suggestions for triple boot

I have a Lenovo R61 14.1" with discrete graphics (nVidia Quadros 140M) Q8300, 4GB RAM, 500GB hard drive, fingerprint reader, etc.

I've broken up the hard drive as follows currently:
100GB Windows 7 (currently installed)
250GB Storage (formatted for NTFS, meant for cross-OS usage)
115GB open space (unpartitioned)

I plan on installing Ubuntu 9.04 (or waiting until 9.10) as well as Arch Linux onto the 115GB open space.

The question I have is, if i were to share my /home directory between arch and ubuntu, how big should i make it

my impression is that i should make a third primary partition for /home, then 4 logicals (1 swap, 1 /boot, and then 2 /, one for each OS)

Is this correct? In addition, what should the breakdown be for partition size?

I am considering the following for the partition breakdown:

100GB Windows Primary NTFS
250GB Storage Primary NTFS
52GB /home Primary ext3 (or ext4)
3GB swap Logical swap
30GB / for Ubuntu Logical ext3 (or ext4)
30GB / for Arch Logical ext3 (or ext4)
100MB /boot Logical boot

This comes out to the 465GB that the "500GB" drive actually is.

Is this right if I were to triple boot, also, what should be the install order between Arch and Ubuntu?

 

You don't want to share your home directory. Too much can go wrong. Also, Arch and Ubuntu are different enough that you wouldn't want to do it.

Also, why does every poster want to use Ubuntu (aka Crapbuntu) as their main distro?

I find that there are many critics who bring up a lot of good points. I find that a friggin' Thinkpad can use any distro and any developmental/beta/Alpha distro EXCEPT Ubuntu (9.10). To me, that is amazing. People say Ubuntu is different than Windoze but I perceive it differently. It is almost as if Ubuntu is trying to take things over. They are ALWAYS doing things differently and interfering everywhere in the Linux world. I have heard enough critics bash it and I always used to defend it but I find it difficult to do now.

 

I would not share a /home as would be messy and lead to conflicts in common config files.

 

puter1, can you give suggestions to an alternative instead of ubuntu? i've used ubuntu before and found it fairly easy to set up and use, so i decided to stay with it after i got a bigger hard drive. should i just share a swap drive between the two distros then?

 

Stick with Ubuntu if you know it. There's no better supported distribution. However, go to distrowatch.com and see if something else floats your boat. They all have pro's and con's.

 

I liked Ubuntu too but my lappy didn't so I chose Crunchbang Linux. It's based on Ubuntu but with Openbox and other changes. I love it. Since you are using Arch, it could work for you, as crunchbang is a step up from ubuntu.

 

what suggestions would you have for install order between arch and ubuntu/crunchbang? should I install arch first then ubuntu and use ubuntu's grub as boot manager, or other way around and arch linux's grub as moot manager?

In other words, which grub has an easier time recognizing that i will have 2 existing OSes installed?

 

ktang, you can try Live CDs and DVDs to see how they are on your laptop.

I think I might install Debian on mine after I upgrade my laptop (drive and RAM).

Is Arch using Grub 2 yet? I have no idea about Arch as I don't use it but hear good things about it.

It looks like you'll have a lot of partitions. I would plan it out before installing.

 

i know how arch and ubuntu are, which is why i want to install them onto my hard drive.

my question is which should i install first, ubuntu or arch?

does anyone have suggestions?

 

Ubuntu is very good at recognizing other OS's, I would install Ubuntu LAST and Windows FIRST

 

i have already installed windows, so that's taken care of.

would you suggest installing arch and then ubuntu, but on separate partitions and sharing nothing in common, not even swap?

 

You can share swap but NOT if you want to suspend/hibernate to disk.

What is your strategy for the boot loader(s)?

 

Yes...I wouldn't share anything. Install Ubuntu LAST