In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:25:43 +0100
> __/ [ NoStop ] on Saturday 29 April 2006 16:48 \__
>> On Friday 28 April 2006 02:29 am, Roy Schestowitz had this to say in
>>> BitLocker gives dual-boot systems the elbow
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Infosec Security features introduced in Windows Vista will make setting
>>> | up PCs to boot in either Linux or Windows far more difficult, according
>>> | to security guru Bruce Schneier. Vista is due to feature hardware-based
>>> | encryption, called BitLocker Drive Encryption, which acts as a
>>> | repository to protect sensitive data in the event of a PC being either
>>> | lost or stolen.
>> Who cares? Only losers would want to run Fista anyways.
> I can't say that I agree. It's an impulsive statement.
> If anyone shows true intentions of migrating to Linux
> for the first time, Cygwin/virtualisation/dual-booting
> would the best transitory phase. Dual-booting may be
> the simplest to set up because certain modern
> distributions come with a partitioner within/joint to
> their installer.
Dual-booting is not as simple as it should be since, unless
they've changed practices, OEMs tend to load machines with
one spindle, partitioned with either one or two partitions,
and preloaded with the most desired -- by somebody -- operating
system, namely, Windows.
(DELL seems to like two, one of which contains some sort
of diagnostic program that doesn't seem all that useful,
occupying a few megs.)
Fortunately, there's ntfsresize. Unfortunately, it could be
more intuitive for those who haven't graduated out of the
"clicky-touchy-feely" school of computing yet. :-)
Then again, I've not been outside of Gentoo in years;
perhaps other distros have perfected a tool that can do
the functionality of ntfsresize (without losing data),
the intuitiveness of Apple's or Amiga's partition manager
(slide and drop), and the ability to install LILO, Grub,
or the NT bootloader (and a reference to the new Linux
system therein), all within something along the lines
of a slick RedHat X-based auto-card-detect installer.
That would be nice, presumably, for the noobs. Of course a
liveCD works to some extent, for experimentation, and Gentoo's
liveCD works fine for installation.
> Unlike VMWare/Cygwin, no download and setups are required,
> assuming a friend has a Linux CD or bundle at hand.
> More reasons for dual-boot: Data migration from one partition to another;
> ability to practice the new applications one 'lump' at a time; and when
> uncomfortable, the user can 'escape' to Windows.
Data migration? Precisely what does that mean? Of course,
considering the sad state of affairs of NTFS and the fact
that Windows understands only that and FAT32, there's some
rather stupid issues here -- which are easily solved in
a multinode system by running either a SAMBA server or
simply putting data on a share and using smbmount (which
is also SAMBA). NFS servers might work amonst Linux
nodes; I don't know if Chameleon-type NFS clients are still
around to mount them on the Windows side. A quick Google
coughed up a few shareware NFS solutions but no obvious
suggests that Samba may very well be why, but does give
four vendor solutions (Hummingbird, Shaffer, Sun, and WRQ).
Of course Linux can generally read NTFS without trouble.
Writing to it, however, is something else again, and
data migration requires disk space...which entails
extra cost for those of us already struggling with high
gas prices and low wages. :-) (The good news: it's
$1/GB, and getting cheaper.)
If one wishes backups, Linux can easily read backups
generated by Windows ISO9660 burner software, assuming said
burner doesn't hiccup and produce a coaster under Windows.
For its part Linux burns stuff very well. I've not really
had much of a problem with it that couldn't be traced to
user stupidity, since I'm the only user. :-)
> Think, for example, about the user who has only used Linux
> for 3 days and whose boss gave him/her an urgent task.
> With immature GNU/Linux habits and familiarity at hand,
> Windows may still be the quicker way to get things
> done. A learning curve is involved and what better
> cussion will the user have? Anything other than Windows?
> I doubt it. When Windows becomes unacceptable and its
> many flaws are realised (by looking and understanding
> its superior alternative, to which there is no parity),
Pedant Point: there are at least three superior
alternatives, though I'm not sure exactly what will
happen to them -- and it depends to some extent how
one defines "superior", though it's clear Windows is
decidedly *inferior*, in its present incarnation (but
Don't Worry, Vista Will Fix Everything!(tm) :-) [if one
wants to buy a bridge somewhere in Puget Sound]), in
keeping out the malware.
 Linux. It's got da buzz right now.
 FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other such BSDs. They're still out
 Proprietary Unix solutions, if one can afford them.
There's a whole host of others, as well, which may eventually
become superior; the only ones coming to mind are AmigaOS
(which presumably is now a freeware effort reimplementing
Exec/Intuition but I'd have to look), BeOS (if it can be
exhumed), and HURD (if it's not being embalmed by now).
Linux is not a monopoly, and ideally never should be,
despite the convenience.
> the Windows partition can be ReiserFS's (or ext2'd or
> whatever) to reclaim the drained space.
Assuming the useful stuff's been extracted at this point;
since Windows tends to scatter things that's an interesting
subquestion. Fortunately, things haven't gotten so bad that
the user's data (e.g., spreadsheets) gets scattered to
oblivion, though macros in spreadsheets makes one wonder.
> You could
> analogise this to moving fish from one aquarium to another.
> Look at the folks at Munich. I believe their first stage
> involved OpenOffice on Windows, for those who were least
> adventurous/most skeptical.
> Just my opinion,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.