Richard Rudnick rich at
Thu Feb 28 23:19:30 UTC 2008

On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:27 +0800, SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 22:33 -0800, Richard Rudnick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 10:48 +0800, SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux wrote:
> > 
> > > sda2/u = /BOOT Ubuntu, shareable with more Linux'es !?
> > 
> > I would suggest not using a separate boot partition. Grub can find
> > kernels in more than one place (that is, a boot directory under each
> > os's root). If you have a 64bit processor and would like to have both
> > 32bit and 64bit Ubuntu's installed you must do this, since the kernel's
> > for both have the same name.
> Hi Richard
> Thanks for your feedback and recommendation !
> Nothing is 64bit here and I am in midst of planning and 
> preparing to switch from OS/2 to Ubuntu 8.40 and 
> already do experiment with Ubuntu 7.10 !!
> I would like to understand this better since I am considering 
> a twin installation of Ubuntu: 
> One for more "productive" and 
> the second one more for test purposes with access to the 
> already existing /BOOT, /HOME and /SWAP plus 
> Win's NTFS and OS/2 FAT32 data !!!
> Give me little more time till I continue with my Partition
> Reorganization 
> and its future layout. ;-D
> Cheers, svobi

I see you've done some already :O) Gerot's advice about a separate /home
and /usr/local is very sensible, and would give you easy access to both
in both os's; but the same issue is /boot would occur. Since ubuntu
keeps the same name for the kernel under many upgrades, it makes it
nearly impossible to have kernels from different installs to coexist in
the same partition, whether it's two 32bit or a 32bit and 64bit ubuntu.
Additionally, with 2 32bit you'll have to make sure the /lib/modules
remain consistent. 

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list