I’m currently using Ubuntu and I want try a different distro because I have an older computer and Ubuntu is pretty slow. So far the only one I’ve tried was Porteus and while it does boot and load apps very quickly I had an issue where Porteus wouldn’t boot if it was installed on top of ext4 but would boot fine if it was installed on top of fat32, which is also another potential problem because Porteus requires a save file for persistence when using Windows filesystems. If there is a problem where my computer can’t boot with an ext4 filesystem, Ubuntu doesn’t have this problem because sda1/2/3 all use a different filesystem.

If I’m correct on this, would I be better off trying Porteus on ext3/2 and hoping it works or just use it with fat32 and have a separate partition formatted for ext4 to serve the same purpose as sda3 in Ubuntu and possibly store the save file (if I have the correct understanding of how save files work).

Also, I would just use NTFS but not only have I heard that it has issues with Linux, I’ve had issues using it with Linux, so I’m using fat32 for stability.

  • exu@feditown.com
    1·
    1 year ago

    To boot Linux, the kernel and initramfs need to be loaded from disk. Most often this is done using a bootloader like GRUB, but UEFI can directly load compatible files as well. For that however, it needs to read the partition where this EFI image is stored.
    FAT32 is part of the UEFI standard, so it can always be read. If you want to boot from a more complex filesystem, you first need to load a bootloader that supports it, like GRUB.
    Porteus likely doesn’t have such a bootloader and is therefor limited to booting from FAT32. Similarly, at least one partition in Ubuntu is also FAT32, where the bootloader and optionally the kernel and initramfs live.

    • vortexal@sopuli.xyzOP
      21·
      1 year ago

      Ok, but the problem I have with that is that I don’t know what distros have a bootloader and I don’t know how to work around that with the ones that don’t. So I’m just going to stick with Ubuntu because It does and it works for what I need it to.

      • delial@lemmy.sdf.org
        2·
        1 year ago

        You can safely assume that all distributions have more than one bootloader to choose from. Porteus is a bizarre outlier.

        • vortexal@sopuli.xyzOP
          11·
          1 year ago

          I tried Absolute Linux yesterday and it didn’t have a bootloader either. Although, Absolute Linux was supposed to be a non-portable Linux distro and has instructions on how to install it on the website but it functioned like a portable distros when I tried it.

            • vortexal@sopuli.xyzOP
              11·
              1 year ago

              Ok but that doesn’t help me because either the bootloaders aren’t enabled by default or they are but I still don’t know how to work with them. As I’ve stated before, I’m just going to stick with Ubuntu, I know how to work with it and it does what I need it to. Unless there is another distro that installs itself the same exact way Ubuntu does but it boots and loads apps faster, I don’t think I’ll be able to use another distro.

              • delial@lemmy.sdf.org
                1·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, you should stick to Ubuntu.

                If your eyes start to wander, look at the major distros instead of the ones you’ve been looking at. Debian, Fedora, Manjaro, Mint, openSUSE, and Arch. They’re all great and have easy installs. I highly recommend Debian and Arch. Reading their install guides could help you understand any Linux system a lot more. You’ll never maximize your speed if you don’t read the manuals for stuff. Generally, faster is going to mean more specialized to your hardware and your specific needs.

                • vortexal@sopuli.xyzOP
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  The only reason I’m using the ones I’ve been using is because there isn’t a proper way for someone to find what they need without manually checking each distro one by one. The best I got was the list of lightweight Linux distros on Wikipedia but that mostly seems to have a bunch of unknown Linux distros. If there was a list that contained the system requirements for all Linux distros (with a differentiation of installing system requirements and running requirements because a lot of distros require more ram to install than what they actually use when running) along with some other helpful information, I’d probably have an easier time finding one on my own.

                  • delial@lemmy.sdf.org
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Ah, now things are making a little more sense. From that list, BunsenLabs Linux doesn’t look like a bad choice. It’s Debian-based, so the install should be pretty smooth like Ubuntu. Trisquel Mini might be even better. I would avoid any that are based on Slackware; it’s a little more hardcore than most. Bodhi Linux looks okay, too. Bunsen might get you the most bang, but you might not like Openbox. Trisquel and Bodhi have normal desktop environments, so those should feel familiar.

                    Void Linux might be something you want to look at as well. It’s its own thing, and the install will probably be different, but it’s a really cool distro, so it was worth a mention.

                    Are you trying to get the most out of old hardware, or are you just trying to see how far you can push contemporary hardware?

                    How fast is your CPU? (cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep Hz)

                    How much RAM do you have? (free --human)