Linux

47224 readers

774 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

One single partition for Linux versus using a partition table? (slrpnk.net)

submitted 10 months ago by mambabasa@slrpnk.net to c/linux@lemmy.ml

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Heya folks, some people online told me I was doing partitions wrong, but I’ve been doing it this way for years. Since I’ve been doing it for years, I could be doing it in an outdated way, so I thought I should ask.

I have separate partitions for EFI, /, swap, and /home. Am I doing it wrong? Here’s how my partition table looks like:

FAT32: EFI
BTRFS: /
Swap: Swap
Ext4: /home

I set it up this way so that if I need to reinstall Linux, I can just overwrite / while preserving /home and just keep working after a new install with very few hiccups. Someone told me there’s no reason to use multiple partitions, but several times I have needed to reinstall the OS (Linux Mint) while preserving /home so this advice makes zero sense for me. But maybe it was just explained to me wrong and I really am doing it in an outdated way. I’d like to read what you say about this though.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why would you put home on ext4 instead of btrfs?

[–] mambabasa@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I didn't need home folder snapshots.

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Btrfs offers a lot more than just snapshots.

[–] mambabasa@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Like what?

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Data integrity protection, higher resiliency, less chance of being corrupted, etc.

[–] mambabasa@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

But I heard ext4 was more stable. What are the trade offs?