[xubuntu-users] "Not enough space on disk /boot"

[Petter Adsen]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 19:35:44 +0900
Thomas Blasejewicz <nyuwa at hb.tp1.jp> wrote:

> On 2015/05/24 16:02, Petter Adsen wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 May 2015 22:55:38 +0900
> > DO NOT START RANDOMLY DELETING KERNEL PACKAGES IF YOU ARE NOT
> > TOTALLY SURE WHAT YOU ARE DOING! If you decide to use Synaptic to
> > get rid of old kernels, then be careful, and make sure to leave (at
> > least) the latest working one, or you will be unable to boot.
> >
> >
> * THAT precisely is my problem: I DO NOT know what I am doing!
> And, since I could not find any other "solution" DID delete old 
> "kernels" (whatever that means).

The kernel is the part of the system that is actually called "Linux".
It is the heart of the operating system, if you will, responsible for
interacting with hardware and allocating resources to programs. If you
remove all the kernels, your computer will not be able to start.

(Yes, this is very simplified. I intended it that way.)

In the future, if you need to remove kernels, always remember to leave
at least one that you know works for you. You will be able to get your
system up and running again if you delete them all, but it will require
a bit of fiddling.

> That is why there is currently only one. No automatic process running
> 
> Just checked "df /boot". It shows:
> Filesystem  lk-blocks  Used   Available   Used%   Mounted on
> /dev/sda1    240972  90020   138511   40%   /boot
> 
> Why is this thing "limited"? The one and only partition encompasses
> the entire 500-GB HDD where at least 350 GB are free space.
>  From all the things written here in the last messages, I gather,
> this is "Linux problem" and any possible solution will require
> a high level of technical knowledge.

Basically, it's a silly decision on Canonicals part (the people behind
Ubuntu). It should (arguably) not be this way. Since so many people are
being bitten by this, it will probably change in the (hopefully near)
future. This is a problem that pops up all the time.

> * Please forgive me, I do not want to be rude, but about the "know
> what you are doing" thing ...
> I need at least two computers for my work (translation and running a 
> little acupuncture clinic)
> In particular the translation jobs require that I (can) handle a 
> wordprocessor, dictionaries and a mailer.
> To do my work, I have to concentrate on those operations.
> I know this is pure heresy in the Linux community, but ... I do not
> have the time (and intention) to learn a new language (= "computer)
> and make a masters degree in computer science just to be able to type
> my work. Frankly, I do not care about all the intricacies of computer
> science and programming as long as the computer = tool does what I
> need it to do. THAT is why I was asking about the "automatic"
> workings of the OS silently in the background.

I can absolutely understand that, and I agree with you completely. This
is the kind of thing that the system should handle for itself. In my
mind, part of the problem is that Linux is suitable for so many wildly
different things. It is hard to come up with a default configuration
that will not break things in one way or another, depending on how
people use it.

Another thing is that traditionally, a large percentage of Linux users
have been hobbyists and professionals who *do* care about the
intricacies of the system, and adapt it to their needs. Linux is still
evolving at a rapid pace, and unfortunately, not everything is in place
yet to make everything suitable for people with limited technical
knowledge. The system simply gives you so much control over its inner
workings by design.

Linux is actually very, very good at simply doing what it's told and
get out of the users' way. The problem is that it needs someone to tell
it exactly what to do :) If you get it set up to meet your needs, you
will be hard pressed to find a more reliable platform. Linux is
actually quite user friendly, but it has a bit of a learning curve.

> Also precisely because I am not a computer specialist, most of the 
> explanations/advice provided here eludes me.
> Most of commands I am supposed to execute or programs I should run
> are completely alien to me and I am usually not able to follow thes
> given instructions.

If you need clearer instructions, feel free to ask :) In general,
people are happy to help.

> I had placed great hope on the "just works" and "user friendly"
> concepts to widely advertised on all Linux related websites.
> But it seems, Linux is not meant for ordinary mortal men.
> So, I guess, I will have to continue to regularly and manually
> uninstall old/unused(?) kernels to keep things going.

You should not need to. The system absolutely should handle this for
itself.

Another thing you might consider, is restricting updates to security
updates only. You can do this under the system settings, under
"Software & Updates". If there are no bugs that affect you, this might
be a reasonable thing to do. Others may disagree with this, but I'd say
that as long as you get security fixes, you shouldn't need to worry too
much about the rest. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

> I am really sorry for the commotion I caused.

No reason to be :)

Petter

-- 
"I'm ionized"
"Are you sure?"
"I'm positive."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-users/attachments/20150525/56aa2bd3/attachment.sig>