On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Steve Frampton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, rpjday wrote:
>
> > arrrrggghh! because, as i recall, you asked for a "server" install, no?
>
> Er...
>
> > if something is going to be a server, that suggests it is going to be a
> > 24x7 box, never to be dual-booted. hence, the complete wiping of the
> > disks and everything on them.
>
> Huh? Why? I have a pretty nice Alpha box here, which has a RAID unit
> attached with about 24 Gb of user space. Until now, it has been an
> Digital Unix "Tru64" database server, but has been retired from that
> purpose.
then, according to red hat's definition (which is the only one that
counts), it's not a "server" any more. (more on this later. keep
reading if you want to know why.)
>
> Had Vidiot not screamed loud and hard about the problems with the
> installation routine, Red Hat "Server" install would have not only wiped
> out Digital Unix on the system disk (good thing), but all 24 Gb of user
> data as well (BAAAAD thing).
>
> I agree 100% with Vidiot on this -- there should be an option to choose
> between "automatic" and "manual" partitioning.
i hate doing this, but i'm going to try to clarify a couple of points
in this whole discussion. the main reason that this discussion is
dragging on is because the main participants don't realize that
they're arguing two distinct issues and are continually getting
them confused.
first, let's establish something up front: yes, red hat's install
process could be improved. as numerous people have pointed out,
the standard red hat install procedure could be clearer, more
powerful, more flexible, give the user more choices, etc, etc.
everyone recognizes this, and many people have already made
lots of suggestions about how to do this. so there's no debating
this point.
however, vidiot is making a totally different claim: that red hat's
install process is *disastrously* *flawed*, to the point that it
cost him years worth of work. and as we've already established,
this is complete nonsense.
vidiot's disaster is not a consequence of a flawed red hat installation
program -- it is a result of numerous incredibly bad decisions on
vidiot's part, including (but not limited to) getting a new release
of the OS from a friend without the docs, refusing to read the
easily available docs and assuming that he knows what's going to
happen, selecting (if i recall correctly) a "server" install,
ignoring the glaring warning about what's about to happen,
and (most incredibly) doing something as significant as an install/
upgrade without having done a valid backup in years. how this
can be interpreted as red hat's fault is beyond me.
yes, the install process can be made better. is it awkward?
sometimes. is it inconvenient. sometimes. can it be made more
powerful? undoubtedly. is it fatally flawed? in my opinion, no.
and the frustration in this ongoing dialogue is a result of
confusing the first issues with the last issue. vidiot seems to
think that any admission that the red hat install process can be
improved vindicates him. wrong. what vidiot did, he brought upon
himself.
now, as to this "server" definition. as i read it, when you select
a "server" type install, this will (currently) wipe *all* of your
disks. some people object to this. your objections are misplaced.
one definition of a server is a machine that is up 24x7. based on
this definition, there is no justification for anything else to
be on the hard drive. this may be just one definition of the
word, but it is the definition that red hat is apparently using.
if you don't like it, too bad -- it's red hat's product, it's their
docs, and if they choose to define it this way, that's their
business AS LONG AS THEY DEFINE CLEARLY WHAT THAT MEANS. which
they do.
you can argue they should have used a different word. fine.
they could call it a "virgin" install. or a "complete wipe"
install. or, for that matter, a "veeblefetz" install, as long
as they define what that means. which they do, up front and
in big letters, with accompanying warnings. you, as the user,
have a responsibility to not select a "server" install unless
you know what *red hat* means by that, and they explain it pretty
clearly. the fact that you would prefer a different definition
is not relevant.
so, yes, we can all take potshots at the red hat install process.
god knows, i have. but there's a huge difference with pointing out
areas of improvement, and claiming that it is hideously, fatally
broken. which is why this discussion is being dragged out as
long as it has been.
rday
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
