Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com
  • Start date Start date
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:24:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>news:uOSdnfizv4RUE4vanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>
>> And honestly, I find "...this will destroy all data..." to be more than
>> clear enough. If someone can't understand the meaning of that I wonder if
>> they should be allowed to operate a toaster...nevermind actually
>> installing an operating system.
>
>Well yes its perfectly clear as long as you know what "data" is.
>So even a simple statement like that is assuming the user is computer
>literate.
>I can easily see people thinking "well I didn't buy any data so I don't have
>any to destroy".
>Its easy to make assumptions when you know about a subject.

I do not think I am a neophyte wrt computers having cut my teeth on
DOS and used all flavours of Windows plus having built several
machines. However, I did not find installing Ubuntu on a WINXP Pro
machine intuitive. The actual installation was relatively staright
forward except when it came to the part to choose how to
format/partition the drive on which to install Ubuntu. It is apparent
to me that anyone could slip up here with disasterous consequences.
Choosing 'manual' is clearly the the safest way to go.

Of course once you have gone through the exercise it all becomes
'obvious' and this is the mistake many opf the contributors to this
thread seem to make. The only test for how intuitive the installation
process is, is to allow a new user to use it. In my case I did not
find the actual installation particularly intuitive and as for setting
up Grub you need a thorough understanding of how the various systems
(Ubuntu, Grub and WINXP) identify partitions and drives especially if
you are using all SATA drives, as I was.

What I finally did, as I wanted Ubuntu to be completely independent of
my WINXP installation, was to disconnect the drive on which WINXP was
installed and installed Ubuntu on a 'new' drive. That was as straight
forward as could be and obviously no mistakes are possible. I then
reconnected my WINXP HDD and had 'fun' configuring Grub to dual boot.
Now it is all done and I think I have an understanding of the process
anyone who can't understand it all must be mentally defficient! :-).
 
"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:A5TRi.20477$G25.15136@edtnps89...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>
>
>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...
>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble
>>> thusly:
>>>> 3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx
>>>> and a few I have forgotten.
>>>> Which have you installed?
>>>
>>> Too many.
>>>
>>>> Do you doubt it?
>>>> Have you never installed windows?
>>>
>>> As I said, Too many times.
>>>
>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,
>>>>> shall we?
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't think so.
>
>>If you are so sure it does you could show the warning.
>
> That of course means that he has to actually install it and then somehow
> copy the warning.
>
>>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>>exist.
>
> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all
> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that you
> did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation is
> only
> one of many possible ones.
>
>
>>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding evidence.
>
> As apparently should you.
>

Sorry but your comments have been superseded within this thread and they are
all incorrect.
 
dennis@home wrote:

>
> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:A5TRi.20477$G25.15136@edtnps89...
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...
>>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble
>>>> thusly:
>>>>>
3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx
>>>>> and a few I have forgotten.
>>>>> Which have you installed?
>>>>
>>>> Too many.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you doubt it?
>>>>> Have you never installed windows?
>>>>
>>>> As I said, Too many times.
>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,
>>>>>> shall we?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn't think so.
>>
>>>If you are so sure it does you could show the warning.
>>
>> That of course means that he has to actually install it and then somehow
>> copy the warning.

Exactly. To somehow satisfy the drooling idiot "dennis" one should start the
install again?

>>>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>>>exist.
>>
>> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all
>> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that
>> you did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation
>> is only one of many possible ones.

And the least likely one, to boot
The fact that "dennis" does not see something does not indicate at all that
it doesn't exist
It indicates only that "dennis" is way too stupid to understand what is
written in plain text
Which is not surprising. "Dennis" is actually stupid enough to run Vista

>>>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>>>evidence.
>>
>> As apparently should you.
>>
>
> Sorry but your comments have been superseded within this thread and they
> are all incorrect.

Actually, no

He is correct in everything he posted. The one completely incorrect is the
OP (a troll) and you. Naturally you. You have yet to post something which
contains anything correct. Until now all your posts were idiotic rubbish
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
 
Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> "Unruh" wrote:
>>>
>>> "dennis@home" writes:
>>>>
>>>>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>>>>exist.
>>>
>>> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all
>>> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that
>>> you did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation
>>> is only one of many possible ones.
>
>And the least likely one, to boot

Holy cow. I don't spot that piece of "dennis" idiocy until now.

>>>>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>>>>evidence.

Wow. That's simply amazing, that anyone make that much of a jackass
of themselves. Just FLAUNTING his stupidity and illogic.
 
"Peter Köhlmann" . wrote in message
news:ffadbr$26q$02$1@news.t-online.com...

>
> He is correct in everything he posted. The one completely incorrect is the
> OP (a troll) and you. Naturally you. You have yet to post something which
> contains anything correct. Until now all your posts were idiotic rubbish


Hi.
I don't usually call people liars but in your case its obviously so.
If you read the thread you will notice that I have installed Ubuntu 7.10 and
the warning messages are as I posted.
They are completely wrong and unhelpful even to a techie.
If you think that I lie about it you have the opportunity to install it
yourself and look but as it will make you look stupid I don't expect you to.
Now shut up and go back to the kill file.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:40:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Köhlmann" . wrote in message
>news:ffadbr$26q$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>
>>
>> He is correct in everything he posted. The one completely incorrect is the
>> OP (a troll) and you. Naturally you. You have yet to post something which
>> contains anything correct. Until now all your posts were idiotic rubbish
>
>
>Hi.
>I don't usually call people liars but in your case its obviously so.

Let me make it crystal clear. You have ONE big problem Dennis. You
think your sh*t don't stink. I assure it does. Get off your high horse
and stop pretending to be something you are not. Your experience and
knowledge based on what you posted so far is well, bush league at
best. Worse, you simply refuse to ever admit you're wrong when you
clearly are and you have been wrong many times. So you are seen as
just another pompous windbag. That doesn't make you stand out, because
we already have many pompous windbags posting here. So sorry, you're
nothing special, just one of many dopes that seem to enjoy making a
fool of themselves over and over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Albright wrote:

>
>
> Let me make it crystal clear.

You couldn't make air seem crystal clear you fukkin loser.

You have ONE big problem Dennis. You
> think your sh*t don't stink.

No, you're the one who thinks his sh*t don't stink.

I assure it does. Get off your high horse
> and stop pretending to be something you are not.

You're the great pretender...mr genius...mr computer expert...hahaha.

Your experience and
> knowledge based on what you posted so far is well, bush league at
> best.


Oh, tell us all about your great computer experience...especially the
part where you can't get even one little install of Vista business to
run correctly.

Worse, you simply refuse to ever admit you're wrong when you
> clearly are and you have been wrong many times.

Oh no! That's your area of expertise. According to you, you've never
been wrong...you fukkin moron.

So you are seen as
> just another pompous windbag.

You are so good at "projecting" your character flaws an psychosis onto
others medical researchers should make you their case study.

That doesn't make you stand out, because
> we already have many pompous windbags posting here.

Only one like you...the real one.

So sorry, you're
> nothing special,

Oh and you are?

just one of many dopes that seem to enjoy making a
> fool of themselves over and over.

FUKK!!! You're the biggest fool of all.
Frank
 
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.
>>>
>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.
>>>
>>> 8<
>>
>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly
>> told the installer to wipe out the data.
>
> Yes we all know that.
> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for the
> intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is intended for
> people that are computer literate then they are OK and most such users
> will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos anyway.
> If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users then I
> don't think the messages or install routine are much good.

Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of users
because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't install it
right?

Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition
step is.

http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png

Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know
what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.

And look!!! The warning message!!

http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg

Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!

So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux
installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable
for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes installing
Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:CeydncpTEMK1Y4XanZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.
>>>>
>>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>
>>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly
>>> told the installer to wipe out the data.
>>
>> Yes we all know that.
>> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for the
>> intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is intended for
>> people that are computer literate then they are OK and most such users
>> will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos anyway.
>> If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users then I
>> don't think the messages or install routine are much good.
>
> Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of users
> because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't install it
> right?
>
> Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition
> step is.
>
> http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png
>
> Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know
> what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.
>
> And look!!! The warning message!!
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg
>
> Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!
>
> So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux
> installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable
> for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes installing
> Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.

Why does a discussion about Linux always end up with a Linux is better than
windows debate?

I agree that it could be easier to install windows.

However you have to select a partition and then choose to install it using
*advanced* options before you can format or delete it.
A user in normal mode doesn't get the options to delete or format partitions
and installing vista to an existing partition doesn't destroy data.

Compare that to Ubuntu where you typically get three tick boxes

A: use entire disk
B: use free space
C: do it manually

Now if you choose either A or B you get the /same/ warning message just
before it commits the changes (at least on a single disk machine).

A will delete your data and B will not.. do you not see that it is just
wrong.
 
dennis@home wrote:

> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
> exist.

That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.

> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding evidence.

Irony meter (..../)
 
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:34:49 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:CeydncpTEMK1Y4XanZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly
>>>> told the installer to wipe out the data.
>>>
>>> Yes we all know that.
>>> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for
>>> the intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is
>>> intended for people that are computer literate then they are OK and
>>> most such users will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos
>>> anyway. If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users
>>> then I don't think the messages or install routine are much good.
>>
>> Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of
>> users because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't
>> install it right?
>>
>> Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition
>> step is.
>>
>> http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png
>>
>> Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know
>> what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.
>>
>> And look!!! The warning message!!
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg
>>
>> Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!
>>
>> So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux
>> installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable
>> for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes
>> installing Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.
>
> Why does a discussion about Linux always end up with a Linux is better
> than windows debate?

I didn't say one is better than the other. I simply applied the rules you
apply to the Ubuntu installer to the Windows installer.

>
> I agree that it could be easier to install windows.
>
> However you have to select a partition and then choose to install it
> using *advanced* options before you can format or delete it. A user in
> normal mode doesn't get the options to delete or format partitions and
> installing vista to an existing partition doesn't destroy data.

If, and only if, said partition is an NTFS partition. What if it is an
Ext3 Linux partition? Seeing how Vista can't be installed on Ext3, this
would destroy the data on the Ext3 partition!

Or even better, what if it's a FAT32 partition? Vista can't be installed
on a FAT32 partition either. So there too would be data loss.

>
> Compare that to Ubuntu where you typically get three tick boxes
>
> A: use entire disk
> B: use free space
> C: do it manually
>
> Now if you choose either A or B you get the /same/ warning message just
> before it commits the changes (at least on a single disk machine).

The number of disks is irrelevant and Option C will also give you a
warning at the end.

>
> A will delete your data and B will not.. do you not see that it is just
> wrong.

No, I have the intelligence to understand that if I choose my entire disk
then this means the entire disk and that if I choose free space then this
means free space.

I also have the intelligence to not make changes that I know are liable
to affect my entire computer until I understand what the consequences are
or might be of said changes.

I wasn't trying to get into OS A is better than OS B. I know which is
better for me and everyone else needs to decide on their own what choice
is better for them. It's pointless arguing that.

The only thing I am trying to get to is that there is no significant
difference between the Windows and Ubuntu install mechanism. And that,
regardless of the OS, a user needs to know what it is they are doing and
how it will affect their system before they do it.

It's equally easy to screw up a system using either installer if someone
doesn't know what they are doing. This is especially true if they
haven't created a dedicated hard drive or partition for a second OS if
they choose to dual boot. And if they don't know how to do that and don't
understand the terms "disk", "whole", "entire", "all data", "partition",
"everything", then they should probably let a professional technician
fluent in English handle it.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.19.19.58.23.526860@nospam.invalid...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>> exist.
>
> That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.
>
>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>> evidence.
>
> Irony meter (..../)
>
>

If you are so sure my logic is wrong why don't you explain where?
If you don't I will just assume you are as dumb as you sound and pop you
back.
 
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:


>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...


>8<

>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I
>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select use
>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>>>>>>>
>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
><<<<<<<<<

>For use entire disk

>and

>>>>>>>>>>>
>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

><<<<<<<<<<<


>For use largest free space.


>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?


The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,
the ball game is over.
The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the
whole disk.
 
"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>
>
>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
>>8<
>
>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>
>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I
>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select
>>use
>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>
>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>><<<<<<<<<
>
>>For use entire disk
>
>>and
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>
>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>
>><<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>>For use largest free space.
>
>
>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>
>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>
>
> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,
> the ball game is over.
> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the
> whole disk.
>
>
As they are the warnings they are the problem.
There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but that
is an addition.
 
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:22:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>>8<
>>
>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I
>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I
>>>select use
>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>
>>
>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>
>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>><<<<<<<<<
>>
>>>For use entire disk
>>
>>>and
>>
>>
>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>
>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>
>>><<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>
>>>For use largest free space.
>>
>>
>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>
>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>
>>
>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win
>> partition, the ball game is over.
>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the
>> whole disk.
>>
>>
> As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for
> more warnings or just a better partitioner but that is an addition.

... or maybe if you don't know why you are partitioning, you shouldn't.



--
Rick
 
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:


>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>>8<
>>
>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I
>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select
>>>use
>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>>
>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>><<<<<<<<<
>>
>>>For use entire disk
>>
>>>and
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>>
>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>
>>><<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>
>>>For use largest free space.
>>
>>
>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>
>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>
>>
>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,
>> the ball game is over.
>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the
>> whole disk.
>>
>>
>As they are the warnings they are the problem.
>There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but that
>is an addition.

No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win partition
is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is irrelevant. It was
the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data. (Yes, I know that the
data is still there and that IF you managed to repartition the disk again
to exactly the same as it was before, you could recover the data, but that
is largely irrelevant to almost all users. It is the partitioning that
destroys the ability to access the data). Thus if there is no warning on
the repartitioning then that is where the problem lies.
 
"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>
>
>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>8<
>>>
>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I
>>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select
>>>>use
>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>>>
>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>><<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>>>For use entire disk
>>>
>>>>and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:
>>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)
>>>
>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:
>>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3
>>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>
>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>>
>>>>For use largest free space.
>>>
>>>
>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>>
>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,
>>> the ball game is over.
>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the
>>> whole disk.
>>>
>>>
>>As they are the warnings they are the problem.
>>There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but
>>that
>>is an addition.
>
> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win partition
> is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is irrelevant. It was
> the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data. (Yes, I know that the
> data is still there and that IF you managed to repartition the disk again
> to exactly the same as it was before, you could recover the data, but that
> is largely irrelevant to almost all users. It is the partitioning that
> destroys the ability to access the data). Thus if there is no warning on
> the repartitioning then that is where the problem lies.
>
>

Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and then
applies the changes.
It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up the
warning about destroying data.
If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I have
not checked myself).
Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and in
the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.
 
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>8<
>>>>
>>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing
>>>>>I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I
>>>>>select use
>>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>
>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>><<<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>>>For use entire disk
>>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>
>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>
>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For use largest free space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>>>
>>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win
>>>> partition, the ball game is over.
>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use
>>>> the whole disk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for
>>>more warnings or just a better partitioner but that
>>>is an addition.
>>
>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win
>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is
>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.
>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to
>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you
>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all
>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the
>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is
>> where the problem lies.
>>
>>
>>
> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and
> then applies the changes.

No, the user applies the changes.

> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up
> the warning about destroying data.
> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I
> have not checked myself).
> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and
> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

--
Rick
 
Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:

>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...
>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>8<
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing
>>>>>>I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I
>>>>>>select use
>>>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>>
>>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>>><<<<<<<<<
>>>>>
>>>>>>For use entire disk
>>>>>
>>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>>
>>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>>
>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For use largest free space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win
>>>>> partition, the ball game is over.
>>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use
>>>>> the whole disk.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for
>>>>more warnings or just a better partitioner but that
>>>>is an addition.
>>>
>>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win
>>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is
>>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.
>>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to
>>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you
>>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all
>>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the
>>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is
>>> where the problem lies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and
>> then applies the changes.

>No, the user applies the changes.

>> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up
>> the warning about destroying data.
>> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I
>> have not checked myself).
>> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and
>> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

>Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost) impossible to
find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set up
to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give adequate
warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the fault of the
installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings Ubuntu 7.1 gives and
whether or not they are adequate.

The user does NOT apply the changes. The user at best agrees to allow the
system to apply those changes. At worst he has no choice, other than the
choice to install.
 
Unruh wrote:
> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...
>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...
>>>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8<
>>>>>>> Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing
>>>>>>> I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I
>>>>>>> select use
>>>>>>> the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>>> (0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>>>> The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>>> SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>> For use entire disk
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1
>>>>>>> (0,0,0)(sda)
>>>>>>> The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of
>>>>>>> SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap
>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For use largest free space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.
>>>>>>> Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were
>>>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win
>>>>>> partition, the ball game is over.
>>>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use
>>>>>> the whole disk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for
>>>>> more warnings or just a better partitioner but that
>>>>> is an addition.
>>>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win
>>>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is
>>>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.
>>>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to
>>>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you
>>>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all
>>>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the
>>>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is
>>>> where the problem lies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and
>>> then applies the changes.
>
>> No, the user applies the changes.
>
>>> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up
>>> the warning about destroying data.
>>> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I
>>> have not checked myself).
>>> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and
>>> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.
>
>> Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.
>
> Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost) impossible to
> find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set up
> to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give adequate
> warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the fault of the
> installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings Ubuntu 7.1 gives and
> whether or not they are adequate.
>


If you have no idea whether they are adequate or
not, or even if they are given or not,
how can you even comment?
caver1
 
Back
Top