Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com
  • Start date Start date
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OFfUC9QEIHA.5228@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> 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<
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Thats like buying a gun. Lets play Russian roulette. The gun can't
>> wipe my brain because.......
>
> That's why gun controls exist..are you suggesting licenses for Linux?
> BTW I'm in the UK so I don't know if you need a license in the USA just
> that it appears not.


Then by you're argument you should be licensed before you can load an OS.
But then again gun controls are only good for those who want to follow them
or even know what they are.
You can take the "but what if the user doesn't know" to extremes that no
one can answer.
If you are going to use something you must learn at least the basics.
Even with gun control a person needs to know what end the bullet comes out.
Can't blame the manufacturer if you blow your own head off.
Yes the US has some gun control. Not as strong as a lot of other countries.
caver1
 
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:24:13 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>Its easy to make assumptions when you know about a subject.

Too funny! You mean you THINK you know the subject and since when is
it acceptable to make sweeping assumptions?

You prove you don't have a clue every day... that's the fanboy way. A
few months ago the same gang of idiots were screaming no, no, using a
Registry Cleaner is bad, bad, don't do it. Now they're starting to
beat the drum about overclocking, bad, bad, don't do that either. Just
more ignorance, that this newsgroup has in surplus. I will admit you
clowns are funny. A must read like the newspaper comics. I look
forward to seeing what the fanboys will get wrong next.
 
"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?
 
On 10/18/2007 12:42 AM On a whim, Allan Adler pounded out on the keyboard

> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Let us put the shoe on the other foot. Say you have a Linux system and you
>> want to install a Windows system on it -- dual boot. Is that easier and
>> clearer than the way the OP complains of?
>>
>> I know it is much simpler to install Windows first, but say I do not want
>> to. (This is a rhetorical question, although I did install Windows XP once
>> on a machine already running Red Hat Linux 7.3. I made three full-backup
>> tapes of the system first (cannot be too careful), installed Win XP which
>> clobbered the first of three hard drives, then restored the Linux stuff (and
>> boot block) of the first hard drive from backup tape. Worked fine with no
>> surprises.)
>
> I know someone who had Windows on a laptop and wanted to add a Linux
> partition. He used Partition Magic and had no problems. Ditto when he
> wanted to uninstall Linux and make the whole thing Windows again. One
> thing I don't know is whether you can start with a PC running Linux
> and use Partition Magic to add a Windows partition without trashing the
> Linux partition. Partition Magic can reapportion an existing Windows partition
> intelligently but it seems unlikely it can do the same for a Linux partition.

I've used PM to resize/add partitions, including Linux, without any
issues. I have 4 Windows partitions and 1 Linux. PM has no problems
dealing with Linux partitions. Where problems do arise however, is with
unsupported hard drive sizes. I had a prior version (7 I believe) wipe
out a drive because it was larger than the version supported.

It is much more intuitive IMO to create the partition first and then
have the OS ask, "Do you want to use this unused space/partition?",
rather than having the OS installer resize for you and ask questions in
a way someone might not understand. But again, I find that, "...this
will destroy all data..." is about as clear as you can get.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> dennis@home 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.
>
>
> And cretinous statements like these here make it perfectly clear that you
> are indeed a vista user.
> You are actually telling us that someone who has no idea what "data" is has
> any business installing an OS?
>
> Gods, are you stupid. You and Vista are a perfect match

Hey pete. RS needs his hairy arse kissed again and he's asking for you
to do it (again!).
How wonderful, huh.
Frank
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "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?



well if you don't know what a whole disk
is...............
1/2 +1/2= 1 whole or is it 1 Timbit is a hole
or.................
Free space? I guess it doesn't cost anything or
its whats between my kids ears...............
caver1
 
Terry R. wrote:
> On 10/18/2007 12:42 AM On a whim, Allan Adler pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Let us put the shoe on the other foot. Say you have a Linux system
>>> and you
>>> want to install a Windows system on it -- dual boot. Is that easier and
>>> clearer than the way the OP complains of?
>>>
>>> I know it is much simpler to install Windows first, but say I do not
>>> want
>>> to. (This is a rhetorical question, although I did install Windows XP
>>> once
>>> on a machine already running Red Hat Linux 7.3. I made three full-backup
>>> tapes of the system first (cannot be too careful), installed Win XP
>>> which
>>> clobbered the first of three hard drives, then restored the Linux
>>> stuff (and
>>> boot block) of the first hard drive from backup tape. Worked fine
>>> with no
>>> surprises.)
>>
>> I know someone who had Windows on a laptop and wanted to add a Linux
>> partition. He used Partition Magic and had no problems. Ditto when he
>> wanted to uninstall Linux and make the whole thing Windows again. One
>> thing I don't know is whether you can start with a PC running Linux
>> and use Partition Magic to add a Windows partition without trashing the
>> Linux partition. Partition Magic can reapportion an existing Windows
>> partition
>> intelligently but it seems unlikely it can do the same for a Linux
>> partition.
>
> I've used PM to resize/add partitions, including Linux, without any
> issues. I have 4 Windows partitions and 1 Linux. PM has no problems
> dealing with Linux partitions. Where problems do arise however, is with
> unsupported hard drive sizes. I had a prior version (7 I believe) wipe
> out a drive because it was larger than the version supported.
>
> It is much more intuitive IMO to create the partition first and then
> have the OS ask, "Do you want to use this unused space/partition?",
> rather than having the OS installer resize for you and ask questions in
> a way someone might not understand. But again, I find that, "...this
> will destroy all data..." is about as clear as you can get.
>


gparted is PM for Linux. Looks very similar.
caver1
 

> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.

Wrong. Linux assumes you are anal retentive with time to waste.
 
"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.
 
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...
 
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.
 

Similar threads

S
BITLOCKER DATA RECOVERY
Replies
0
Views
17
Sohail-1967
S
R
What is wrong with my old laptop hard drive and how do I fix it?
Replies
1
Views
41
Tony D
Tony D
AWS
Ubuntu Server to Ubuntu Pro in-place upgrade now available in public preview
Replies
0
Views
252
AWS
AWS
U
My old Windows XP laptop is having technical difficulties.
Replies
0
Views
24
User2627647473
U
AWS
You Can Vote for openSUSE’s New Logo – But Not For Long!
Replies
0
Views
66
AWS
AWS
Back
Top