The point is that in those cases, kickstart's behavior would be entirely reasonable.
No it wouldn't. It is never reasonable to destroy large amounts of data without being quite sure that that is what the user wants.
If that were true, then 'rm -i' would be default behavior, and the '-f' option would not exist. Clearly, there are situations when the user is expected to know what they're doing. I think that creating an automated Linux install config is one of those situations. You don't.
Kickstart is a non-interactive environment, isn't it? How is it supposed to interact with you to confirm your instructions?
I have never done this kind of automated installation *precisely* because I did not want the installation routine to make decisions for me.
Now you are making no sense at all. First of all, Kickstart does nothing that the interactive Red Hat installer doesn't do. The exact same issue comes up in the interactive installer. Are you saying that you don't use the Red Hat installer at all?
No. I was talking about what I want. Not what I put with. I take actions to make the situation conform to my wants, limited by the amount of time/effort I'm willing to invest. In this case, I'm willing to invest the time/effort to run an interactive install so that I can hae more control over what's happening.
This is not limited to partioning. It includes package selection and security settings too.
Furthermore, you say that you won't use Kickstart because it "makes decsisons for you". I stand here saying that it should't make decisions for you. You disagree with me and say that it *should* make those decisions for you,
I said no such thing. What I said was that it's action was reasonable, given the assumptions it works under.
Even if your characterizations of my comments were correct, your characterizations assert an inconsistency where none exists. Here are the points you attribute to me:
1. I don't use kickstart because it makes decisions for you.
2. Kickstart should make decisions for you.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. They make just as much sense as:
1. I don't buy cars with automatic transmission because they make
shifting decisions for you. 2. Automatic transmissions are supposed to make shifting decisions for
you.> and then you go on to say that you won't use it
because it works the way that you say it should work. What kind of sense is that supposed to make?
What you're saying doesn't makes sense, probably because you're paraphrasing me and mangling the intent of my posts.
It seems we look at this from different perspectives.
Yes, from the right perspective and from the wrong perspective.
Well, that just sums it up doesn't it?
Tony -- Anthony E. Greene <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/> Linux. The choice of a GNU generation. <http://www.linux.org/>
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
