David Busby wrote:
> I'm in the boat with the folks who say read the manual and such.
Then you're on the wrong boat. It appalls me the level of software
quality that some people will not only put up with, but defend. I say
this as a software engineer, myself. If someone came to me and pointed
Edward Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about I freely admit that Kickstart should not erase drives you've
> explicitly told it not to.
Sounds good to me.
> You're right. It shouldn't.
> But please have a think about things you shouldn't do. Seriously, when
> we get PCs in here for re-i
> I already said "mea culpa" to the department head and she said "mea
> culpa" for not backing up her computer. (Fortunately, there was nothing
> particularly important on the computer.) Now it's time for Red Hat to
> say "mea culpa" about having a flaw in their software and to fix it, and
> fo
)
http://www.amanda.org/ (Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver)
man cron (Schedule something to happen)
/B
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 14:01
Subject: R
Ward William E DLDN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug, I've read these messages and I've come to a conclusion: You are
> one of those people who screws up, and then says "I'm the innocent
> victim! It's somebody else's fault!"
I don't claim to be any sort of "innocent victim" -- I have merely
no
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Remove all existing partitions"
>
>
> Emmanuel Seyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> &
Emmanuel Seyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It could start by not zeroing partitions on disk drives uninvolved in
> > the OS installation, since there is no reason for it to do that.
> This is the part where I don't follow you. If partitions have not
> been created, how is the kickstart progr
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:03:25AM -0500, Douglas Alan wrote:
>
> It could start by not zeroing partitions on disk drives uninvolved in
> the OS installation, since there is no reason for it to do that.
This is the part where I don't follow you.
If partitions have not been created, how is the kic
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Douglas Alan wrote:
> > 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
Edward Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I said that I cannot imagine a case where "I would want all partitions
> > on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install". Despite your
> > claims, I still would never want all partitions on all disk drives to be
> > removed during an OS insta
> I said that I cannot imagine a case where "I would want all partitions
> on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install". Despite your
> claims, I still would never want all partitions on all disk drives to be
> removed during an OS install. Not for the two cases that you provided
> (#2
Douglas Alan wrote:
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
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In fact, I explicitly told Kickstart to *only* make partitions on
> > the boot disk drive. It has no good reason to mess with the
> > partition tables of disk drives that it is not putting partitions
> > onto.
> You're evadng the point.
No, I am
Douglas Alan wrote:
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a mighty literal interpretation of "all" when it comes to
valuable data. I can't imagine any circumstance when I would want all
partitions on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install,
1. You get a Windows computer f
us reasonable
people.
Any view counter to this view is wrong, regardless of whether someone
may happen to hold such a counter view. Furthermore, there would never
be any advantage to removing partitions on a disk drive uninvolved in
the OS install. No software should ever behave in a way that has n
ld Kickstart to *only* make partitions on the boot
> disk drive. It has no good reason to mess with the partition tables of
> disk drives that it is not putting partitions onto.
In your view yes, in my view no. Just seeing the words "Remove all
existing partitions", immediately me
Anthony E. Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Douglas Alan wrote:
>>> I haven't used kickstart myself but I would expect it to remove all
>>> partitions on all disks if you told it to remove all existing
>>> partitions ..
>> That's a mig
Douglas Alan wrote:
I haven't used kickstart myself but I would expect it to remove all
partitions on all disks if you told it to remove all existing
partitions ..
That's a mighty literal interpretation of "all" when it comes to
valuable data. I can't imagine any circu
nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
> > existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
> > disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
> I haven
Douglas Alan said:
> Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
> existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
> disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
I haven't used kickstart myself but I
Umm, if I had, err, by chance, configured Kickstart to "remove all
existing partitions", it wouldn't happen to remove all partitions on ALL
disk drives, would it, and not just the boot disk drive?
And if it would, is there any way that I might recover them? (The ones
on the ot
21 matches
Mail list logo
