:
[doublepost=1565290307][/doublepost]Thanks for that it is hard going, and very long.
You are right, but if you go to a coffee shop and they have one cup of coffee you don't take a lot of time to make your decision. If you go in a place like Starbucks and the options and combinations are limitless, you keep just standing looking at the menu wondering which to pick.
Its not bad to have choice, its confusing for the new comer.
please elaborate, I thought Ubuntu was the "Easy" distro
Yes, and I think part of the problem is that as we grow accustomed to what's out there, we tend to forget that at one point we actually didn't know what to choose either.
I think you summed it up to yourself pretty well earlier:
If you don't see the amount of choice available as a problem but as a menu to choose from, and you know that most coffee types on the menu are variants of either brewed coffee or espresso, then you're pretty much good to go. You may prefer one over the other, but you can't really go wrong with either.
I think he refers to the fact that Ubuntu sometimes adds some homegrown magic to their distribution in the name of simplifying the experience and/or catering to a subset of their users. Debian is more a more "pure" Linux distribution in the sense that using it you'll learn general Linux, but using Ubuntu you'll learn a small amount of things that don't apply to most other distributions. Unfortunately there doesn't exist a very clear line here: It's more of a continuum. And of course whatever you choose you're part of some kind of a community. Debian-based distributions (where Ubuntu is one) probably have the largest and most active developer base, if your goal is to easily find packages for the software you'd like to install. That's probably the most important factor in having a useful computer. If you'll want to work with Linux-based computers, though, you get more of a split across the world, where a huge amount of corporations especially in the US have decided to use RedHat-based distributions, and for some reason many companies in central Europe have a weird fetish for SuSE-based distributions (which make Ubuntu look like a saint when it comes to following the common standards for Linux management).
My take on it:
By all means: Start out with Ubuntu and/or one of its flavors. Once comfortable, you'll see that there's really nothing wrong with a plain Debian install either - and at that point you may find you prefer it. Once you're comfortable it's not a bad thing to try out something completely different and realize that it's mostly about setting up a desktop with which you're comfortable. In day-to-day life it really doesn't matter whether your KDE session runs on top of Ubuntu, Fedora or Arch.
