Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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
out how a program that I designed or implemented did not behave
reasonably, I would never have the attitude you show.  Let me ask, just
what motivates you to defend poor design decisions?  What advantage do
you think this attitude brings to the world?

And just pray tell, what advantage do you think there is in the
installer clearing all partitions on the computer, rather than just the
ones on disk drives involved in the OS install?  There isn't even an
option in the Kickstart Configurator to do what one would want to do 99%
of the time, which is to clear partitions only on the disk drives
involved in the OS install.

And for the record, the manual is no clearer about the issue than is the
gui interface of which I complain.

> That said I would like to let you know that in the computer world 1=1
> and 0=0 and 1!=0.

That would be true in just about any world, and is a complete
nonsequitor.

> What that means is a phrase like "remove all partitions" means exactly
> that, while "remove all partions on disk Alpha" would only affect the
> Alpha disk.

Well, then, while it's at it, why doesn't it go and remove the paritions
on all the drives on the network too?  After all, all is all.

Also, there is no option in the Kickstart Configurator to limit the
partition clearing to only the disk drives you specify, while there
*are* options for limiting which disk drives will have filesystems
placed on them.  A *reasonable* installer would limit the partition
clearing to the same disk drives that partition placement is limitted
to.  This really isn't rocket science -- it's just common sense.  (And
as a matter of fact, I do work on rocket science, so I know a thing or
two about robust software.)

Let me ask you a question: In your entire life have you *ever* seen an
OS installer (other than Red Hat's) that would delete partitions on all
disk drives, including ones uninvolved in the OS installation?  Well, I
haven't.  Not in 26 years of being pretty heavily involved in installing
OS'es.  So, yes I agree that there is a well-understood convention for
how OS installation typically works, and no it doesn't typically work as
you say it does.

> You will hear many many times to RTFM or RTFB and you must do that.

TaFFaaRD.

> In the GNU/Linux world applications assume you know what you are
> doing, in Windows applications assume you don't (thus the prompts).

I really don't need a lecture on the difference between Linux and
Windows.  I've been happily using Unix for 25 years.

> To help get you started on backups check out:
> man tarTape Archiver
> man gzip   Compressor
> man rsync  Remote Sync (awesome!)
> http://www.amanda.org/   (Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver)
> man cron (Schedule something to happen)

Puleaze.  I'm the person who set up and has babysit Amanda here for the
last 5 years.  I can issue complex tar command in my sleep.  The fact
that an organization can and should have backups is no excuse for
software to treat data recklessly.

Also, when you figure out how to easily and thoroughly backup many
terrabytes of data within a rather limitted budget even with these tools
please do tell me.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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-installs we explicitly state we will not
> guarantee and data on the PC will be intact. That's not being overly
> careful, that's 20 years of experience (yes, since 83) of realizing
> anything can happen and usually does.

Oh, I understand all this too well.  As usual Murphy was present and
everything did go wrong: First of all the CD-ROM drive on the computer
turned out to be broken, so I had to scrounge up a replacement before I
could use the upgrade CD-ROM's.  Then the Red Hat updater made the
system unbootable, rather than updating it.  So then I had to scrounge
up a replacement hard drive, so that I could do a fresh install without
deleting data on the existing disk drives.  Then the floppy drive turned
out to be broken when I went to use the Kickstart config floppy.  So
then I had to scrounge up a replacement floppy drive.  And then
Kickstart zeroed the partition tables on *all* of the disk drives. Then
the Red Hat installer didn't properly configure either the video card or
the ethernet card.

And during all this, I'm really supposed to be working on an imminent
software deadline, not working on any of this.

> HOWEVER, before we start on a PC, we always Ghost the entire image
> onto the network. Just to be sure.

That is a very good idea.  Alas, I didn't have free space anywhere.  I
should have just unplugged the other disk drives before doing the
install.  But I just wasn't being paranoid enough, I suppose, because in
26 years of experience doing this, I've never before seen an OS
installer clear partitions on other disk drives, much less as some sort
of default behavior.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Edward Dekkers]

> 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
> for you to say "mea culpa" for not listening to reason.
>
> |>oug

I'm not going to write an essay here Doug.

How about I freely admit that Kickstart should not erase drives you've
explicitly told it not to.

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-installs we explicitly state we will not guarantee
and data on the PC will be intact. That's not being overly careful, that's
20 years of experience (yes, since 83) of realizing anything can happen and
usually does. HOWEVER, before we start on a PC, we always Ghost the entire
image onto the network. Just to be sure. Sure, it can take a while on large
hard disks, but once the imaging is set up, again, I just leave it running
and come back to it when finished. Total real 'hands on' time for me to
image the drive is 5 minutes tops.

For me, just not worth the aggravation or dissappoinment of the customer.

So, to sum up - "Yes - the software should be fixed. It is wrong the way it
is. No - we can never rely on our tools and it's only our smarts that
prevent accidents from occuring"

Now, I think that is a very fair compromise, so that will be the last I
contribute to this thread.

Thanks for the discussion.

Regards,

---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L




-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[David Busby]

Doug,
I'm in the boat with the folks who say read the manual and such.  That
said I would like to let you know that in the computer world 1=1 and 0=0 and
1!=0.  What that means is a phrase like "remove all partitions" means
exactly that, while "remove all partions on disk Alpha" would only affect
the Alpha disk.  This means there is no bug in the software.  Other more
"user friendly" software provide prompts because people don't read
carefully, I guess that means the bug is with STDIN of the user?  You will
hear many many times to RTFM or RTFB and you must do that.  In the GNU/Linux
world applications assume you know what you are doing, in Windows
applications assume you don't (thus the prompts).

To help get you started on backups check out:
man tarTape Archiver
man gzip   Compressor
man rsync  Remote Sync (awesome!)
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: Re: "Remove all existing partitions"


> 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
> noticed the hard way a significant flaw in a piece of software and I
> have reported the problem, in the hopes that the warning might help
> others avoid the same snafu and in the hopes that the software will
> eventually be fixed.  (I'm not the only person by the way, who has been
> bit by this issue.  An Google search reveals quite a few others.)
>
> That there are people who instead of saying, "Thank you for the heads
> up", and who insist on defending incorrect behavior in important
> software, and to those who are completely unhelpful and feel compelled
> to do nothing more than publicly scold me about doing backups, hey, more
> power to you.  You keep me entertained at the folly of ever assuming
> that your fellow human being is likely to actually be any more
> reasonable than buggy software.  Just remind me never to give you my
> computer to install an OS on, since apparently you would think that it
> is okay to wipe all my disks, even ones upon which the OS is not being
> installed, and then blame it on me for not telling you not to do that.
>
> > Flat out, you are WRONG with your constant ragging about how Kickstart
> > is messed up; you didn't know what you were doing (because you thought
> > you did, and didn't read the Man pages or the docs to confirm it
> > worked the way you thought) and decided that since YOU wanted it to
> > work in a certain way, it MUST work that way.
>
> I never said how it MUST work.  I said how it SHOULD work.  Things often
> don't work the way they should.  Caveat emptor.  Just because things
> don't always work they should, doesn't mean that one shouldn't point out
> when they don't.
>
> > I'm about to be in the EXACT scenario you are mentioning, except for
> > one thing: I need the drive to install the OS on to /dev/hdb, not
> > /dev/hda.  I have machines that already have an OS installed, and on
> > THOSE machines, Linux is a guest in a dual boot system.  By >YOUR<
> > rational, if I try to tell kickstart to build these systems, it'll
> > blitz /dev/hda and leave /dev/hdb alone.
>
> I never said any such thing.
>
> > Nope, not the right answer.  I want it to install to /dev/hdb, and not
> > /dev/hda, so I need to tell it not to blitz the drives, and to install
> > to /dev/hdb.
>
> Right.  Kickstart has an option to tell it to preserve Windows
> partitions, making what you want to do easy.  In that regard, Kickstart
> did things right.  I commend the authors.
>
> > By configuring it BEFORE I start, with knowledge of EXACTLY what I
> > want it to do.  Kickstart is only as intelligent as the person who set
> > up the kickstart file.
>
> So, now you are saying I'm not intelligent?
>
> > On the other hand, in a few months, I'm going to want it to blitz a
> > different group of machines entirely; erase every drive, mount the
> > root drive, and allow me to come back later and mount the newly
> > slicked drives (variable to each machine, in that case) where I want
> > them for data (using LVM, I'll probably make them one spanned disk).
>
> And having it 

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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
noticed the hard way a significant flaw in a piece of software and I
have reported the problem, in the hopes that the warning might help
others avoid the same snafu and in the hopes that the software will
eventually be fixed.  (I'm not the only person by the way, who has been
bit by this issue.  An Google search reveals quite a few others.)

That there are people who instead of saying, "Thank you for the heads
up", and who insist on defending incorrect behavior in important
software, and to those who are completely unhelpful and feel compelled
to do nothing more than publicly scold me about doing backups, hey, more
power to you.  You keep me entertained at the folly of ever assuming
that your fellow human being is likely to actually be any more
reasonable than buggy software.  Just remind me never to give you my
computer to install an OS on, since apparently you would think that it
is okay to wipe all my disks, even ones upon which the OS is not being
installed, and then blame it on me for not telling you not to do that.

> Flat out, you are WRONG with your constant ragging about how Kickstart
> is messed up; you didn't know what you were doing (because you thought
> you did, and didn't read the Man pages or the docs to confirm it
> worked the way you thought) and decided that since YOU wanted it to
> work in a certain way, it MUST work that way.

I never said how it MUST work.  I said how it SHOULD work.  Things often
don't work the way they should.  Caveat emptor.  Just because things
don't always work they should, doesn't mean that one shouldn't point out
when they don't.

> I'm about to be in the EXACT scenario you are mentioning, except for
> one thing: I need the drive to install the OS on to /dev/hdb, not
> /dev/hda.  I have machines that already have an OS installed, and on
> THOSE machines, Linux is a guest in a dual boot system.  By >YOUR<
> rational, if I try to tell kickstart to build these systems, it'll
> blitz /dev/hda and leave /dev/hdb alone.

I never said any such thing.

> Nope, not the right answer.  I want it to install to /dev/hdb, and not
> /dev/hda, so I need to tell it not to blitz the drives, and to install
> to /dev/hdb.

Right.  Kickstart has an option to tell it to preserve Windows
partitions, making what you want to do easy.  In that regard, Kickstart
did things right.  I commend the authors.

> By configuring it BEFORE I start, with knowledge of EXACTLY what I
> want it to do.  Kickstart is only as intelligent as the person who set
> up the kickstart file.

So, now you are saying I'm not intelligent?

> On the other hand, in a few months, I'm going to want it to blitz a
> different group of machines entirely; erase every drive, mount the
> root drive, and allow me to come back later and mount the newly
> slicked drives (variable to each machine, in that case) where I want
> them for data (using LVM, I'll probably make them one spanned disk).

And having it automatically "slick" all the drives in the computer is
really going to save you *any* significant amount of time, considering
that each such slicked drive is going to require manual configuration
later?

> Different criteria.  But >I< need to figure out exactly what I want
> with kickstart... it'll do it, but only if I tell it exactly how.  And
> who knows, I might be able to figure out a way to get LVM to create
> the spanned volume in kickstart without knowing a priori what drives
> and sizes are available... which means I wouldn't even need to do the
> LVM by hand.

Well, now *that* would be a valid reason to have Kickstart erase all
partitions on the computer.  Of course, I did not tell Kickstart to make
an LVM spanning all disk drives.  I told it quite specifically to only
make filesystems on hda.

> A tool is only as good as the person wielding it; in this case, you
> need to admit the truth and say "Mea Culpa".

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
for you to say "mea culpa" for not listening to reason.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

RE: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Ward William E DLDN]

> -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:
> 
> > > 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 program supposed to know which
> > drives are involved in the installation and which ones are not?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your confusion -- the answer to this is
> obvious: Clearly Kickstart knows which disk drives it is going to put
> partitions onto before it does so.  Such is a logical 
> requirement, or it
> would never be able to issue the "mkfs" command that actually does the
> work of creating a new filesystem.  All Kickstart has to do to behave
> properly here is to refrain from issuing an "fdisk" command 
> for the very
> same disk drives for which it refrains from issuing "mkfs" commands.
> 
> Furthermore, in the specific case we were talking about, I told
> Kickstart to put partitions *only* on hda.  Therefore, it knew well in
> advance that the only drive involved in the installation was hda.

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!"  Flat out, you are WRONG with
your constant ragging about how Kickstart is messed up; you didn't
know what you were doing (because you thought you did, and didn't
read the Man pages or the docs to confirm it worked the way you thought) 
and decided that since YOU wanted it to work in a certain way, it MUST 
work that way.

I'm about to be in the EXACT scenario you are mentioning, except for
one thing:  I need the drive to install the OS on to /dev/hdb, not
/dev/hda.  I have machines that already have an OS installed, and
on THOSE machines, Linux is a guest in a dual boot system.  By >YOUR<
rational, if I try to tell kickstart to build these systems, it'll
blitz /dev/hda and leave /dev/hdb alone.  Nope, not the right answer.
I want it to install to /dev/hdb, and not /dev/hda, so I need to tell
it not to blitz the drives, and to install to /dev/hdb.  By configuring
it BEFORE I start, with knowledge of EXACTLY what I want it to do.
Kickstart is only as intelligent as the person who set up the kickstart
file.

On the other hand, in a few months, I'm going to want it to blitz
a different group of machines entirely; erase every drive, mount the
root drive, and allow me to come back later and mount the newly
slicked drives (variable to each machine, in that case) where I
want them for data (using LVM, I'll probably make them one spanned
disk).  Different criteria.  But >I< need to figure out exactly
what I want with kickstart... it'll do it, but only if I tell it
exactly how.  And who knows, I might be able to figure out a way
to get LVM to create the spanned volume in kickstart without knowing
a priori what drives and sizes are available... which means I wouldn't
even need to do the LVM by hand.

A tool is only as good as the person wielding it; in this case, you
need to admit the truth and say "Mea Culpa".



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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 program supposed to know which
> drives are involved in the installation and which ones are not?

I'm not sure I understand your confusion -- the answer to this is
obvious: Clearly Kickstart knows which disk drives it is going to put
partitions onto before it does so.  Such is a logical requirement, or it
would never be able to issue the "mkfs" command that actually does the
work of creating a new filesystem.  All Kickstart has to do to behave
properly here is to refrain from issuing an "fdisk" command for the very
same disk drives for which it refrains from issuing "mkfs" commands.

Furthermore, in the specific case we were talking about, I told
Kickstart to put partitions *only* on hda.  Therefore, it knew well in
advance that the only drive involved in the installation was hda.

> > Other improvements might be for it to put up a splash screen at the very
> > beginning of the process, detailing exactly what the installer is going
> > to do, which disk drives it is going to muck with, and which partitions
> > it is going to destory, and then ask the user to type "confirm" or
> > somesuch.

> This sounds a lot like the procedure you go through when you abstain
> from telling kickstart to wipe out the partitions.

First of all, it is completely different, because you might generate a
Kickstart config a year before actually using it; the person running
Kickstart might be a completely different person from the person who
configured it; and you might run the same Kickstart config harmlessly on
a hundred computers, and then on the hundred and first it might be run
on a different hardware config where where the result of its execution
would be quite detrimental.  (For instance, it might be run a hundred
times to upgrade a hundred desktop workstations, and then later it might
be run on the departmental fileserver that has 100 disk drives on it.  I
bet most people would like to have some sort of explicit reminder that
their OS installer will wipe all the data on 99 disk drives as a
side-effect of installing the OS onto one of the disk drives.)

Furthermore, Kickstart needs to be able to reset the partition tables on
drives that *are* involved in the OS install, so I would hardly wish to
tell it not to.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Emmanuel Seyman]

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 kickstart program
supposed to know which drives are involved in the installation and
which ones are not?

> Other improvements might be for it to put up a splash screen at the very
> beginning of the process, detailing exactly what the installer is going
> to do, which disk drives it is going to muck with, and which partitions
> it is going to destory, and then ask the user to type "confirm" or
> somesuch.

This sounds a lot like the procedure you go through when you abstain
from telling kickstart to wipe out the partitions.

Emmanuel



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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 not exist.

"rm -i" would never be the default in a good operating system because
endlessly nagging the user is completely the wrong approach to making
good resilient software.  On the other hand, no modern operating system
would be designed so that the standard file delete command permanently
deletes files without an opportunity to undo the delete.  We are stuck
with this in Unix for historical reasons.  Regarding "-f", it should
definitely be a more verbose option.  The reason that it isn't, is again
historical.

> 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.

Please don't completely mischaracterize everything I have said.  I
haven't said anything like the the user shouldn't be expected to know
what he is doing.

The people who operate a nuclear power plant should know what they are
doing, right?  Does that mean that one wrong flicked switch should cause
the plant to instantly melt down?

> Kickstart is a non-interactive environment, isn't it? How is it
> supposed to interact with you to confirm your instructions?

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.

Other improvements might be for it to put up a splash screen at the very
beginning of the process, detailing exactly what the installer is going
to do, which disk drives it is going to muck with, and which partitions
it is going to destory, and then ask the user to type "confirm" or
somesuch.  But I'm happy to start with small improvements first, like
merely not zeroing partition tables on disk drives uninvolved in the OS
installation.

>>> 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.

The Red Hat interactive installer gives you no more or no less control
over what's happening than the Kickstart installer.  Both present you
with almost exactly the same set of options.

> > 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.

Well, then, you are wrong on that assertion.  The behavior that I am
complaing about in the Red Hat installer -- that it zeroes the partition
tables of disk drives uninvolved in the installation -- is wrong
behavior.  It is indefensible and should be fixed.

> 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.

You forgot to add your third claim:
 
 3. And because they make shifting decisions for you, don't whine
when you get on the Autobahn and the automatic transmission
decides to floor it for you until you're going 180 mph.

Just because an automatic transmission makes shifting decisions for you,
does not mean that those shifting decisions are beyond the scope of
engineering criticism.  In fact, they most surely are within such
scope.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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 install.  Not for the two cases that you provided
> > (#2 of which is true for me all of the time, by the way), nor for any
> > case.

> But I will tell you a case where I love the fact Kickstart will kill
> everything.

> Unattended installs - exactly what I think Kickstart was designed for.

There's no reason for Kickstart to zero the partition tables on disk
drives uninvolved in the OS installation, whether the install is
attended or not.

> It can't be very unattended if I have to stand there and do the old
> 'Are you sure', 'Are you really sure', 'Last chance now', dialogs.

Whoever said it should do this?  It should just leave disk drives
uninvolved in the OS installation alone.

> You set up
> Kickstart to a system of your liking, then take it, plonk it in a PC you
> want to install, press the button, and make a coffee.

Yes, great.  Exactly what I want.  Zeroing partitions tables on disk
drives uninvolved in the OS installation, however, is never what I want.

> When you come back, the system should be ready to go as you wanted
> it. Period.

Exactly.  Zeroed partition tables on partitions uninvolved in the OS
installation is never what I want, however.  Period.

The installer needs to be able to repartition disk drives upon which the
OS is going to be installed, and upon which any other filesystems are
going to be placed, but none of this implies that it has any reason
whatsoever to remove partitions on disk drives that the installer has
been told not to install any filesystems onto.  Zeroing the partition
table on disk drives upon which no filesystems are being placed is
always wrong.  What function could it possibly serve?

And even in the unlikely situation that you can come up with some
degenerate scenario in which it would be advantageous to delete all
partitions an all disk drives, regardless of whether any filesystems are
being placed on those disk drives, you could easily implement this
behavior via Kickstart's pre- or post-installation script hooks.

> I build quite a few systems a week, and I'm very happy with the
> automated installation stuff that's available. It means I can set up
> about 4 PCs at a time instead of one at a time.

I have never suggested anything that would prevent this.

> If the customer want's data off it, I back it up to network, then
> restore when finished.

That doesn't sound very unattended to me.  In fact, it sounds like a lot
of work to preserve data that could very well have been easily left
alone by the installer, assuming the data was on disk drives that
weren't involved in the OS installation.

> Same thing everybody should do. Never rely on data to be there after a
> major install. No backups is a bad practice to get in to.

Sure is.  That doesn't mean the installer should remove data that it
doesn't have to.  For one thing, this then leaves you with only your
backup copy.  Which then means that there is a period of time where you
only have one copy, which leaves you vulnerable to loss in the case your
backup fails, unless you have redundant backups.  No matter how you
slice it, there is no good reason for an OS installer to remove data on
disk drives uninvolved in the OS installation.

> Hey, it MAY not suit every purpose, and obviously not in your case, but
> please don't get into a 'right' or 'wrong' flame war.

I'm a software engineer, and thus it is my duty to point out when
software is not engineered properly.  Despite what you seem to imply,
there *is* often right and wrong ways to do something.  If this wasn't
the case, "software engineering" would be a meaningless term, and
schools teaching good principles of software engineering would be
teaching nonsense.

> There is no right or wrong here, but mainly opinion.

So, is there also no right or wrong about your claim that "there is no
right or wrong here"?

> Kickstart was written by people who want nothing for their efforts.

Last I heard, Kickstart was written by Red Hat, which last I heard, is a
publicly-traded for-profit corporation.

> If you want it to behave differently, sign up to their project and
> make a difference.

So, unless I am willing to rewrite all the software in the world, I
should never submit bug reports for any of it?

> I really think it's wrong a tradesman blaming tools for a botched
> job. Don't you?

I think that it's wrong for tool-makers to refuse to acknowledge that
their might be room for improvement in the tools they make.  I say this
as a took-maker myself, who takes pride in well-made, and well-designed
tools.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Edward Dekkers]

> 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 of which is true for me all of the time, by the way), nor for any
> case.

I won't make this a long e-mail - this thread has gone on long enough.

But I will tell you a case where I love the fact Kickstart will kill
everything.

Unattended installs - exactly what I think Kickstart was designed for. It
can't be very unattended if I have to stand there and do the old 'Are you
sure', 'Are you  really sure', 'Last chance now', dialogs. You set up
Kickstart to a system of your liking, then take it, plonk it in a PC you
want to install, press the button, and make a coffee. When you come back,
the system should be ready to go as you wanted it. Period.

I build quite a few systems a week, and I'm very happy with the automated
installation stuff that's available. It means I can set up about 4 PCs at a
time instead of one at a time.

If the customer want's data off it, I back it up to network, then restore
when finished. Same thing everybody should do. Never rely on data to be
there after a major install. No backups is a bad practice to get in to.

Hey, it MAY not suit every purpose, and obviously not in your case, but
please don't get into a 'right' or 'wrong' flame war. There is no right or
wrong here, but mainly opinion. Kickstart was written by people who want
nothing for their efforts. If you want it to behave differently, sign up to
their project and make a difference.

I really think it's wrong a tradesman blaming tools for a botched job. Don't
you?

Regards,

---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Triple D Computer Services P/L




-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Anthony E. Greene]

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 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 
OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05   HomePage: 
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation. 


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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 not.

> You could not imagine a case where it would make sense for kickstart
> to do what it did.  I pointed out two cases.

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 of which is true for me all of the time, by the way), nor for any
case.

> Are there alternate ways to handle those two cases?

There are not just alternate ways -- there are far better ways.

> Sure, but that's not the point.

Yes it is.  The point is that software should be very conservative about
destroying data.  Especially large amounts of it.

> 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.

> I agree that the interface could be improved, and I understand your
> point of view on this, but I don't share it.

If you understood it, you could scarcely disagree with it.  Hence, you
don't understand it.

> 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?

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, 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?

> It seems we look at this from different perspectives.

Yes, from the right perspective and from the wrong perspective.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Anthony E. Greene]

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 from someone, but you only use Linux.
In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure
the install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have
the install program *automatically* delete them for you.
>
2. You have a standard config of partitions, OS, & apps that is
different from what's on the box (this is the most common use of
kickstart). 
Exactly.  But my standard config is limited to the boot disk drive.  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. You could not imagine a case where it would make 
sense for kickstart to do what it did. I pointed out two cases. Are there 
alternate ways to handle those two cases? Sure, but that's not the point. 
The point is that in those cases, kickstart's behavior would be entirely 
reasonable.

I agree that the interface could be improved, and I understand your point 
of view on this, but I don't share it. I have never done this kind of 
automated installation *precisely* because I did not want the installation 
routine to make decisions for me.

It seems we look at this from different perspectives.

Tony
--
Anthony E. Greene 
OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05   HomePage: 
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation. 


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure the
> > install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have the
> > install program *automatically* delete them for you.

> looking at the kickstart docs(again never used it myself), there seems
> to be an option to delete only linux partitions, so MSWin32 partitions
> would be unaffected.

That wasn't the problem, though.  I didn't have any Windows partitions.
It deleted Linux data partitions on disk dives uninvolved in the OS
installation.

> > Exactly.  But my standard config is limited to the boot disk drive.  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.

> In your view yes, in my view no.

No software should ever be designed to surprise the user in a disastrous
fashion.  Ever.  And whether the user is surprised, should not hinge on
some footnote in the documentation or on how someone might read a
particular sentence.  In fact, it shouldn't depend on reading any
documentation on all.  Like with the law, there is a "reasonable person"
principle for good software design.  If you were a reasonable person,
and you gave your computer to another reasonable person, and you asked
him to install an OS onto the boot drive, and you told him that it was
okay to wipe your disk, the reasonable person would not go and
intentionally wipe all your other disks on the computer too.  Such a
person would be an idiot -- not a reasonable person.  In as much as it
is feasible, software should behave the same way as 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 no
advantage over othe more reasonable behaviors.

> Just seeing the words "Remove all existing partitions", immediately
> meant to me, it will remove every partition on the system(hence the
> 'all'). And again, I've never used kickstart so thats a view from an
> outsider(though I have used solaris jumpstart). I do admit though the
> documentation should be improved to make this information more clear.

There's nothing wrong with the documentation.  The problem is with the
way the software behaves.  It should be modified to behave reasonably.
It couldn't take more that two or three lines of code to make it do so.

> Maybe they could also introduce another option "Remove partitions on
> configured disks only".

There's no need for such an option.  That's how it should always behave.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[nate]

Douglas Alan said:

> In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure the
> install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have the
> install program *automatically* delete them for you.

looking at the kickstart docs(again never used it myself), there seems
to be an option to delete only linux partitions, so MSWin32 partitions
would be unaffected.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.3-Manual/custom-guide/s1-ksconfig-partitions.html

 To clear the Master Boot Record, select Yes  beside the option on the top
of the window. You can choose to keep the existing partitions, remove all
the existing partitions, or remove all the existing Linux partitions by
selecting None, All, or Linux, respectively, next to Remove Partitions.


> Exactly.  But my standard config is limited to the boot disk drive.  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.

In your view yes, in my view no. Just seeing the words "Remove all
existing partitions", immediately meant to me, it will remove every
partition on the system(hence the 'all'). And again, I've never used
kickstart so thats a view from an outsider(though I have used solaris
jumpstart). I do admit though the documentation should be improved to
make this information more clear. Maybe they could also introduce another
option "Remove partitions on configured disks only". So that if you
specify a partition table it will wipe the partition table on that
particular disk(s) rather then all disks on the system.


> Indeed.  How does this imply that the OS installer should delete
> patitions on drives it was told not to put partitions onto?

Because you told it to :) (again, a documentation issue I think, the
behavior is good in my view)

> It's not my job to backup anyone's data.  That's each user's
> responsibility.  Nor did I have a place to back it up to, even if I had
> wanted to.  And the only reason I was doing an OS install, is because the
> Red Hat upgrader made the computer unbootable.

Debian's upgrader has never made my systems unbootable, infact it
explicitly will NOT upgrade the kernel on any system automatically,
even during major(2.2->3.0) upgrades. Not sure what made your machine
unbootable but doing a SuSE 7.3->8.0 upgrade last yer on my sister's
dual p2 machine made it unbootable(ACPI drivers causing the system
to freeze, had to recompile the kernel since they didn't have a packaged
SMP kernel w/o ACPI).

though debian isn't for everyone of course..

nate





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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 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 from someone, but you only use Linux.

In that case, you can explicitly delete these partitions or configure
the install program to delete these partitions for you, rather than have
the install program *automatically* delete them for you.

> 2. You have a standard config of partitions, OS, & apps that is
> different from what's on the box (this is the most common use of
> kickstart).

Exactly.  But my standard config is limited to the boot disk drive.  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.

> UNIX-like systems do not make such a big deal out of using different
> drives. They're just mount points, all located somewhere under the '/'
> directory.

Indeed.  How does this imply that the OS installer should delete
patitions on drives it was told not to put partitions onto?

> Even nework shares are treated like this. There is nothing
> like the drive letters used in DOS/Win because drives are not such a
> big deal. On a single machine "all partitions" is interpreted in the
> context of the machine.

Apparently you are correct in that this is how the Red Hat installer
operates.  But that doesn't mean that it *should* behave this way.  I
explcitly told the Red Hat installer to put partitions *only* on hda.
And indeed, it follows those instructions perfectly, and put partitions
only on hda.  It has no business, however, modifying the partition
tables on other drives that it is not putting partitions onto.  That is
just plain wrong.

> > and there is no option to Kickstart telling it to remove partitions
> > only on the boot disk drive.  One typically assumes that an OS
> > installer behaves somewhat reasonably.  Apparently, that is asking
> > too much in this case.

> It is behaving reasonably. It's just using a different set of
> assumptions than you are.

Sure, it is behaving reasonably.  If we are willing to accept stupid
assumptions, that is.

It amazes me how often people will defend clearly incorrect behavior.

> > Unfortuntely, the data is not mine, but rather the head of the
> > department's.

> So, you did an OS install on a department head's computer using an
> unfamiliar procedure without backing up the data to a safe place
> first. Sometimes experience really is the best teacher. I hope this
> lesson doesn't turn out to be too expensive.

It's not my job to backup anyone's data.  That's each user's
responsibility.  Nor did I have a place to back it up to, even if I had
wanted to.  And the only reason I was doing an OS install, is because
the Red Hat upgrader made the computer unbootable.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Anthony E. Greene]

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 circumstance when I would want all
partitions on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install,
[snip]

1. You get a Windows computer from someone, but you only use Linux.

2. You have a standard config of partitions, OS, & apps that is different 
from what's on the box (this is the most common use of kickstart).

UNIX-like systems do not make such a big deal out of using different 
drives. They're just mount points, all located somewhere under the '/' 
directory. Even nework shares are treated like this. There is nothing like 
the drive letters used in DOS/Win because drives are not such a big deal. 
On a single machine "all partitions" is interpreted in the context of the 
machine.

> and
there is no option to Kickstart telling it to remove partitions only on
the boot disk drive.  One typically assumes that an OS installer behaves
somewhat reasonably.  Apparently, that is asking too much in this case.
It is behaving reasonably. It's just using a different set of assumptions 
than you are.

[snip]
Unfortuntely, the data is not mine, but rather the head of the
department's.
So, you did an OS install on a department head's computer using an 
unfamiliar procedure without backing up the data to a safe place first. 
Sometimes experience really is the best teacher. I hope this lesson 
doesn't turn out to be too expensive.

Tony
--
Anthony E. Greene 
OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05   HomePage: 
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation. 


--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[Douglas Alan]

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'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 circumstance when I would want all
partitions on all disk drives to be removed during an OS install, and
there is no option to Kickstart telling it to remove partitions only on
the boot disk drive.  One typically assumes that an OS installer behaves
somewhat reasonably.  Apparently, that is asking too much in this case.

The Kickstart parameters, by the way, are the very same ones that you
would specify when using the RedHat installer interactively, so the same
issue comes up when installing interactively.

> But realistically your data is probably gone, and unless theres
> pricelss information on those partitions your better off spent
> restoring from a backup or something then spending the time trying to
> reconstruct the partition table.

Unfortuntely, the data is not mine, but rather the head of the
department's.

|>oug



-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: "Remove all existing partitions"

[nate]

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 would expect it to
remove all partitions on all disks if you told it to remove all
existing partitions ..


> And if it would, is there any way that I might recover them?  (The ones on
> the other disk drives, that is.  If I had -- just hypothetically speaking
> -- done such a thing, I wouldn't care about the partitions on the boot
> disk drive.  And no, under such circumstances, I probably wouldn't know
> offhand the locations and sizes of the partitions.)

not easily. Only way I can think of is to use a hex editor, figure
out what the format is of the beginining of a filesystems(perhaps
by looking at the first few blocks of a known good filesystem) then
use a hex editor to read the disk to find any matches of such headers,
if you find a match then, somehow, you may have a map of the existing
partition table, use fdisk to make the partitions and try to fsck or
mount them. But realistically your data is probably gone, and unless
theres pricelss information on those partitions your better off
spent restoring from a backup or something then spending the time
trying to reconstruct the partition table. Or you could contact
one of them data recovery companies ..and when I mean spending time
I'm talkin about hours and hours..days and days working on this,
not just 30 minutes or something.

if it were me I would just forget about it..

nate





-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list