[10:03] <thaurwylth> Different boot stick gives the Ubuntu Studio installation window, okay. But it immediately announced some three ACPI errors. Is this bad? Then there was the Ubuntu Studio logo and some loading for an amount of time. Now I get the Ubuntu Studio install welcome screen.
[10:05] <Limuxic> it's normal for acpi errors during a live ubuntu boot
[10:05] <thaurwylth> (See also yesterday around 17:00 UTC.)
[10:07] <thaurwylth> Hmmmm. Keyboard options are, among others, Finnish, Finnish with Win-keys, Finnish traditional, Finnish no dead keys. The system is a Thinkpad X240, it definitely has Windows specific keys. So, 'Finnish with Win-keys' would be good, no?
[10:09] <Limuxic> That I can't answer
[10:09] <Limuxic> But I would personally try a few
[10:24] <thaurwylth> Wait a moment... I am trying to manually partition/create filetables and the following happens: there is some amount of free space that I want to allocate to this project. I try to create a partition of less than that free space - I want to create another partition after that, so no using all of it at first. The partition is then created, but all the remaining space becomes 'invalid' instead of 'free (or unallocated)' ...
[10:24] <thaurwylth> ... and cannot be chosen to be partitioned further. Is this some sort of known problem, feature, whatever?
[10:25] <thaurwylth> I chose 'primary' instead of 'logical' because that's how it used to be done long time ago. Is it due to this? Not due to this?
[10:32] <Limuxic> I am not sure why this happens, but definitely try 'logical' and see what happens
[10:35] <thaurwylth> Let's see... ...
[10:44] <thaurwylth> It worked as logical. What is the difference in there? Is something supposed to work or not work as primary or logical? I mean, there is probably a difference?
[10:47] <Limuxic> Not sure... windows needs to use the primary, Linux can get on any... but the bios will only recognize up to 4 primary partitions, I think...
[10:49] <thaurwylth> Yeah, I asked part of that question again referred to ##linux and that's kind of what they're telling me.
[11:11] <thaurwylth> So far everything seems to be working out OK.
[11:19] <thaurwylth> How big system footprints people tend to have on their hard disks OUTSIDE OF /home ? That is, something that would be of old called the size of / but I'm not taking any stance on how a disk has to be organized today. I also understand that it's an ill posed and open ended question. But I was simply curious on how much Ubuntu Studio uses disk on some people's use cases.
[11:20] <thaurwylth> Right now I would have about 35 GB available for that. Is this an amount that is never going to be filled? Or perhaps it will if I get a huge amount of video editing and CAD related extra stuff?
[11:47] <Limuxic> To try the system, 35gb is ok.  I use 1tb regularly.
[11:54] <Limuxic> It's a good idea to have the / and /home partitions separated
[11:55] <Limuxic> That way, an upgrade would theoretically be without errors, as the upgrade files will be changed on /, while all the documents will stay on /home
[12:14] <thaurwylth> I actually, have a historically based hot take on that... But let that pass. What do you use 1 TB for? I mean, I am assuming that most of FILES to work on would be on /home , right?
[12:16] <Limuxic> I use 1tb mainly for the audio and video files. I record on 96000Hz, as it gets me a nice depth on the audio recordings
[12:18] <thaurwylth> Anyways, right now I have a 35 GB / and a 15 GB /home on a dual booting laptop. I decided to try Ubuntu Studio on it because, I don't know, maybe I decide I need some of the low latency something something media capabilities for mysterious reasons in the future.
[16:41] <OvenWerks> Limuxic: 96K gives depth? really? Mandatory reading for audio engineers: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html and videos to go with it: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
[16:47] <OvenWerks> 96k uses twice the disk space, twice the processing power, Allows half the tracks... oh and adds distortion to the final product in almost all reproduction systems.
[20:17] <studio-user223> Hi
[22:25] <thaurwylth> The boot menu has low-latency boot and a regular boot. Because the regular one is available, I'm starting to think that it has to have some sort of use. Will it be the case that the low-latency environment is not good for everything? Are there basic programs that don't run in the low-latency environment?
[22:39] <OvenWerks> thaurwylth: The regular boot message under the lowlatency is likely the same kernel as the lowlatency
[22:40] <thaurwylth> Oh, I see. Duh.
[22:40] <OvenWerks> The only time it would not be is if you install a generic kernel and it happens to be the youngest kernel in the system
[22:40] <Eickmeyer> Going into Ubuntu (Advanced Options) will let you pick from lowlatency or generic if you have both installed.
[22:41] <OvenWerks> The reason it shows up at all is because the way we used to force the lowlatency to always be first does not replace the file that puts it there but rather adds to it.