Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com
  • Start date Start date
On 2007-10-17, Stephan Rose <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:12:30 -0500, Ignoramus27577 wrote:
>
>> I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at home. So
>> I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a Windows
>> zealot.
>>
>> Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean that
>> Linux is perfect.
>>
>> That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has made
>> progress, it still SUCKS as far as
>>
>> - Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help - Giving
>> user control over partitioning using a simple language (other than
>> /dev/sde1 etc)
>> - controlling settings of grub
>
> Well what do you suggest it should use?

How about:

SATA Drive 1, Partition 1 (currently not formatted)
IDE Drive 2, Partition 3 (currently has Windows)

etc

> Should my drive listing look like this?
>
> "The big black box in slot number 1 in the big case under my desk?"
> "The big black box in slot number 2 in the big case under my desk?"
> "The big black box in slot number 3 in the big case under my desk?"
>
> Honestly I find
>
> /dev/sda
> /dev/sdb
> /dev/sdc
>
> To be perfectly fine and reasonable.

I do too, but my parents would not.

> If someone can't deal with that naming convention they have little
> business installing an OS.

That is presumptious.

> The only way that could be removed is via a recovery disk that is
> intended to restore an entire PC to factory defaults.
>
> Now that said, I agree that configuring grub could be made a bit easier.
> Not that I ever have a need to do so, but I suppose if someone does have
> a need to do so or wants other settings than the default, the installer
> could give some options regarding setting up grub.

I could donate actual $1,000 USD if someone serious took on and
undertook a complete install/GRUB config redesign. I am talking about
real money and I am serious.

> Overall though, I find the Ubuntu installer to be reasonably well done.
> I've definitely seen and used far worse and I've yet to see someone do it
> better.

Does not mean that it no longer needs improvements.

i
 
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:56:34 -0500, Ignoramus27577 wrote:

> On 2007-10-17, Stephan Rose <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:12:30 -0500, Ignoramus27577 wrote:
>>
>>> I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at home.
>>> So I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a
>>> Windows zealot.
>>>
>>> Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean
>>> that Linux is perfect.
>>>
>>> That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has
>>> made progress, it still SUCKS as far as
>>>
>>> - Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help - Giving
>>> user control over partitioning using a simple language (other than
>>> /dev/sde1 etc)
>>> - controlling settings of grub
>>
>> Well what do you suggest it should use?
>
> How about:
>
> SATA Drive 1, Partition 1 (currently not formatted) IDE Drive 2,
> Partition 3 (currently has Windows)

It actually does list SATA / IDE and the drive number in front so it
already does do this.

It doesn't show the formatted state or OS installed though. I agree, that
wouldn't be a bad thing to show.

>
> etc
>
>> Should my drive listing look like this?
>>
>> "The big black box in slot number 1 in the big case under my desk?"
>> "The big black box in slot number 2 in the big case under my desk?"
>> "The big black box in slot number 3 in the big case under my desk?"
>>
>> Honestly I find
>>
>> /dev/sda
>> /dev/sdb
>> /dev/sdc
>>
>> To be perfectly fine and reasonable.
>
> I do too, but my parents would not.
>
>> If someone can't deal with that naming convention they have little
>> business installing an OS.
>
> That is presumptious.

Maybe so, but I simply figure that someone should have at least some
reasonable level of knowledge prior to installing any OS. Anything else
is just simply too liable to end up with problems afterwards.

Just because someone can change the oil in their car doesn't mean they
are qualified to replace the engine.

>
>> The only way that could be removed is via a recovery disk that is
>> intended to restore an entire PC to factory defaults.
>>
>> Now that said, I agree that configuring grub could be made a bit
>> easier. Not that I ever have a need to do so, but I suppose if someone
>> does have a need to do so or wants other settings than the default, the
>> installer could give some options regarding setting up grub.
>
> I could donate actual $1,000 USD if someone serious took on and
> undertook a complete install/GRUB config redesign. I am talking about
> real money and I am serious.

If I wasn't as busy as I am I'd almost be tempted to take you up on that.

>
>> Overall though, I find the Ubuntu installer to be reasonably well done.
>> I've definitely seen and used far worse and I've yet to see someone do
>> it better.
>
> Does not mean that it no longer needs improvements.

Anything always needs improvements. =)

--
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‚‰
 
Ignoramus27577 wrote:
> I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at
> home. So I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a
> Windows zealot.
>
> Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean
> that Linux is perfect.
>
> That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has
> made progress, it still SUCKS as far as
>
> - Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help
> - Giving user control over partitioning using a simple language (other
> than /dev/sde1 etc)
> - controlling settings of grub
>
> Windows install sucks even more, of course, since it blows out other
> operating systems without choice. But Linux setup sucks as well. It
> needs to be addressed and worked on as a large project.
>


Well I think that depends a lot on the variety of Linux to be honest,
however what some demand seems to be a version of the the install that
asks you "Are you sure you want to do this" 17 times (Oh no wait a
minute that's UAC :) ) yet still allows you to simply click through and
do the damage. As has been pointed out it seems that the windows
installers never even see OS except other windows, and I cant say I have
seen a Ubuntu install EVER click through.

I think the original post was little more than someone complaining that
he set fire to his house and now blames the maker of the matches for
giving him the option... MacDonalds and Coffee spring to mind :)
 
Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>>> Its a bit too late for that.
>>>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>>>> user will stick with something else.
>>>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>>>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>>>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>>>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>>
>>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand?
>>> I mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>> Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with. If
>> they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.
>
> Someone that does NOT KNOW what a disk is has absolutely no business
> installing an operating system. Windows included because you also have to
> know what a disk and a partition is to install windows!
>
> Else, how would one choose the appropriate disk/partition when installing
> windows if one doesn't even know what that is?
>
>>> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of reading
>>> the whole sentence?
>>>
>>> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file system
>>> changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the user has to
>>> OK before actually doing it.
>>>
>>> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the system.
>>> You need to do so twice.
>> At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their system
>> will be lost if they proceed.
>
> Really?
>
> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>
> Same URL tiny:
> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234
>
> Then please explain to me the meaning of this sentence on the screenshot
> above:
>
> "WARNING: This will destroy all data on any partitions you have removed
> as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted."
>
>> As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much. It was written
>> by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or don't expect
>> Linux to be used by the masses.
>
> It isn't too much to expect someone to know how their computer works if
> they're going to install an OPERATING SYSTEM on it. Installing an OS
> isn't installing notepad for crying out loud! And this is no different
> installing Vista or XP!
>
>>> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives /
>>> partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can manually
>>> configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except of course
>>> Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you didn't make a
>>> mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
>> Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without
>> warning the user unlike what you state above. Also if you were truthful
>> you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before removing a partition
>> and tell the user that it may contain data that will be lost if they do.
>> It even asks twice before it will format one. I suggest you dig out you
>> windows disks and try an install as you appear to have forgotten what it
>> does.
>
> Allright fair enough. I honestly try to avoid installing Windows as much
> as possible as I don't like calling India for activation. So windows does
> ask twice. Come to think of it, I think I now recall what you are
> referring to. I stand corrected there, no problem.
>
> So ultimately it now comes down to that the Windows Install procedure is
> identical to the Ubuntu Install procedure.
>
> - Choose time / keyboard / localization settings.
> - Choose disk / partition.
> - Install.
>
> The only differences may be the order in which the questions are asked,
> bid deal...that isn't of any relevance.
>

My first reaction to the OP was "What's not to understand about 'Use
Entire Disk'?", but after further thought I could see the possible
confusion. Using the entire disk really is different from formatting the
entire disk. And introducing "sda" etc. nomenclature compounds the
feeling that the "C: drive" will be safe.

I also seem to remember there was another option (Guided - shrink
existing partitions? Or maybe that's 7.10 only). The "Manual" option
certainly adopts different language altogether.

Given the ability to read and write NTFS, I don't know why there isn't
an option to "Use existing partitions". Essentially Windows installs
default to this. It would require fixing the historical aberration of
requiring a separate partition for the swap space, but that would be a
good thing anyway.
 
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:16:26 -0400, cvp wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>>>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>>>> Its a bit too late for that.
>>>>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>>>>> user will stick with something else.
>>>>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>>>>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>>>>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>>>>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>>>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>>>
>>>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to
>>>> understand? I mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>>> Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with. If
>>> they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.
>>
>> Someone that does NOT KNOW what a disk is has absolutely no business
>> installing an operating system. Windows included because you also have
>> to know what a disk and a partition is to install windows!
>>
>> Else, how would one choose the appropriate disk/partition when
>> installing windows if one doesn't even know what that is?
>>
>>>> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of
>>>> reading the whole sentence?
>>>>
>>>> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file
>>>> system changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the
>>>> user has to OK before actually doing it.
>>>>
>>>> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the
>>>> system. You need to do so twice.
>>> At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their
>>> system will be lost if they proceed.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
>> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>>
>> Same URL tiny:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234
>>
>> Then please explain to me the meaning of this sentence on the
>> screenshot above:
>>
>> "WARNING: This will destroy all data on any partitions you have removed
>> as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted."
>>
>>> As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much. It was
>>> written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or
>>> don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.
>>
>> It isn't too much to expect someone to know how their computer works if
>> they're going to install an OPERATING SYSTEM on it. Installing an OS
>> isn't installing notepad for crying out loud! And this is no different
>> installing Vista or XP!
>>
>>>> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>>>>
>>>> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives
>>>> / partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can
>>>> manually configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except
>>>> of course Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you
>>>> didn't make a mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
>>> Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without
>>> warning the user unlike what you state above. Also if you were
>>> truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before removing a
>>> partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be lost
>>> if they do. It even asks twice before it will format one. I suggest
>>> you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to have
>>> forgotten what it does.
>>
>> Allright fair enough. I honestly try to avoid installing Windows as
>> much as possible as I don't like calling India for activation. So
>> windows does ask twice. Come to think of it, I think I now recall what
>> you are referring to. I stand corrected there, no problem.
>>
>> So ultimately it now comes down to that the Windows Install procedure
>> is identical to the Ubuntu Install procedure.
>>
>> - Choose time / keyboard / localization settings. - Choose disk /
>> partition.
>> - Install.
>>
>> The only differences may be the order in which the questions are asked,
>> bid deal...that isn't of any relevance.
>>
>>
> My first reaction to the OP was "What's not to understand about 'Use
> Entire Disk'?", but after further thought I could see the possible
> confusion. Using the entire disk really is different from formatting the
> entire disk. And introducing "sda" etc. nomenclature compounds the
> feeling that the "C: drive" will be safe.
>
> I also seem to remember there was another option (Guided - shrink
> existing partitions? Or maybe that's 7.10 only). The "Manual" option
> certainly adopts different language altogether.

The shrink existing partition I think is only available when it's
actually possible to do so. If the NTFS volumes are too fragmented or
full to be shrunk then it doesn't appear.

>
> Given the ability to read and write NTFS, I don't know why there isn't
> an option to "Use existing partitions". Essentially Windows installs
> default to this. It would require fixing the historical aberration of
> requiring a separate partition for the swap space, but that would be a
> good thing anyway.

Because NTFS is not a suitable file system. The ability to write to NTFS
partitions is extremely new and subject to Microsoft not deciding to make
change to NTFS tomorrow and break NTFS support. Not even XP and Vista are
fully compatible when it comes to NTFS after all. Microsoft doesn't
actually publish the specifications for NTFS so any support that exists
for it comes from trial and error by developers figuring out how it
works. Which brings me to another issue with NTFS: Licensing and legal.

Being compatible with NTFS is one thing, that is allowed. However, NTFS
being a proprietary file system I don't think that another OS could use
it as it's own file system for installation purposes without legal
consent from Microsoft and most certain licensing fees.

And as far as the separate partition for swap space is concerned, it is
not required. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from installing
without a swap space partition and creating a swap space image in your
file system and mounting that as swap.

However, having the swap space as a separate partition is far better in
terms of performance as it does not incur file system overhead.

--
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‚‰
 
"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:13hbqqpq50pen00@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:14:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>> news:eClxAUGEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my
>>>>>> C: drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole
>>>>>> hard drive without a single warning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>>>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>>>>>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set
>>>>>> as the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>>
>>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>>
>>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>>>> comprehension?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's also an option to use free space. caver1
>>
>> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is. If it is to
>> take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of a moron
>> so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable problems.
>> This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after
>> all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
>
> Then why does Windows ask about partitioning and formatting when doing an
> install?

It has to but it does warn the user in plain English that they will lose
data if thats what they do.
Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
installed.
It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for newbies.

>
>
>>
>> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over
>> estimate the knowledge of their target users. Until the developers sort
>> out the installation routines Linux will not be mass market as it still
>> relies on someone being able to download it and install it.
>
> Hopefully more vendors, especially visible ones like Dell, will start
> shipping Linux pre-installed.

It may make a difference but until they do Linux needs to be made more
suitable for idiots to install or it will not take off as some hope.
It has always been the nerdy installation that stops the majority from
installing Linux and even though it is easier it still uses terms most
people do not understand and does things that people don't understand
(probably for no good reason other than to save a few lines of code).


>> Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems
>> stops the ~95% from using it.
>
> How many people can properly install Windows?

More than Linux IME.
Also there tends to be quite a few upgrades from windows which aren't
succesful if the OS deletes the users data like Linux tends to.
If, while doing an upgrade/install the user loses data then you have lost
that user and anyone they talk to.

>> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals
>> by the sound of it.
>
> People don't read manuals when running any software, for the most part.
> They don't read them when setting up stereos and VCRs, either.

So you have to make software as idiot proof as possible if you expect those
people to use it.

Do you really think the user will get the blame if an OS upgrade kills the
users data?
No it will be the OS and probably rightly so if the warnings are not written
in plain English that computer illiterates can understand.

I am of the opinion that software should not be able to do harm even if the
user hasn't read the manuals without warning them in language they should
understand i.e. not computer speak as most people don't understand it.
If a user needs to read the manuals its pretty poor software and limits its
potential users to a minority.

>> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
>> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).
>
>
> --
> Rick
 
"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then that
> person
> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper
> backups
> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is
> Linux,Windows or whatever.

You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world and see
who does get blamed for things like that.

Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that makes no
difference to the user.
BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think Linux is
OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are like Peter and
that will be more black marks.

Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on the
desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't get far
unless you do.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...

hi crazy.
I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.
 
Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:16:26 -0400, cvp wrote:
>
>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>>>>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>>>>> Its a bit too late for that.
>>>>>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>>>>>> user will stick with something else.
>>>>>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>>>>>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>>>>>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>>>>>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>>>>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>>>>
>>>>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to
>>>>> understand? I mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>>>> Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with. If
>>>> they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.
>>> Someone that does NOT KNOW what a disk is has absolutely no business
>>> installing an operating system. Windows included because you also have
>>> to know what a disk and a partition is to install windows!
>>>
>>> Else, how would one choose the appropriate disk/partition when
>>> installing windows if one doesn't even know what that is?
>>>
>>>>> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of
>>>>> reading the whole sentence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file
>>>>> system changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the
>>>>> user has to OK before actually doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the
>>>>> system. You need to do so twice.
>>>> At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their
>>>> system will be lost if they proceed.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
>>> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>>>
>>> Same URL tiny:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234
>>>
>>> Then please explain to me the meaning of this sentence on the
>>> screenshot above:
>>>
>>> "WARNING: This will destroy all data on any partitions you have removed
>>> as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted."
>>>
>>>> As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much. It was
>>>> written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or
>>>> don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.
>>> It isn't too much to expect someone to know how their computer works if
>>> they're going to install an OPERATING SYSTEM on it. Installing an OS
>>> isn't installing notepad for crying out loud! And this is no different
>>> installing Vista or XP!
>>>
>>>>> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives
>>>>> / partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can
>>>>> manually configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except
>>>>> of course Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you
>>>>> didn't make a mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
>>>> Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without
>>>> warning the user unlike what you state above. Also if you were
>>>> truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before removing a
>>>> partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be lost
>>>> if they do. It even asks twice before it will format one. I suggest
>>>> you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to have
>>>> forgotten what it does.
>>> Allright fair enough. I honestly try to avoid installing Windows as
>>> much as possible as I don't like calling India for activation. So
>>> windows does ask twice. Come to think of it, I think I now recall what
>>> you are referring to. I stand corrected there, no problem.
>>>
>>> So ultimately it now comes down to that the Windows Install procedure
>>> is identical to the Ubuntu Install procedure.
>>>
>>> - Choose time / keyboard / localization settings. - Choose disk /
>>> partition.
>>> - Install.
>>>
>>> The only differences may be the order in which the questions are asked,
>>> bid deal...that isn't of any relevance.
>>>
>>>
>> My first reaction to the OP was "What's not to understand about 'Use
>> Entire Disk'?", but after further thought I could see the possible
>> confusion. Using the entire disk really is different from formatting the
>> entire disk. And introducing "sda" etc. nomenclature compounds the
>> feeling that the "C: drive" will be safe.
>>
>> I also seem to remember there was another option (Guided - shrink
>> existing partitions? Or maybe that's 7.10 only). The "Manual" option
>> certainly adopts different language altogether.
>
> The shrink existing partition I think is only available when it's
> actually possible to do so. If the NTFS volumes are too fragmented or
> full to be shrunk then it doesn't appear.
>
>> Given the ability to read and write NTFS, I don't know why there isn't
>> an option to "Use existing partitions". Essentially Windows installs
>> default to this. It would require fixing the historical aberration of
>> requiring a separate partition for the swap space, but that would be a
>> good thing anyway.
>
> Because NTFS is not a suitable file system. The ability to write to NTFS
> partitions is extremely new and subject to Microsoft not deciding to make
> change to NTFS tomorrow and break NTFS support. Not even XP and Vista are
> fully compatible when it comes to NTFS after all. Microsoft doesn't
> actually publish the specifications for NTFS so any support that exists
> for it comes from trial and error by developers figuring out how it
> works. Which brings me to another issue with NTFS: Licensing and legal.
>
> Being compatible with NTFS is one thing, that is allowed. However, NTFS
> being a proprietary file system I don't think that another OS could use
> it as it's own file system for installation purposes without legal
> consent from Microsoft and most certain licensing fees.
>
> And as far as the separate partition for swap space is concerned, it is
> not required. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from installing
> without a swap space partition and creating a swap space image in your
> file system and mounting that as swap.
>
> However, having the swap space as a separate partition is far better in
> terms of performance as it does not incur file system overhead.
>


I see no difference between reading/writing data and reading/writing OS
data as far as licensing NTFS is concerned. Either needed or not needed
in both cases. Certainly it will be subject to changes at Microsoft's whim.

All the Operating Systems I'be been involved in developing used separate
file system access methods for page/swap data, no matter how the space
was allocated, so no overhead needs to be involved after the allocation,
so maybe 100ms or so during allocation vs artificial partitioning. Not a
big deal.
 
On 10/17/2007 7:49 AM On a whim, dennis@home pounded out on the keyboard

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then that
>> person
>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper
>> backups
>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is
>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>
> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world and see
> who does get blamed for things like that.
>
> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that makes no
> difference to the user.
> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think Linux is
> OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are like Peter and
> that will be more black marks.
>
> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on the
> desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't get far
> unless you do.
>

The FACTS are, almost ALL Windows installations are pre-installed.
Those who have installed additional OS's learned how to do it properly,
some by trial and error. If a system came pre-installed with Linux and
a person tried to install Windows, the same thing could easily happen
and then the user would be blaming Windows for their loss of data. The
FACTS are that most people don't travel into the realm of setting up
multiple OS's. I'm a consultant and I have 5 OS's on my system and I
still don't think I understand fully all there is to know about it.

Those who haphazardly attempt it without doing the research in advance
can expect problems. And if they don't know the basic terms used on
computers and are attempting to install an additional OS on their system
(without making a backup first), they may not be "idiots", but they're
not very smart.


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
>installed.

>It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
>expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for newbies.

There you go again... pretending you are some kind of expert and
everybody else is a dummy. You can't stop yourself can you. LOL!

>> How many people can properly install Windows?
>
>More than Linux IME.

Based on what, your reading of tea leaves? Again another fanboy simply
mouthing his biased opinion. Damn you guys are so full of yourselves
it gets nauseating to read any of the crap you post.

>So you have to make software as idiot proof as possible if you expect those
>people to use it.

Why is it your type constantly pretends you are so smart, but
everybody else to you is some kind of idiot?
>
>Do you really think the user will get the blame if an OS upgrade kills the
>users data?

Windows does the same thing when you do a clean install. I bet a lot
of people aren't aware that's what will happen. What I always find so
damn funny about you clowns and that's all you are in you never tire
of ranting and raving about competing products but at the same time
can never bring yourselves to be even a little critical of Microsoft
when it does the same things or worse. I keep asking why, you guys
NEVER answer.

>No it will be the OS and probably rightly so if the warnings are not written
>in plain English that computer illiterates can understand.

Please tell me you think Windows Vista always uses plain easy to
follow English in it's help. I need a good laugh. Check out the double
talk that Vista offers about UAC and file permissions for example.
>
>I am of the opinion that software should not be able to do harm even if the
>user hasn't read the manuals without warning them in language they should
>understand i.e. not computer speak as most people don't understand it.

There you go again. You simply can't stop suggesting you are so
computer smart and everybody else couldn't possibly know as much as
you do. You have any idea what a pompous windbag you always sound
like?
 
Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:12:30 -0500, Ignoramus27577 wrote:
>
>> I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at home. So
>> I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a Windows
>> zealot.
>>
>> Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean that
>> Linux is perfect.
>>
>> That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has made
>> progress, it still SUCKS as far as
>>
>> - Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help - Giving
>> user control over partitioning using a simple language (other than
>> /dev/sde1 etc)
>> - controlling settings of grub
>
> Well what do you suggest it should use?
>
> Should my drive listing look like this?
>
> "The big black box in slot number 1 in the big case under my desk?"
> "The big black box in slot number 2 in the big case under my desk?"
> "The big black box in slot number 3 in the big case under my desk?"


That is not adequate, we need a location for "Your desk", and please
supply some more data to enable us to locate the front door, chair,
keyboard, telephone (for calling India) and power outlets, or can we use
Ubuntu without electricity?
 
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...
>
>hi crazy.
>I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.

I see you must have completed Frank's course on how to be seen as a
Usenet moron. Just call everybody crazy and hope nobody notices how
you act.

ROTFLMAO!
 
Charlie Tame wrote:
> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:25:41 -0400, caver1 wrote:
>>
>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>>
>>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>>>> comprehension?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There's also an option to use free space. caver1
>>
>> Not on that screenshot there isn't.
>>
>> I think the free space option only appears if there acutally *is* free
>> space that could be used in the first place or if there is a partition
>> that can be safely resized to make free space.
>>
>> And then, the option will also be called such and won't be called "Use
>> entire disk".
>>
>
>
> I think you are right but wasn't sure enough to say that.


I don't know about a disk with no free space.
With free space I get
Use free space
use entire disk
manual partition.
caver1
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then
>> that person
>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the
>> proper backups
>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is
>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>
> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world and
> see who does get blamed for things like that.
>
> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that makes
> no difference to the user.
> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think Linux
> is OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are like Peter
> and that will be more black marks.
>
> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on
> the desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't
> get far unless you do.


I guess I do live in a fantasy world. Never have even thought about the
real world.
Where in my posts have you ever found me insulting someone?
The biggest thing wrong in this world is that most people do not want to
take
responsibility for their own actions. That way they don't have to learn
or take care of themselves.
caver1
 
Adam Albright wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...
>>
>>hi crazy.
>>I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.
>
>
> I see you must have completed Frank's course on how to be seen as a
> Usenet moron. Just call everybody crazy and hope nobody notices how
> you act.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>

I bet you could get both of your feet in your mouth at the same time and
still manage to shove your pointy bald head up your fat hairy arse.
Frank
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
news:Z6WdnZP9nbXIjovanZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:27:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> <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. The fact that I
>> can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't exist.
>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>> evidence.
>
> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>
> Same URL tiny:
> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234

Thanks for that.. I downloaded 7.04 to see what it did but it wouldn't run
under VPC so I still haven't seen the install screens myself.

I think that anyone familiar with computers would understand those warnings.
but then they wouldn't need them anyway.
Its still not particularly clear to a computer illiterate.

Maybe something along the lines of "If you continue you will erase all your
documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on this machine.
This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of all you stuff on
separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please read the documentation or
ask questions at http://.."
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:a6cch31qkr560o9ner9e30v1dldaimp71t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
>>installed.
>
>>It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
>>expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for newbies.
>
> There you go again... pretending you are some kind of expert and
> everybody else is a dummy. You can't stop yourself can you. LOL!

Still here crazy.
I would have thought you had made enough of a fool of yourself in the vista
groups without doing it here too.


>>> How many people can properly install Windows?
>>
>>More than Linux IME.
>
> Based on what, your reading of tea leaves? Again another fanboy simply
> mouthing his biased opinion. Damn you guys are so full of yourselves
> it gets nauseating to read any of the crap you post.
>
>>So you have to make software as idiot proof as possible if you expect
>>those
>>people to use it.
>
> Why is it your type constantly pretends you are so smart, but
> everybody else to you is some kind of idiot?

Have you noticed whom it is that thinks they are an expert here?
A hint its you.
However I expect that everyone else is like me and knows you are just crazy.

>>
>>Do you really think the user will get the blame if an OS upgrade kills the
>>users data?
>
> Windows does the same thing when you do a clean install. I bet a lot
> of people aren't aware that's what will happen. What I always find so
> damn funny about you clowns and that's all you are in you never tire
> of ranting and raving about competing products but at the same time
> can never bring yourselves to be even a little critical of Microsoft
> when it does the same things or worse. I keep asking why, you guys
> NEVER answer.
>
>>No it will be the OS and probably rightly so if the warnings are not
>>written
>>in plain English that computer illiterates can understand.
>
> Please tell me you think Windows Vista always uses plain easy to
> follow English in it's help. I need a good laugh. Check out the double
> talk that Vista offers about UAC and file permissions for example.
>>
>>I am of the opinion that software should not be able to do harm even if
>>the
>>user hasn't read the manuals without warning them in language they should
>>understand i.e. not computer speak as most people don't understand it.
>
> There you go again. You simply can't stop suggesting you are so
> computer smart and everybody else couldn't possibly know as much as
> you do. You have any idea what a pompous windbag you always sound
> like?
>

Have you any idea how crazy you are?
 
"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:eLvkeQNEIHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> On 10/17/2007 7:49 AM On a whim, dennis@home pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then
>>> that person
>>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper
>>> backups
>>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is
>>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>>
>> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world and
>> see who does get blamed for things like that.
>>
>> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that makes
>> no difference to the user.
>> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think Linux is
>> OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are like Peter and
>> that will be more black marks.
>>
>> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on the
>> desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't get far
>> unless you do.
>
> The FACTS are, almost ALL Windows installations are pre-installed. Those
> who have installed additional OS's learned how to do it properly, some by
> trial and error. If a system came pre-installed with Linux and a person
> tried to install Windows, the same thing could easily happen and then the
> user would be blaming Windows for their loss of data. The FACTS are that
> most people don't travel into the realm of setting up multiple OS's. I'm
> a consultant and I have 5 OS's on my system and I still don't think I
> understand fully all there is to know about it.

The facts are that if Linux is to be big on the desktop someone is going to
have to install it.
That will have to be the user AFAICS.
If you really think Dell or the other small time operators are going to make
serious in-roads into windows sales then you are going to be dissapointed.
Its this "it would be OK if it were pre installed" attitude that stops the
solution IMO, no-one wants to fix it because the problem will go away


>
> Those who haphazardly attempt it without doing the research in advance can
> expect problems. And if they don't know the basic terms used on computers
> and are attempting to install an additional OS on their system (without
> making a backup first), they may not be "idiots", but they're not very
> smart.

Welcome to the world of computing as used by the masses.
It doesn't help when computer shopper put Linux disks on the cover.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:e3dch317en7ndqtb7rms2au4vdi1l0070b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...
>>
>>hi crazy.
>>I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.
>
> I see you must have completed Frank's course on how to be seen as a
> Usenet moron. Just call everybody crazy and hope nobody notices how
> you act.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>

Do you want me to give them a run down of you behavior so that they can
judge for themselves?
OK I will.

Adam is a troll of the worst kind.
He deliberately antagonizes other posters for any reason he can find.
He will pop and accuse them of being experts and pontificating even when the
poster is asking for help.

That OK or do you think more than a summary is needed?
 
Back
Top