Yes. I have reasons for doing this myself at times.
Chose manual partitioning (or whatever it is called)and create only “swap” and “/” (unless you already have a swap partition).From there it is self explanatory.
I treat partitioning as as a separate operation to installing,I always use the same partitioning tool.In my case this is parted and its variants. I suggest downloading and burning a copy of parted magic,verify it.This way you can have view of your partitioning without suggestions from the installer getting in the way.
Actually most might say that having a separate /home partition is a very good idea, and I can agree with that mentality.
The reasoning being is that it makes repairs/reinstalls much easier as a separate /home partition keeps your personal files separate from the core OS so if anything goes wrong you dont need to back up your personal data each time (although it is a good idea to keep constant backups anyhow)
There is no harm in having a separate /home partition, its benefits far outweigh the drawbacks which are nil these days.
In the past I had issues with having separate /home partitions but nowadays no major issues and its become a major lifesaver.
Sure, just take the proposal, delete /home and expand / to fill the space /home would fill. Or use manual partitioning.
If the disk is small, say <= 20GB, it probably makes sense not to have a separate /home because space is at a premium. But then you’d have to be pretty hard up or have a laptop or similar where you can’t change the disk, not to be able to afford a decent amount of disk space.
I am currently running three linux OSes on an 80GB drive, until earlier this week there was also a vista install on this machine.In a situation like this and probably quite a few other situations I see reason to not have a separate home partition for each OS.
Well, there seems a number of people on this thread who firmly believe in the separate home partition thing.Maybe someone here can explain to me why? All I see is one extra safety net.Is that all there is?
Well not that annoying, its easy enough to get around once you know how to partition.
Ubuntu only does one single partition probably not to throw off any potential new users.
For a beginner extra partitions are unusual as windows doesnt use them often.
It seems like to the end user “hey what the heck, the drive is split in two!” or three if you can count swap.
I know I was thrown off by more then one partition at first, but once I saw the benefits to it I slowly transitioned to having two main partitions and swap.
For the new user having extra partitions might give the illusion that disk space in linux is not as high as with windows.
A good example of this is one of my friends, who at first thought that openSUSE gave him less space in the partition table despite the fact i split his drive in two.
Yes in some parts you do get less space with linux if you add room for swap, but its on the level.
For the new user who may want to install linux having extra partitions is very optional at first but once you see the benefits of seperating /home then it becomes more clear.
yeh but I rather deal with Ubuntu then dodgy power supply anyhow, I still use it on the side and most of the people I installed linux for use it as its the distro I gave them.
Most of them are fine with it, so Ubuntu is definitely not as bad as most make it out to be, most of the hate it gets I blame on distro envy.
Not saying its perfect, I too am aware of its flaws but openSUSE has a number of flaws too.
The default configuration of each distro reflect different priorities. Ubuntu probably expects that people will do online upgrade-dist, and so they chose a single partition for simplicity. But of course there are always trade-offs. It’s a discerning user that can weigh the different schemes and modify the scheme to be suitable for their situation instead of parroting our distro right, their distro wrong.
yeh each one has different sizes and schemes.
The best scheme I have had goes to Mandriva, as it didnt make root too small or too big.
openSUSE tended to want a heavier root partitions, up to 20GB.
Fine on my new 600GB HDD, but not so fine on my older 70GB one with me taking up at least 40 gigs alone.
Hello, Atomic Monkey,
are you there? there have been 17 replies to your question, besides this one. e can’t really help without some feed back. If you found some help let us know. If you still have questions. Let us know. please
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:16:01 +0000, dvhenry wrote:
> Well, there seems a number of people on this thread who firmly believe
> in the separate home partition thing.Maybe someone here can explain to
> me why? All I see is one extra safety net.Is that all there is?
When upgrading, some people like to wipe out the non-home directories to
get a cleaner installation, and that’s kinda hard to do if home is part
of the same filesystem as everything else.