Introduction and a question

[triple07]

Hello everyone I’ve been checking out Garuda Linux for awhile now and think I’m ready to make the jump. I did have a few questions I was hoping someone would be kind enough to answer for me before I embark on this journey.

A little bit about myself first: I’m a lifelong technology and computer user, been building computers with my dad since I was around 8 years old. Currently in my 30s so I’ve seen quite a bit of changes throughout the years (not as much as some you I would imagine though). I’ve been working in a non technical field for the last 10 years but finally decided to apply myself and get out of the career rut I have been in. I’m currently studying cybersecurity in order to change career paths. In my classes I have been more widely introduced to Linux and with the changes Microsoft is making to Windows I think it is time that I explore other options.

For the last year or so I have been running various Linux distros on my old laptop as the bloated Windows was just too much for it anymore. Mostly been running more lightweight distros like Linux Mint, MX Linux, antiX etc. Mostly have gotten used to Linux and am now in the process of moving my desktop over to Linux. So far I have mostly been using Arch based and other rolling release distros on my desktop. Gone through numerous iterations but currently I am running a setup with Windows on one NVME, one NVME for mass storage / gaming and a third NVME with EndeavourOS and openSUSE Tumbleweed split partition. As you can see I am very indecisive and like to experiment with different distros.

I would like to give Garuda a shot but I’m not ready to fully delete Windows or give up on my tinkering with additional distros. This brings me to the main reason I decided to make a post here first. I notice that on the installation recommendations it is listed to not try to dual boot Garuda Linux. Is this a recommendation as to avoid potential issues with people not understanding how bootloaders and managers work or is there other technical reasons for this recommendation? My current plan was to have a setup with: one NVME loaded with Windows, one NVME for storage and a final NVME for Garuda Linux. I would use the rEFInd boot manager to control which OS boots. I am aware of the issues with a “boot coup” as the rEFInd developer calls them where an OS changes the boot order when installing updates.

My question is: if I am willing and able to go in and manually fix potential bootloader issues caused by dualbooting from separate drives, is there another reason not to do this with Garuda? I have never messed with the GRUB bootloader but I am honestly interested in learning more about it should anything go awry.

Thanks for any advice you can give and I’m looking forward to joining this community!

PS: I know that in the topic submission it says to only ask one question per topic so feel free to ignore this one. I also noticed it recommends against using Flatpaks. Is this just because the AUR exists and would likely contain anything in the Flathub, or is there a more technical reason for this recommendation?

[BluishHumility]

@triple07

Is this a recommendation as to avoid potential issues with people not understanding how bootloaders and managers work

Yes, this is the reason. It is easy for inexperienced users to end up with misconfigured multi-boot setups, where one or all installations do not work for this reason or that one. Ideally these kinds of issues wouldn’t be hashed out here in the forum since they have nothing to do with Garuda Linux. The community is often willing to try to help with cases like this, but the official stance is multi-boot setups are unsupported.

@triple07

My current plan was to have a setup with: one NVME loaded with Windows, one NVME for storage and a final NVME for Garuda Linux. I would use the rEFInd boot manager to control which OS boots.

This seems like a good plan to me. The configuration you are describing will avoid many common issues people run into. I will say if you are planning for the “storage” device to be NTFS (so it is accessible from Windows), that would be the element in your setup most likely to cause you grief. But I would expect the bootloader configuration you are describing to work well.

I hope that helps, welcome to the community @triple07.

[triple07]

Thank you very much for the response! I am now up and running in Garuda. So far I am very impressed. Still customizing things to my liking but so far so good.

@BluishHumility

I will say if you are planning for the “storage” device to be NTFS (so it is accessible from Windows), that would be the element in your setup most likely to cause you grief.

It is currently formatted to NTFS as I have been using it on Windows. I had thought about this fact but figured this would be a problem for the future. Would exFAT be the preferred format for use with both Windows and Linux? Is there a better performing format that offers interoperability with Windows and Linux?

Thanks again for the warm welcome!

[BluishHumility]

@triple07

Would exFAT be the preferred format for use with both Windows and Linux?

Not necessarily. I guess there are pros and cons to either choice.

exFAT is well-supported and will generally provide trouble-free usage (and does not have the 4GB max file size which curses FAT32), but it is missing some fairly basic filesystem features like journaling and file permissions.

Without file permissions, every user or program has equal access to all files. That means essentially no access control for multi-user setups. If you are the only one who uses your computer, that may not be a deal breaker but it is still something to keep in mind.

No journaling means increased risk of data corruption. If you have a crash or sudden power loss, you can have files that are difficult or impossible to recover. You may need lengthy filesystem checks after a crash, which can take time and may not always succeed. Journaling filesystems handle these kinds of events more gracefully.

In general, NTFS has way better features than exFAT. It supports encryption, compression, symbolic links, has some self-healing properties, blah blah blah. Obviously some features are only supported on Windows, but the NTFS drivers on Linux have definitely gotten a lot better over the past many years.

@triple07

Is there a better performing format that offers interoperability with Windows and Linux?

I hate to say so, but I think the answer to this is “no”. It’s debatable of course, but despite all the problems it causes Linux folks I would say the best filesystem for sharing between both OS’s like you are doing will be NTFS.

A lot of aggravation with NTFS on Linux is caused by how Windows handles the disk. Windows doesn’t have to follow the same rules Linux does. Windows can sometimes leave NTFS drives in a state that Linux interprets as “dirty”. When the filesystem is marked as dirty, Linux will often mount the drive as read-only or will fail to mount it all together. Just learn how to avoid or deal with those situations and you should be fine.

• Be sure to disable fast startup from Windows. What Is “Fast Startup” Mode and How to Enable or Disable It? - MiniTool. This “feature” will leave the disk dirty every time you shut down, as well as cause other annoying issues.
• Read through the NTFS and NTFS-3G ArchWiki articles. They are not that long and have tons of good info for handling NTFS correctly.
• Make sure you get the mount options right in /etc/fstab. It may be useful to use noauto (so the disk is not automatically mounted), and then just mount it as-needed after the system is booted. That way you avoid having your computer fail to boot altogether if the NTFS disk refuses to mount for some reason.
• It is easy to damage the NTFS filesystem from Linux. Learn to use ntfsfix (see here). In cases where ntfsfix doesn’t work, you may need to boot to Windows and run chkdsk.

All in all, I think NTFS is a better choice than exFAT if you are willing to take the time to learn how to handle NTFS so as not to break it (and how to deal with it when you handle it correctly but it breaks anyway ).

[tbg]

If using ntfs-3g also be sure to use the windows_names flag in fstab as it helps prevent corruption of the ntfs file system. File names that violate the Windows naming conventions are often responsible for corruption of ntfs file systems.

The following option is specific to ntfs-3g only:

windows_names

prevents files, directories and extended attributes to be created with a name not allowed by windows.

Or better yet, bite the bullet and go Linux only. Then you’ll have no more worries about compatibility and file system corruption.

[triple07]

Thank you guys so much for the helpful information. I am reading through the Arch wiki on ntfs and ntfs-3g on the Arch Wiki. Lots of useful information here. I enjoy learning this kind of stuff and feel like it actually enhances my experience to try to get it to work like I want it. That being said in case anything breaks I won’t be putting anything of critical importance on it (or at least make sure I have it saved somewhere else if I do).

I feel like I may eventually take the plunge into Linux only, however, right now the school I am taking courses at heavily relies on Microsoft products which makes me nervous to not have access to a Windows machine if I need it.

Thanks again for your help and warm welcome!

[styphonthal]

I’m new at this, but I run dual boot on my wive’s laptop and on my personal PC.

I have had experience with this in the past (dual boot), and the main thing is having a boot USB on standby (or another computer that could make a boot USB). This is because they seem to break often, especially with Windows 11.

[Gquirt]

Another easy option would just be to install Windows and Linux on separate drives as you plan, but do all of the switching of OS from the UEFI menu. I did this for a while and never had any issues. Setup is basically nonexistent once the OSes are installed, but it is a bit more annoying to switch which you boot to.