Trying to add Linux partitions to my OpenBSD disklabel

The OpenBSD system on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt) has a 3 GB hard drive mostly devoted to OpenBSD, with about 600 MB set aside for Linux, about 130 MB as Linux swap and the rest an ext2 filesystem on which I have my pup_save file for Puppy Linux and any other Linux files I’ve generated with other live CDs (Wolvix and Slitaz at the moment).

As I recall, I created the Linux partitions at one end of the drive and reserved the front for OpenBSD.

As a result, OpenBSD wrote its disklabel — the system’s guide to how the drive is partitioned — to include one big Linux partition and not the separate swap and ext2 partitions I later created.

Check your disklabel this way (as root) (and with the name of your drive, mine being wd0):

# disklabel wd0

You should see any non-OpenBSD partitions at the end of the list.

You can edit the disklabel this way:

# disklabel -e wd0

This opens a file in vi (the default editor in OpenBSD, or whatever the $Editor variable is set to; I’d reset it to Nano if only I knew how).

I tried to modify the disklabel to recognize BOTH Linux partitions, but all I got were errors in both OpenBSD and when booting Puppy 2.13.

To figure out how to edit the disklabel, I ran the following command in OpenBSD:

# fdisk wd0

I figured that copying the “start” and “size” info into the disklabel would make my Linux partitions mountable in OpenBSD.

Nope.

I got some fsck errors when I booted Puppy. I fixed them by a) deleting and re-creating the Linux swap file and b) running Puppy in RAM (boot parameter: Puppy pfix=ram) and running e2fsck on my ext2 partition.

I still don’t have my Linux filesystem mountable in OpenBSD, but I didn’t lose any files or filesystems either.

Clearly I need to figure out how to take the information from fdisk and properly write it in the disklabel.

I’m just glad (and very much amazed) that I didn’t lose anything. It’s a tribute of sorts to the OpenBSD system and documentation that I managed not to totally kill the whole installation.

In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part I — Puppy or Damn Small Linux

In the battle for which operating system runs best on the $15 Laptop, Puppy Linux has pulled out front as the fastest system with the most features I need and best functionality on this 1999-era Compaq Armada 7770dmt.

In case you’re wondering, here are the specs of the Compaq:

233 MHz Pentium II MMX processor
144 MB RAM
3 GB hard drive

I recently bumped the RAM from 64MB to the maximum of 144MB. Before this increase, running Linux or OpenBSD (which I have installed on the hard drive) with the X Window System was difficult at best.

Smaller applications like the Dillo Web browser, the Abiword and Ted word processors, the Geany and Beaver text editors ran pretty well in 64MB of RAM.

But the 500-pound gorilla of graphical applications is Firefox.

It would be nice to get by with Dillo, but many — if not most — of the things I need to do with a computer these days require a fairly modern browser.

Whether it’s blogging, working on Dailynews.com, or on the Movable Type back end, it all happens in the browser.

And for that I need, at a minimum, Firefox 1.5.

Now that Damn Small Linux offers Firefox 2 (under the name Bon Echo, but for all intents and purposes an early release in the FF 2 series), that system is more than fair game for use on this laptop.

Unfortunately, while the browser runs great, other things in DSL have not been working so well.

For some reason, the desktop wallpaper doesn’t work. Instead, I have a plain, gray X Window background. And while JWM (Joe’s Window Manager) is the default in Damn Small Linux like in Puppy, switching over to Fluxbox in DSL has been problematic. Some builds have allowed me to use the Fluxbox menu, but others don’t seem to work at all.

I could live without desktop wallpaper (or I could figure out a solution to the problem), but with Puppy Linux (I’m currently using version 2.13 but could easily upgrade to the newer 4.00 at any time) I get a nice-looking desktop, the Mozilla-based Seamonkey Web suite, Abiword (about as fast as DSL’s Ted word processor but with the added ability to read and write .doc files), the Geany text editor, the ROX filer and quite a few other applications I’ve grown to like very much over the year and a half I’ve been using Linux.

And as far as speed goes, Puppy and DSL are quite equal on this hardware.

---

Coming up:

• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part II — OpenBSD or Debian?
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part III — Browsers and wireless
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part IV — Wolvix Cub is surprisingly strong
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part V — Where I’m headed
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VI — Younger Puppies
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VII — Debian with Xfce and Fluxbox calls
• In search of the best OS for a 9-year-old laptop: Part VIII — Final thoughts (aka “Why?”)

$15 Laptop sees huge performance leap with 144MB of RAM

What I’m saying, basically is that if you’re running anywhere near 64MB of RAM and you, say, want to run Firefox, you need more memory.

The $15 Laptop — a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with 233 MHz Pentium II MMX CPU — ran a Linux console with no problem and even did an X session, provided no “heavy” apps like Firefox were used.

But how can you get along with just Dillo as a Web browser?

It’s not easy if you want to do any kind of blogging, which a) uses the more-memory-intense Firefox and b) demands much more out of Firefox and the whole system as well.

Well, I can safely say that a 233 MHz CPU and 144MB of RAM are enough to run Puppy Linux (currently version 2.13, for which I continue to have a soft spot), Damn Small Linux 4.3 and even OpenBSD 4.2.

I’m going to reboot into OpenBSD right now to see just how well the Compaq is doing with it.

(I’m now back with OpenBSD 4.2)

Things appear to work pretty well with OpenBSD as well. Though certainly more secure than almost every other operating system out there (though I miss Debian and now also Ubuntu’s ability to encrypt an entire drive with LVM) and as stable as anything out there, OpenBSD is in no way faster than the fastest Linux distributions.

And speed is a bit of a problem on hardware this old.

I’d have to try Debian again. Puppy and DSL are quite a bit quicker when it comes to screen refresh time in Firefox (and generally in X). I don’t remember Debian Etch as being all that sprightly in comparison.

(Changing to DSL 4.3)

There’s no doubt that DSL runs the graphics in X faster than OpenBSD. The screen does a much better job of keeping up with my keystrokes in Movable Type, and if the main purpose of this laptop is to crank out blog entries, that is an important consideration.

Of course, before I pull OpenBSD off of this drive, I’ll have to make sure I have the xorg.conf saved, as well as a number of other configuration files as well as the output of pkg_info so I can remember all the software I have in this install.

I should probably just get a few swappable hard drives for the Compaq. Maybe even something bigger than 3GB. Just a thought.

Other problems with using DSL as the sole distro: no Flash (but OpenBSD doesn’t have it either).

… (two weeks later)

I’ve been running the $15 Laptop a bit more. Having a good wireless connection helps immensely. I’ve been most happy with Puppy 2.13 thus far, since it has Seamonkey — a very acceptable Mozilla-based browser — and all the graphics work as they should.

I still have OpenBSD 4.2 on the hard drive, and as I say above, I’m reluctant to remove it, even though I can and will save the various configuration files in case I want to do a reinstall.

I’d like to try Wolvix again, just to see if the additional memory makes any difference in loading it. I could — and probably should — try Debian again. I don’t know if it’ll be as fast as Puppy or DSL, but it is worth trying.

What I’ll probably end up with: I might leave OpenBSD on the laptop for awhile, but I can see myself ending up with a hard drive or Compact Flash chip with IDE converter completely devoted to storage and either running Puppy Linux off of the Live CD or as a frugal install on the hard drive or CF card.

Ubuntu’s Mark Shuttleworth in the interview of the fortnight

One of the best — and longest running — Linux sites is LWN.net, which I should get into the blogroll, by the way, and it has an excellent interview with Ubuntu founder and leader Mark Shuttleworth.

On Ubuntu’s push into the server market:

Given that Ubuntu’s roots are on the desktop, what’s behind the recent shift in strategy to address the server side too?

That’s not a change in strategy, it’s more a pull through. We started with a very narrow focus on the desktop, and that allowed us to punch in. As we’ve penetrated the industry, there’s a natural pull through where someone who’s started using us on their desktop has now started setting up Ubuntu on a server.

You could always run Ubuntu on a server; there was never a significant reason not to. That body of users has now reached a critical mass on the server, and so our server work is now more responding to that than a shift in strategy. We continue to make the desktop our labor of love, the server requires a very enterprise-oriented approach. We’ve built out a dedicated team that just handles that. We haven’t re-assigned people who are desktop specialists and asked them to test a server.

You’re not worried you’re spreading yourselves too thinly?

That is a risk, and that’s something we discuss here a lot. There are benefits to offering a platform that can be used in both configurations. We see companies often saying: “We love your desktop. We would definitely choose your desktop if we could also use you on the server.”

Companies don’t like to introduce arbitrary diversity in technology. Everybody has heterogeneous systems, but they don’t like to make that situation worse without a very good reason for it. Ubuntu is a very good server for certain use-cases now, just like Ubuntu is a very good desktop for certain use-cases. Our challenge over the next couple of years is just to broaden the base to which it appeals on both fronts.

Geek comics

Linux Loop has been running these geek comics. Does the fact that I can draw better mean I should be doing my own comics?

Click here for the main Linux Loop cartoon, which provides a link to a readable version of the cartoon. I’d put the huge version here, but I want to give Linux Loop the traffic.

Despite the stick-figure artwork, they’re kind of funny.

As always, Linux Loop is well worth a read.

Fresh DeLi Linux

It’s nice — really nice — to see via Distrowatch that development is continuing on low-spec favorite DeLi Linux. Here’s the release announcement.

I’ve been able to install DeLi on my VIA C3 Samuel converted thin client, but not without a few tricks that I picked up from the forums (here and here). And I also recently did an entry on some good DeLi-related blog entries from others.

I never was able to get my static IP configured in DeLi, but I think I could do it now.

According to the DeLi site, you need 32 MB of RAM to run the GUI version. The Web browser is Dillo, I believe, and that runs great in 64 MB and looks like it can run about as well in 32 MB.

Probably the biggest change is a shift from GTK+1 to GTK+2, which accounts for the memory requirements rising for this release of DeLi.

When you’re trying to resurrect and make an old computer useful, DeLI is a great distro to have in your arsenal, along with Puppy, DSL and even Debian (the Standard install with X and a lightweight window manager and your favorite apps added manually).

I just upgraded the $15 Laptop from 64 MB to 144 MB of RAM, and before the upgrade, OpenBSD, Puppy and Debian ran well on it with X … unless you try to run a “big” application like Firefox. That’s where Damn Small Linux leaped ahead of the pack for that low amount of memory.

Now with 144 MB, I hope that I will have more choices as to what will run on that Compaq Armada 7770dmt, but if you do have a box stuck with 32 MB (I used to run Windows 98 in that amount of RAM, and let me tell you, it was pure hell), DeLi is a great distro to try out.

Damn Small Linux does Movable Type

I can hardly believe that I’m composing an entry in Movable Type Open Source 4.1 using Damn Small Linux.

Now that version 4.3 of the low-spec Linux distribution has added Firefox 2 to its software mix, I can use the browser — here named Bon Echo for reasons that escape me — for many more things than I could the Firefox 1.06 browser included in previous incarnations of DSL.

And on the $15 Laptop — a Compaq Armada 7770dmt with a 233 MHz processor and only 64 MB of RAM — Damn Small Linux remains the best operating system and is that much better with a browser that can do so many things FF 1 couldn’t handle.

Like Movable Type.

And Google Docs, where I just had a very pleasant writing experience.

There are a few niggly things that don’t work as well in DSL 4.3 as they did in DSL 4.0 on this laptop, among them the desktop background, which for some reason is absent (but shows up when I run DSL 4.3 on other PCs), and I can’t for the life of me figure out how to get the menu to show up in Fluxbox. All I get is the DFM menu, not the Fluxbox application menu. Since I’m happy using the JWM window manager, that’s not a big deal, but having Firefox 2 instead of 1.06 is a big, huge, game-changing deal that makes Damn Small Linux a must have for hardware at this level.

Thanks to Robert Shingledecker of DSL for continually improving his distribution and saving many an old computer (this one in its ninth year of service) from obscurity.

I burned a DSL 4.4 RC1 CD today, but I couldn’t get it to boot on the Compaq. I don’t know if it’s a bad CD or a bug in the release candidate, but I do plan to try again as the development process continues. I’m also planning to give DSL 4.2 a try to see just where the desktop wallpaper stopped appearing on this laptop. Again, it’s not a big deal because the extreme responsiveness and stability and usability of this distribution on a PC with these specs cannot be found in any other Linux distribution — Puppy and Debian included.

When I make the leap from 64 MB of RAM to 144 MB, things could very well change. I might be able to more successfully run Puppy, Debian or OpenBSD with X, but DSL will also be that much better as well.

Can you (easily) update a BSD system between releases? Or am I barking up the wrong (ports) tree?

Note: I originally wrote this post on 2/15/08. Today is 4/24/08. Since that time, I’ve looked into updating in the BSDs a bit further. In FreeBSD, it’s certainly possible to update both ports and packages.

In OpenBSD, the Errata for a give release shows you what needs to be fixed in the base system. The updates are easily available, but they do need to be compiled from source. What the OpenBSD team really wants you to do, it seems, is run the -current release, on which all ports can be updated from source. Sounds like a lot of compiling. Still, I might try it at some point.

Anyway, here is the “original” 2/15/08 entry:

While it’s pretty easy to install software from precompiled packages or from ports in OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD, I’ve hit a bit of a wall when it comes to keeping any of these systems up to date with periodic security and bug patches.

I don’t know if such updates are either not as necessary in the BSDs, even though my Linux boxes have a dozen or so of them every week, or that it’s just to hard to do for the average BSD user.

I see plenty of Web help on how to upgrade from one version of a BSD to another, but I don’t see anything that covers searching for periodically updated packages and updating an installation on, lets say, a weekly basis as security and bug problems arise and are presumably updated in the repositories of packages and ports.

O, BSD users, correct me if I’m wrong — and I do hope that I am wrong. But with apt/Aptitude/Synaptic in Debian-based Linux distributions, rpm/Yum in Red Hat- and Suse-style systems, and upgradepkg (and slapt-get/Gslapt) in Slackware (with security announcements going to the mailing list and the http://www.slackware.com/security page) … need I go on?

The point is that almost all Linux installations are easily upgraded with precompiled binary packages. Gentoo … well, I won’t go there because I know it has its own BSD-like ports system, but I’ve never used it and don’t know how it works.

Again, the point is that all of these Linux distributions have me conditioned to expect — and to install — updates on a regular basis.

But what do I do with BSD? In OpenBSD, for instance, I’ve never even downloaded the ports tree. Everything I’ve installed has been a precompiled binary package for the i386 architecture. It’s very slick, works perfectly … but am I exposing myself to undue risk by running Firefox 2.0.0.6 instead of the newer 2.0.0.12? Is all that extra OpenBSD security for nought if I’m running applications rife with security holes?

I’m being completely serious. Is there something I’m missing here? Since OpenBSD, at least, updates the whole system every six months, am I OK to keep the same packages running until the next release? What does this say about BSD vs. Linux when it comes to security and bugs?

But wait. I did run DesktopBSD for awhile, and I remember that system having a GUI package manager that not only fetched new packages but upgraded those already installed.

So that’s what Matt Olander was talking about when he said that PC-BSD and DesktopBSD were working together to share technology when it came to package management.

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t need to do my updates in a GUI app. I’m perfectly OK with using the console. Just being able to do that updating is enough. That is, unless someone out there can convince me that Linux has conditioned me to think I need something that I really don’t.

Those on all sides of this issue, please enlighten me — and quickly.

Getting schooled in Apache in particular and servers in general

I really need the new “Apache Cookbook” and “Linux System Administration,” both from O’Reilly. The Apache book because it’s new and covers Apache 2.2 in great detail, and the server book just because it looks pretty good and focuses on Debian.

To get a better idea of what’s in these two books, go to the O’Reilly site’s tables of contents for both:

“Apache Cookbook”
“Linux System Administration”

Getting schooled in Apache in particular and servers in general

I really need the new “Apache Cookbook” and “Linux System Administration,” both from O’Reilly. The Apache book because it’s new and covers Apache 2.2 in great detail, and the server book just because it looks pretty good and focuses on Debian.

To get a better idea of what’s in these two books, go to the O’Reilly site’s tables of contents for both:

“Apache Cookbook”
“Linux System Administration”