Linux Dual Boot Setup Question

I am planning on doing a reformat/reinstall of Windows 7 on my computer and would like to try a dual boot configuration with Linux Mint. I will install Windows first creating 3 partitions: one for Windows, one for data, and one for Linux. When I install Linux, do I really need to create an additional separate "home" partition (if I plan on storing all my data on the data partition to be shared by Windows and Linux); can I just map my "home" directories in Linux to the shared data partition? I will probably go ahead and create a small "swap" partition to be on the safe side, but really need advice on whether a "home" partition is needed.

 

If you want to share data between the systems, YES, you need a separate Partition for Home directory. Although you MAY be working too hard to accomplish this. A potential problem with sharing a Home partition is that Windows reads/writes in NTFS formatting, while Linux uses EXT4 formatting. Linux will "see" the NTFS partition and will allow you to access/read the directory; however, Windows will NOT see the Linux partion. I have copied my entire Windows Home directory into Linux Home without ever leaving Linux OS, thereby recreating every file in its existing directory structure in my Home directory in Linux. But I'm not sure what would happen if I accessed a Win Home file, modified it, and saved it in its native Win directory. What you are asking is NOT recommended (shared Home directory on a single drive), especially for a Linux newbie, but it can be done. PROCEED WITH CAUTION!

In that spirit, would you be willing to have your Home directory on an external USB device, formatted in FAT? If you are "trying out" a dual boot config, this would be the most painless way to accomplish it.

Otherwise, this could be a very tricky proposition, as files such as Word docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations, etc... are likely to be in proprietary MS file formats, such as *.doc, *.xls, and *.ppt formats. MS Office is NOT available in Linux (unless we use WINE, but that is another lengthy topic, and not recommended as a long-term solution), as LibreOffice is recommended in Linux and installed by default in Mint. You can set LO to use MS formats, but I know from experience that documents almost always lose something in the translation, i.e. weird indents, missing/extra special effects (bolds, italics, underlines), & other formatting artifacts. A better solution to remedy this potential issue may be to also install LibreOffice on Win7 in lieu of MS Office.

To try a dual boot installation, I would recommend a Win7 install first. Then install Linux afterwards, following on-screen prompts for a Standard installation (this will NOT be the "something else" option required for a separate Home partition). With your dual-boot configuration complete, and CONFIRMED to be working in both OS, add your external USB device (make sure it is formatted in FAT for use by BOTH Win & Linux). From within Win7, map the USB drive as your Home directory. From within Linux, create a "symbolic link" in your Home diretory to the external USB device. This will at least allow both OSes equal access to the drive, with read & write capabilities.

File format issues (docs, spreadsheets, etc...) will be another matter to address. Perhaps you will create TWO directories in the external HOME, calling one Linux Home and the other Win Home, to allow for files to be copied over to the other directory when formatting issues are unacceptable. Just a thought...it may not be necessary...can't predict without knowing your usage requirements.

If you don't want to go the external USB Home route, we can accomplish the same thing with partitions, but slightly more complicated. Before installing anything, create 2 partitions on your hard drive (The Linux Mint LiveCD/LiveUSB has a built-in program called gPartEd a/k/a "Partition Editor" that is perfect for this). Make sure the 2nd partition (the future Home partition) is large enough to acommodate ALL your data, plus future data. FOR THE SAKE OF ILLUSTRATION, let's assume you have a 250GB HD, and Home data of 25GB (docs, music, files, etc...). I would recommend the 1st partion to be 150GB, formatted in NTFS; with the 2nd partion of 100GB, formatted in FAT. Adjust according to your system's specs, but always allow at LEAST 25GB for each OS and future patches & updates.

As before, install Win7 first, ensuring it installs on the 150GB partition. Then install Linux Mint, using the "something else" option in the installer. The "something else" should comprise 2 partitions on what is likely partition "sda" in the installer: a root partition (denoted as "/") of approximately 70GB for Linux Mint OS (no larger than half of total partition, less "swap" partition equal to system RAM); a swap partition, formatted as "swap" equal to system RAM (usually 2, 4, or 8GB); and a Home partition on what is likely partition "sdb" in the installer (verified by the 100GB size), formatted in FAT. Verify ALL settings are exactly as you want before proceeding. Upon verification, move forward with install. Upon successful completion, Linux Mint will have already "mapped" the separate Home partition, no extra steps required. Boot into Windows and "map" the 100GB partition as your Home directory. Here is a gineric overview of the process (pay special attention to steps #2 and #4, which will certainly apply to you!):
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=122276

A third option would be to install an additional hard drive. Discussed below, but I wouldn't recommend this for a "try dual boot" installation. Save it for afterwards, if you decide that dual boot is definitely for you, and you want to make it permanent:
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=182580

Lastly, may I suggest you consider a Virtualbox VM, especially if you have 4GB RAM or more? You can install a complete OS in a Virtualbox VM, sharing system RAM (slightly more than 1/2 RAM allocated to Host, slightly less than 1/2 allocated to Guest). Effectively, you will operate the Guest OS as just another "program" on your machine. Click on VirtualBox and open your VM as a program, do your work (you can even map a "shared directory" for the Host & Guest to share equally with read/write function), and close out Virtualbox when done with "save configuration". An overview of this method:
http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2014/05/how-to-install-linux-mint-as-virtual.html

Much quicker and easier than dual-boot IMO! I would recommend this method over "try dual boot" for many reasons, if your RAM allows it. I started out with a dual-boot situation, but switched to Virtualbox once I learned of the option. After determining that Linux was definitely for me, I wiped out my Windows install and overwrote it with Ubuntu (personal preference, Linux Mint is a fine choice also), then installed Virtualbox on Ubuntu and created a Win7 VM. I flipped the script with a more stable OS Host, and Windows as the Guest. I continue to use it the same way today! FWIW... Choose the method you are most comfortable with.

 

What you are wanting to do is a recipe for disaster, maybe not in the short term but almost certainly at some point. Take Hedon James' advice and run Linux in a VM, though personally I find VMware Player preferable to VirtualBox. They have made it so easy even ppl with no computer knowledge can use it.

 

Hedon James, thank you so much for your detailed and well thought out response. Two things to note: I am about to buy a large new hdd (1 or 2 TB), so space should not be an issue. I currently have 4 GB RAM (at some point in the future I would like to add another 4 GB) and my system can be sluggish at times. I have heard that running Linux in a vm can be a resource hog. The other reason I lean towards dual boot is I like the idea of having quick easy access to my data (via Linux) if something goes wrong with Windows. One question, any reason you are recommending formatting the Linux partitions in FAT vs. EXT4? Also, keep in mind that since I'm a Linux newbie, the majority of Office type files (docs, spreadsheets, etc.) I will continue to create and modify in Windows. I will make sure that any I create in Linux I will save to the "home" partition. Based on what you wrote, here is what I am probably looking at doing.

Installing Win 7 first creating 3 partitions:

-One for Windows with maybe about 80 GB of space. (NTFS)
-One for shared data between OS's with the remainder of space after allocating for the Windows and Linux partitions. (NTFS or FAT?)
-One for Linux with maybe 300 GB of space; divided as below during Linux install. (FAT)
Via Linux install:
-Partition for Linux root (/) of about 60-80GB. (FAT or EXT4)
-Partition for swap of about 12GB to allow for RAM expansion. (formatted as swap)
-Partition for home (/home) with the remainder of the Linux designated space. (FAT or EXT4)

Please let me know if you see any issues with this.

 

Earthling, can you explain why you believe this would be a recipe for disaster? Aren't dual boot configurations relatively common?

 

Respectfully disagree. WINDOWS is the resource hog, not Linux. And with a 4GB RAM limitation, you will end up allocating your RAM as 3GB WinHost/1 GB Linux guest, effectively taking 1GB from Win so that Linux can use in a VM. Paradoxically, this makes it SEEM like Linux is the resource hog. If you bumped your RAM another 4GB, for a total of 8GB, as you say you plan to, a VM would run SPLENDIDLY on that! FWIW...

I gotcha. You're making sense. But I still believe you're working too hard to create a fallback solution. You can accomplish this simply by creating a LiveUSB stick with Mint on it! In the event of Windows issues, simply plug in the LiveUSB stick, boot from USB and the Mint system will load, with complete read/write access to your entire Windows drive! This is how many tech support folks work on & clean up ailing Windows installations! If this fits your criteria, follow along here:

http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2014/05/how-to-create-bootable-linux-mint-usb.html

Good question. I am NOT recommending formatting Linux partitions in FAT. I am recommending the partition for HOME data, and ONLY that partition, be formatted in FAT. Windows uses NTFS and will format its partition in that manner. Linux can read & write to NTFS, but this format lacks some journaling options that Linux uses to recover corrupted data files. Which is why Linux uses EXT4 and, by default, will format partitions in that manner. Unfortunately, Windows doesn't even recognize EXT4 partitions, let alone read & write. Both Windows and Linux recognize, read, AND write to FAT. FAT has other limitations, mainly revolving around maximum file sizes, but it is a universally compatible format for Windows, Linux, Android and maybe even OS X? If you want a shared Home directory between two different OSes, FAT is the most logical choice for that partition. And ONLY that partition. Sorry for the confusion!

As a Linux newbie, I'd like to talk you out of this, as this is a challenging project for even experienced users. There is a lot that can go wrong, and many opportunities for "learning" experiences. Have you heard the saying "experience is what you get when you don't get what you came for"?

Based on what you state your reasons are for attempting a dual-boot setup, I really beleive you will be satisfied with a LiveUSB of Mint. It is a simple project, it will accomplish what you're looking for (an emergency backup OS available on a moment's notice in the event of a catastrophe; slam the LiveStick into your machine, reboot using the USB device, and either continue working with your data or plug an external USB HD and copy your entire Win Home directory data onto the external HD). And if this does NOT accomplish what you're looking for, you can still proceed with your original thoughts for dual booting.

I hope I'm not coming off as condescending; I simply want you to be aware of everything that COULD go wrong. Is this a production machine for you? Or a spare machine that you're trying to make more functional? If the latter, and if you're confident in your computer skills, by all means give it a go!

I would say that your allocations for partition sizes seem reasonable to me. And hopefully I've cleared up the FAT vs EXT4 format confusion. But I would refer you back to the 2nd option in my Post #2 below. Just substitute your partition sizes for my suggestions.

 

The dual boot configuration is VERY common and is no big deal. It's the shared partition for a HOME Directory that is the fly in the ointment.

If you're going to share a Home directory with both OSes in a dual-boot configuration, it really is best to have the Home directory on a completely separate drive. Can you put a 2nd hard drive in your machine? Dual-boot Windows and Linux on your existing drive. THEN add your 2nd drive (formatted as a FAT device) and use it for Data only...a Data drive. From Windows, map your Home directory to the 2nd drive (Drive E: or F:?); from Linux, create symbolic links to the 2nd drive.

If Windows fails, you can still boot to Linux Mint. If your DRIVE fails, at least your Data drive is separate from the failed drive.

This really is the simplest and most fool-proof way to accomplish a dual-boot scenario like you have indicated. I still believe the LiveStick is the way to go for you, but it is your machine and your decision.

If you decide to go forward with dual-booting (a good idea, IMO to have a backup OS ready to roll in an emergency!), I hope you will pursue THIS option. If you agree that Data on its own partition is a better option than being located on the same partition as the OS, then would you agree that Data on a separate drive is safer than the same drive as the OS?

You are on the right track, just extend your logic one step further. And if you do, your dual-boot project becomes much easier, especially for a new user of Linux.

 

After reading your last 2 responses, you just about have me convinced to run Linux from a USB stick, which seems to be much less complicated (and I can always configure dual boot in the future if I decide to). Another bonus of this is getting to play around with different Linux distros and interfaces (Ubuntu vs. Mint; cinnamon vs. KDE, for example) to see which one I like the best. To answer your question about having a second external drive for data; I guess I've just had bad experiences in the past with hard drive docks and external cases dying frequently on me and got frustrated having to regularly replace them. I'm using a laptop, so I don't think I can fit 2 drives in there. Side note: I use Carbonite to back up my Windows data (I know this won't backup any Linux data). I am still planning on 2 partitions; a separate one for Windows OS and one for data. Should I still create a third FAT data partition for when I'm playing around with Linux? That way I wouldn't have to worry about file size limitations on the separate Windows data partition (NTFS), but would have a partition I could save Linux files to. Will I be able to install and try out Linux apps in this scenario? I'm assuming they'd be installed on the USB stick?

 

Windows, for the time being anyway, is your workhorse, Linux just a plaything, but you are planning on handing over the crucial job of booting Windows to Linux. That overwrites the Windows MBR with Grub 2 so what exactly do you think you will do come the day that Windows fails to boot for some reason? None of the usual boot repair tools will work and you won't be able to find much useful help in forums either. If you can't fix it you may have to reinstall Windows, but that will destroy your Linux setup.

Moving on, what do you think is going to happen when the free Windows 10 upgrade hits the road? Accept it and bye bye Linux I strongly suspect!

I have seen this dual boot issue debated in forums for so many years, most frequently after some poor soul has hit a problem and have yet to see a case where it has been fixed. You want to give Linux a serious workout, that's entirely understandable. But as yet you don't know which distro, let alone whether you will want to pursue it further. So do not put your primary system at risk just for the sake of having a dual boot. There are two other ways of doing this - live CDs or VMs - and I actually use both, though instead of live CDs I use ISOs on a flash drive configured with Grub4DOS on which I can chop and change distros at will. However I rarely boot that way - the VM is just so convenient and configurable.

You mention data sharing but in my experience you are unlikely to have much if any use for it. Certainly not enough to start adding extra drives or partitions.

Good luck with it anyway, and let us know how you get on.

 

Also, you mention NOT being able to have a second hard drive in your laptop. I don't know which make (Dell, HP, etc) it is but, my Dell Precision M70 is currently running a second internal hard drive from a modular/media bay caddy which swaps out with the optical drive — just a thought.

 

What you are describing is called "persistence", and can only be done on a USB Stick. I was saving this option for after we sorted out what you REALLY want, but might as well discuss it now, especially since you appear to be okay with the recommendation. Most tutorials I found discuss doing this from Linux, using Unetbootin. I don't know if Unetbootin has a Windows version, but I found a tutorial that discusses creating "persistence" with gPartEd from within a Linux LiveCD. In essence, you need to create a LiveStick of a Linux distro (Stick1), in order to create a Persistent LiveStick of a Linux distro (Stick2). I would recommend that Stick1 is a 2-4GB stick, while Stick2 is at least 8GB; this will make it easier to identify the devices (sda vs sdb vs sdc) in gPartEd when formatting for persistence.

Using my prior post for creation of a LiveUSB stick, boot from the LiveUSB and follow along here to create a persistent LiveUSB, with ability to add programs, data, etc...:
http://www.pendrivelinux.com/create-a-larger-than-4gb-casper-partition/

I would absolutely and wholeheartedly endorse this method for what you're trying to accomplish! It's an excellent method for a fallback OS. As an added bonus, you can take this stick with you anywhere, and boot YOUR OWN system on anyone else's device, work on their system or do your own work, save it, shut it down, and take it with you again!

If you're going to be checking out multiple distros, I would also suggest that you're a prime candidate for Virtualization. Bump your RAM to 8GB, as you previously suggested you wanted to, and install VirtualBox or VMWare. (I prefer VirtualBox, but I have nothing against VMWare). Download as many Linux ISOs as you like and create a VM for each (skipping the LiveCD or LiveUSB creation step), tinkering with each until you like what you see! Earthling is correct that these don't need to be exclusive methods; they can go hand in hand!

I personally prefer Ubuntu. Mint is also a good choice for Windows-migrators! I would also recommend Zorin for Windows-migrators. Here is a link of the most popular distros, as well as links to download:
http://distrowatch.com/

Any may I "pimp" my own remixes?

XPubuntu is a heavily modified version of Lubuntu (Lightweight LXDE Ubuntu) designed to be user-friendly for Windows XP-migrators:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xpubuntu/?source=navbar

And Pangaea-Lubuntu is a heavily modified version of Lubuntu designed as a Lightweight Unity-like interface, for those who like Ubuntu but don't have the hardware to adequately run it (perfect for VMs and LiveSticks):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pangaealubuntu/?source=navbar

Fair warning...you are about to:
A) open the door to a whole new world
B) disappear down the rabbit whole
C) open Pandora's Box
D) all of the above

Try not to be overwhelmed. You are going to discover choices you never knew you had...potentially creating "paralysis by analysis". Relax, it's supposed to be fun. There are no "bad choices", just "good, better, & best", and everyone is different; so what is "best for me" may only be "good for you."

But I stongly recommend you consider Virtual Machines for your discoveries, and I wholeheartedly endorse LiveUSB with persistence for you. Good luck in your journey...we're here if you need anything! :cool

 

Earthling, fair enough; and after everything you and Hedon James have said so far, I agree that there doesn't seem to be much use in having a shared drive for both OS's.

I certainly don't want to end up with a situation where both OS's are non-operational, making it more difficult to quickly access my data. That is the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve.

 

Hedon James, I can't thank you enough for all of the information and knowledge you've shared with me. I am going to research all of the links you've provided to learn more, but think I'll start with the VM's to test the water and then move on to the 2 usb stick "persistence" method after I'm a little more comfortable with everything. As far as A-D, that's great, I'm feeling adventurous and really want to learn. I will try to take things one bite at a time to avoid being overwhelmed and know where I can come if I get stuck or need more help! :cool

 

That is exactly what I would recommend, in the order I recommend it! A VM is a wonderful place to "get experienced" with installing Linux, and trying out various Linux distros until you find the right one for you. If something goes wrong with the guest VM, you can practice your skills to remedy it, without placing your main OS in jeopardy. If something goes wrong with your guest VM in the worst possible way, simply delete it (like an obsolete file!), and try again! When installing a VM to a "virtual hard drive", I'd recommend a size of 10GB, and choose the "dynamic" setting in VirtualBox (I'm sure VMWare has something similar).

Just remember to bump your RAM first. IMO, Win7 needs 4GB to run smoothly, although maybe you won't notice a difference with only 3GB, especially if you're only running 1 program (VirtualBox or VMWare) at a time. Linux will usually run perfectly fine with 1GB or less, although some distributions like Ubuntu (with its Unity Desktop) and KDE desktops would certainly run much better with as little as 2GB RAM.

So I'd say 4GB is the bare minimum for a VM experience on a Win7 host, allocated as 3GB to Host and 1GB to Guest. But you MAY see a performance hit with only 3GB available in Win7...depends on your computing style, specs, and configuration. Ideally, 4GB to Win and 2GB to Linux VM would run just about anything you want to, with no performance hits. But you should run 8GB for the best performance of a "matched pair" of RAM sticks, so I'd say 5GB Win7 Host & 3GB Linux Guest will provide the best possible experience your hardware is capable of! FWIW...

 

MG is a Windows forum so you had better hope Hedon James hangs around as he is the only member here who ever responds in any detail to Linux related questions. I suspect many members here, like me, keep a distro or two but there is very little discussion of it so I suspect it is only used infrequently.

 

Hahaha! That's true!

FWIW, there used to be an AWESOME forum on here for Linux geeks like me. In fact, it's the reason I originally joined here. There was a whole crew of knowledgeable Linux users. When the site was re-organized awhile back, the Linux forum disappeared and the Linux questions became almost impossible to spot. All my old Linux buddies have slowly disappeared and I think I may be the last of that breed.

I used to frequent here daily, but it's become less and less. Until I follow a thread like this one and see it through. Eventually, I'll fade away again, until I happen to check the board on a whim and a Linux question is staring me in the face.

There are better forums to get Linux assitance from, but I don't think its appropriate for me to post that here, as I don't want to be disrespectful to the folks who run this site. Folks here have been good to me over the years, but the forum has indeed changed and I am definitely a dinosaur here.

Most folks here are Windows users, with some who are occassionally curious about Linux. I'm 180 degrees the opposite. I believe Linux is the way to go (for ME, at least), but I live in a Windows-based world (for the time being) and I need to keep up with Windows information for my Windows VM that I use on my Linux Host.

While I consider myself a "Linux guy", I think a more appropriate description would be that I'm an "appropriate tool for the job at hand guy"! While Linux gets it done for me almost always, there are indeed times that Windows is the appropriate tool for the job.

So while I'm happy to help others with Linux issues, I say "use whatever works for you." If you're aware of "other" options for computer software and you STiLL prefer Microsoft offerings, who am I to say you're wrong? Linux should definitely be in the toolbox though. Use what works for YOU!

 

Thank you Heddon James.
The information and instructions posted by you are invaluable. I have saved everything.

BTW UNetbootin is available for Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7. Here's a link for the download, with some instructions.

http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/

 

I really admire your dedication to and expertise in the use of Linux Hedon, but the reality is that in terms of market share it has been sliding for years, even against Microsoft, let alone Android and iOS, both of which have come from nowhere and completely eclipsed it, largely due to the explosive growth of smartphones and tablets. The marketing of Linux is laughable, almost like expecting Hindustani, with its myriad of regional variations, to become an international language. I can't see any future at all for it with consumers other than as an interesting diversion from the mainstream for a small minority of computer enthusiasts.

It's a great system that has no future.

 

Respectfully disagree. Linux continues to gain market share everywhere except the desktop. Android uses the Linux kernel; the majority of internet servers use a Linux OS; nearly every supercomputer in the world is a Linux machine; and the "internet of things" seems to be based on emedded Linux OS. Everywhere there is REAL work to be done, Linux is being used.

Except the desktop. The last I saw, Linux desktop was around 1-1.5% market share and that may be an aggressive estimate. That's okay though, as I don't care if its popular or not. I use it for its stabilty and security. It almost never crashes, and and the rare occassion when it does, it's typically a "freeze" limited to a program and not the entire OS. I can do nearly anything I use a computer for in Linux. And as long as it remains a small target, malware developers pretty much ignore it. I'm cool with that!

You are correct though that the marketing of Linux is horrible. I believe more people would use it if it was readily available in OEM machines, but OEMs are reluctant to put in on machines until there are more users. Catch 22...

I'm happy to help others discover and learn about Linux. And even though it continues to grow, I'm under no delusions about the lack of popularity. I'm no evangelist. If you like Linux...cool, I'm here to help. If you don't...that's cool too...thanks for checking it out, but if it isn't for you, it isn't for you.

I'm just grateful none of us here are Mac fanboys...they're convinced their (cr)Apple products are the best for EVERYONE! bwahaha!

Peace, out...

 

It was the desktop I was talking about, not internet servers or supercomputers. Linux as an operating system for PCs, phones and tablets is now nothing more than an interesting diversion for those bored with Windows and looking for something different to play with. It is no coincidence that what was once a thriving Linux community here now no longer exists. I'm sorry Hedon but that really is today's bottom line.

 

Much props & respect for you too, Earthling! But I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree, because I think we frame the argument from different perspectives.

If I would limit my definition of computing to a desktop experience, it would be hard to disagree with you about the current state of Linux being a hobbyist OS for the bored & curious. For the time being, you are correct, and it may always be that way on the desktop. I see Linux usage increasing, but even if it magically doubled overnight, it would only be a whopping 2-3% of users. Windows has such a monopolistic lead that it is likely insurmountable. But like I said before, I'm okay with that. While I do believe that Linux is a superior OS in most ways, I'm not an evangelist who imposes MY criteria over others. In a perfect world, I'd like to see Linux OS obtain a market share similar to OS X; large enough to matter, but still small enough to not attract malicious intentions.

Windows has such an insurmountably large market share that I think allows it to be somewhat lazy, stagnant & hubristic with development of new features. But while they've completely dominated the desktop, they just can't seem to make any progress on the server, tablet, phone, or embedded platforms; despite being the dominant player in the desktop arena while these other technologies were developed. Kind of unusual, IMO.

Linux has been the dominant OS for all of the other platforms, including tablets & smartphones. Very much like GNU user programs around a Linux kernel on the desktop, Android is basically a Java wrapper around a Linux kernel. So I consider it a linux distro; a DOMINANT distro in the mobile arena. And I'm starting to see the Chrome OS make inroads on the desktop. I don't think any OS will dis-lodge MS Windows as the dominant desktop OS (at least not in our lifetime), but I do hope that the proliferation of Linux OS in all other environments will cascade backwards a little into the desktop arena. Just enough to ensure that NO system has a monopoly, forcing ALL players to be more innovative and responsive to users. I don't know if we'll ever see that, as its still early days IMO, but that's what I hope for.

If that's where the desktop is headed, I'm ahead of the curve (a big "IF") and you have a leg up on the future with your Linux dabblings! Otherwise, I'm exactly what you described! Either way, it works for ME, as I've always tended to "zig" when everyone else "zags". So while I tend to agree with your argument, as you presented it, I disagree with the fundamental presentation of the argument.

The only thing you said that I would take any serious exception to is the statement "It is no coincidence that what was once a thriving Linux community here now no longer exists." 5-6 years ago, there was a thriving Linux forum on this board. You seem to conclude that the Linux forum disappeared due to lack of interest. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation! I submit there is a lack of interest in this site amongst Linux users, because the Linux forum was dissolved when the site was reorganized. As requested feedback of the site's new organization, I did point out to the site's ownership that the lack of a Linux forum made it very difficult to locate Linux-related support questions to assist. I was informed that Major Geeks is intended to be a Windows forum, with future emphasis on Android. I was disappointed, but I understand this is not my site and the owner's of this site have every right to establish their own rules. As a result of the Linux forum being dissolved, it appears that every former Linux user on MG has migrated to another site for Linux OS (myself included). I still come here, on occassion to learn about Windows stuff and to assist others like the OP of this thread (and when signalled via PM, like a Geek "Bat Signal").

But to conclude that the dissolution of a once-thriving Linux forum on MG is proof of a lack of users/interest would be akin to my Linux brethren on one of my other Linux forums concluding that Windows is defunct and Linux has won the desktop because no one on THAT forum posts Windows questions!

But with all that said, much props and respect for you Earthling. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I like you any less. You may end up being right; or I may end up being pretty close to the future of OS. But either way, we are HERE right NOW, with each of us choosing to use a computer OS that suits our chosen workflows on our machines. And that is the crux of what I advocate!!! Freedom of CHOICE!