Hoping to run Linux as my main OS..

[zachs33]

Is dual booting that inconvenient? In Linux I occasionally fire up a Windows VM if needed for running a particular program etc, but never anything more. Generally I find it less hassle to just reboot into Windows (or OS X). I treble boot between Linux Mint, Windows and OS X, without much difficulty (although I still can't get grub to boot to clover). Still, I don't switch back and forth exactly. Once I'm on one OS, I tend to stick with it for a week or two until I get frustrated by not being able to do something (or not being able to do something without jumping through hoops), boot into another OS and before I know it I'm using that OS for a couple of weeks without looking back... until another irritation arises.

Still, I use Linux less these days. I've found Windows has become more accommodating (although Ubuntu tried to do this in a way I detested [Unity, ugh]). OS X gives me the benefits of a Unix terminal (iTerm2 rocks) and with homebrew more Unix utilities are easily obtained. The filesystem seems more logical to me (although EXT4 is more practical than HFS+ IMO). Plus, I don't have the compatibility problems of Linux. On the other hand, it's a proprietary OS and a product of a company whose paternalistic outlook I don't agree with. At least it's now free (although the hardware will likely pose challenges unless you've chosen your components carefully from the outset).

Still, when I boot into Linux Mint I fall in love again. I end up using Linux for a week before I feel the need (usually gaming, unless it's Prison Architect [great game and multi-platform]) to switch back to Windows. I guess the trouble is that I no longer feel such a need to switch back to Linux. Is it that technology has moved on (hell, I'm now comfortable with Windows... something I never thought possible) in that I'm no longer faced between a choice of Windows XP vs Ubuntu 8, or that my interests have moved on? I guess OSes are like children. You may spend more time with one (or less with another), but you love them all equally. I'm not sure I even have 'main' OS anymore.

[ZaO]

Well I think the situaion is a bit different for me. I can do all my tasks on Windows, but I don't like the privacy and security concerns. That's why I need Linux. So, I'll be rebooting multiple times a day which is going to slow me down and become very tedious, constantly reloading programs and entering passwords each time I boot into each OS and stuff like that. I'll have to boot into Linux just to send emails and stuff, then back to Windows to work on music or whatever. I switch tasks a lot, so it's gonna do my head in, and that's why I just stuck with Windows in the past. But, Windows 10 gave me a wakeup call. I need to try and move away from using it completely if I can. I don't see that being possible in the near future, though. So I'll have to dual boot for now.

Anyway, the point is, it's not about preffering to use one OS over the other, it's just about privacy and security. That really is my main drive here! I still can't get started yet anyway. Having some hardware issues that need sorting first. Just took the mobo out of my machine to rma it, so I've got some more downtime ahead of me >_<

[directhex]

Thanks for the guide So I can just have both drives in when I do the OS installs and not worry about bootloader mess I'm used to. That's a relief! But what if I do decide to do the installs with one drive in at a time anyway?

That behaviour is undefined. The common (worst) case is the firmware will automatically remove boot entries it can't resolve - meaning if you remove your Windows drive & reboot, it'll forget how to boot Windows (and vice versa)

[zachs33]

Fair point. When it comes to security, Windows is no match for Linux. Would a Linux VM in Windows not suit?

[ZaO]

That behaviour is undefined. The common (worst) case is the firmware will automatically remove boot entries it can't resolve - meaning if you remove your Windows drive & reboot, it'll forget how to boot Windows (and vice versa)

I see. I suppose that can probably be fixed if it happens, but I don't know how. I'll just keep both drives in when I install the OS's! Cheers.

Fair point. When it comes to security, Windows is no match for Linux. Would a Linux VM in Windows not suit?

That would be kinda pointless for me. Windows will still be monitoring what I'm doing and data mining that way. For example, all of my key presses will be running through the Windows OS before they reach the virtual machine. I really need to have a separate install of Linux. I was actually hoping to do it the other way round and have Windows running in a virtual machine. If I can get good enough performance and low enough audio latency that way, I'll be pretty damn happy That way I won't need the Windows partition much at all. Hell, I might even be able to just get rid of it at some point!

[peterb]

Windows will run in a VM quite happily. I am running windows 7 on a BSD Unix based set up (OSX) using virtual box. Virtual Box is available for Linux ( and windows) hosts. You need to play around with it a bit, but running windows on a Linux host is fine. Don't forget that if you are connecting your virtual machine to the Internet through your host, it still provides a pathway out of the machine. The advantage as far as malware is concerned is that if the VM is compromised, you can just wipe it out and start again.

I'd take issue that Linux is more secure than other platforms. It can be IF (and it is a big if) it is correctly configured. Don't forget that the first viruses written were for Unix platforms, and a serious security vulnerability was recently found in a core application after 30 years!

If you use a RedHat product like Fedora or Centos, you get SElinux (security enhanced Linux) included, but it is very difficult to set up correctly and get a useable system. It is really designed for multi-level secure systems with strong separation between multiple users.

I don't pretend to fully understand it, and I tend to disable it. Other users here may have more experience, but I am not entirely convinced that a home based single user system, correctly set up, benefits very much from using the SELinix extensions.

[ZaO]

Windows will run in a VM quite happily. I am running windows 7 on a BSD Unix based set up (OSX) using virtual box. Virtual Box is available for Linux ( and windows) hosts. You need to play around with it a bit, but running windows on a Linux host is fine. Don't forget that if you are connecting your virtual machine to the Internet through your host, it still provides a pathway out of the machine. The advantage as far as malware is concerned is that if the VM is compromised, you can just wipe it out and start again.

I'd take issue that Linux is more secure than other platforms. It can be IF (and it is a big if) it is correctly configured. Don't forget that the first viruses written were for Unix platforms, and a serious security vulnerability was recently found in a core application after 30 years!

If you use a RedHat product like Fedora or Centos, you get SElinux (security enhanced Linux) included, but it is very difficult to set up correctly and get a useable system. It is really designed for multi-level secure systems with strong separation between multiple users.

I don't pretend to fully understand it, and I tend to disable it. Other users here may have more experience, but I am not entirely convinced that a home based single user system, correctly set up, benefits very much from using the SELinix extensions.

Well it's more the latency issues I'm concerned with, as Windows is currently my platform for creating music with (hopefully I'll change that in time). I'm sure there will be increased input and output latencies, just hopefully nothing too significant..

Windows can access the net from the virtual machince, that's fine. I just don't want it accessing all my data and everything I do. So that's more what I was talking about with privacy and security..

I'm not sure if I already asked this, but one thing I'm totally unsure about is whether or not I should install Windows drivers in the Windows virtual machine. I suppose Windows 10 will force that anyway as that's what I'll be running in there..

Cheers.

[shaithis]

Drivers in a VM:

Anything that is virtual (i.e. CPU, chipset, USB, etc) will need to be loaded with the virtual drivers supplied by your hypervisor provider.

Anything that is passed through to the VM (i.e. USB devices that are connected or any PCI cards that are made visible to the VM) will need the original hardware manufacturers drivers.

It will be pretty obvious from the names which they are though.