Tim Hockin wrote:
>
> > > You cant blame RedHat for your ignorance.
> >
> > I can when previous installations gave the user an out or the ability
> > to define which disks get used. This install was a step backwards.
> > As pointed out by other posters, an installation should never do what it
> > did.
> >
> > Let's close this thread and let RedHat decide internally if they are going
> > to fix this or not.
>
> just my last pipe-in. I don't think ignorance caused this problem. I
> think having any install that modifies disks OTHER THAN the disks you
> direct it at is wrong. Very often I'll do an install, but want to keep my
> /home volume. do I then have to physically disconnect it to keep it? That
> is poor design of the installer.
He chose a "server" install, which does not allow the user to direct it at a
disk. The custom install allows the user to make choices; the others don't.
It's really very simple. In effect the install script asked him if he wanted
to control the install (custom) or let the install script make choices for
him (workstation or server). He decided to let the script do it for him,
then he got upset when he found he didn't agree with the choices.
I sympathize, but it's not Red Hat's fault.
Tony
--
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Homepage & PGP Key <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/>
If it's too good to be true, it's probably Linux.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
