Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com
  • Start date Start date
caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:

>Unruh wrote:
>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the previous
>> comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the conditional (If) I
>> seems from various comments that it does NOT give adequate warning, and the
>> warning that was posted was certainly well beyond the point at which a
>> warning should have been given. Do you have more information about what the
>> warning actually is?


>Here is a quote as I haven't figured out how to
>get a screen shot in here,
> "If you continue,the changes listed below
>will be written to the
>disks. Otherwise, you will be able to make further
>changes manually.

>Warning: This will destroy all data on any
>partition you have removed as well as on the
>partitions that are going to be formatted.
>................................
>Write the changes to disk?"

>caver1


I believe that occurs during the formatting, not the selection of
partitions. And the warning is generic. It comes up if you placed
partitions onto a completely empty disk, as well as one that was previously
partitioned. The system KNOWS if the disk had previous partitions on it. It
is at that point that the system should warn you, not after it has
repartitioned the disk. It especially KNOWS if there were NTFS partitions
on the disk previously. That is when it should give the warning. IF the
user selects manaul repartitioning, the system may well assume that he
knows what he is doing. If the system automatically repartitions the disk
for the user, the system should assume that the person's grasp of
partitioning is weak and be extra careful to give warnings, and not generic
idiotic warnings like the above, which you get if you partition a brand new
completely blank disk.

I believe that the OP stated that the Ubuntu people have admitted that the
lack of warning is a bug. If there is a lack of warning at the
repartitioning stage, then that IS a bug.
 
Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:36:58 -0400, caver1 wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:18:14 -0400, caver1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unruh wrote:
>>>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the
>>>>> previous comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>>>>> conditional (If) I seems from various comments that it does NOT give
>>>>> adequate warning, and the warning that was posted was certainly well
>>>>> beyond the point at which a warning should have been given. Do you
>>>>> have more information about what the warning actually is?
>>>> Here is a quote as I haven't figured out how to get a screen shot in
>>>> here,
>>>> "If you continue,the changes listed below
>>>> will be written to the
>>>> disks. Otherwise, you will be able to make further changes manually.
>>>>
>>>> Warning: This will destroy all data on any partition you have removed
>>>> as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted.
>>>> ................................
>>>> Write the changes to disk?"
>>>>
>>>> caver1
>>> There are several web sites that allow you to post pictures. You could
>>> get an account, post screen shots there, and post a url.
>>>
>> Its not really worth getting another account somewhere just to refute
>> someones
>> constant "what if".
>> What if the world was flat. Just because you say it isn't why should I
>> believe you?
>> After all I'm blind and can't see it for myself. caver1
>
> I was just making a suggestion ...
>
>
>


Appreciated. :)
caver1
 
Unruh wrote:
> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>
>> Unruh wrote:
>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the previous
>>> comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the conditional (If) I
>>> seems from various comments that it does NOT give adequate warning, and the
>>> warning that was posted was certainly well beyond the point at which a
>>> warning should have been given. Do you have more information about what the
>>> warning actually is?
>
>
>> Here is a quote as I haven't figured out how to
>> get a screen shot in here,
>> "If you continue,the changes listed below
>> will be written to the
>> disks. Otherwise, you will be able to make further
>> changes manually.
>
>> Warning: This will destroy all data on any
>> partition you have removed as well as on the
>> partitions that are going to be formatted.
>> ................................
>> Write the changes to disk?"
>
>> caver1
>
>
> I believe that occurs during the formatting, not the selection of
> partitions. And the warning is generic. It comes up if you placed
> partitions onto a completely empty disk, as well as one that was previously
> partitioned. The system KNOWS if the disk had previous partitions on it. It
> is at that point that the system should warn you, not after it has
> repartitioned the disk. It especially KNOWS if there were NTFS partitions
> on the disk previously. That is when it should give the warning. IF the
> user selects manaul repartitioning, the system may well assume that he
> knows what he is doing. If the system automatically repartitions the disk
> for the user, the system should assume that the person's grasp of
> partitioning is weak and be extra careful to give warnings, and not generic
> idiotic warnings like the above, which you get if you partition a brand new
> completely blank disk.
>
> I believe that the OP stated that the Ubuntu people have admitted that the
> lack of warning is a bug. If there is a lack of warning at the
> repartitioning stage, then that IS a bug.
>
>


This is after you choose what partitions you want
but before you choose to actually do
it. If you don't want to then you say no and
either use the free space or exit the install.
There are no changes to the disk until you approve
them.
caver1
 
Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:45:54 +0000, Unruh wrote:

>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the
>> previous comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>> conditional (If) I seems from various comments that it does NOT give
>> adequate warning, and the warning that was posted was certainly well
>> beyond the point at which a warning should have been given. Do you have
>> more information about what the warning actually is?

>There have been at least 2 screenshots posted.

>The original poster's:
><http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg>

And the first gives only two choices, guided and use the whole disk, or
manual. I am sorry, that is a bug, if that disk contained a previously
installed system. Note that the kubuntu one below specifically asks if you
want to resize the prior windows partition and use the freed space. Note
also that if it detects Vista, it should tell you to go and use the Vista
resizer instead, since then it is MS fault, and because MS at least knows
what the specs are for their NTFS, which they have refused to release to
anyone else.

And note that under Ubuntu, if you choose the whole disk it does NOT say
that this will destroy all data on that disk. This is an inadequate
warning. This is a bug, and the OP had every right to be upset.

(Note that I always use manual, and accept that anything that happens is my
fault.)


>And another:
><http://www.saunalahti.fi/pirisisi/test/kubuntuinstallation.png>

And knowing this, you do not realise that the kubuntu one is different than
the ubuntu one, and gives two choices for guided partitioning, letting the
user know that is a choice and one is liable to be more destructive than
the other?


>The second is a kubuntu install.

>--
>Rick
 
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:24:58 +0000, Unruh wrote:

> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:45:54 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>
>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the
>>> previous comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>>> conditional (If) I seems from various comments that it does NOT give
>>> adequate warning, and the warning that was posted was certainly well
>>> beyond the point at which a warning should have been given. Do you
>>> have more information about what the warning actually is?
>
>>There have been at least 2 screenshots posted.
>
>>The original poster's:
>><http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg>
>
> And the first gives only two choices, guided and use the whole disk, or
> manual. I am sorry, that is a bug, if that disk contained a previously
> installed system.

Not necessarily. What is the next screen in the installer?


> Note that the kubuntu one below specifically asks if
> you want to resize the prior windows partition and use the freed space.
> Note also that if it detects Vista, it should tell you to go and use the
> Vista resizer instead, since then it is MS fault, and because MS at
> least knows what the specs are for their NTFS, which they have refused
> to release to anyone else.

Can you please tell me what "use the whole disk" means?

>
> And note that under Ubuntu, if you choose the whole disk it does NOT say
> that this will destroy all data on that disk. This is an inadequate
> warning. This is a bug, and the OP had every right to be upset.

Can you please tell me what "use the whole disk" means?

>
> (Note that I always use manual, and accept that anything that happens is
> my fault.)
>
>
>>And another:
>><http://www.saunalahti.fi/pirisisi/test/kubuntuinstallation.png>
>
> And knowing this, you do not realise that the kubuntu one is different

I know very well that KUbuntu and Ubuntu are different, and that,
apparently, their installer screens are different.

> than the ubuntu one, and gives two choices for guided partitioning,
> letting the user know that is a choice and one is liable to be more
> destructive than the other?

What does the next screen say?
Can you please tell me what "use the whole disk" means?
>
>
>>The second is a kubuntu install.

There are warnings through out the Ubuntu guides to back up data.

And, AGAIN, if you don't know how to partition a disk and install the OS,
maybe you shouldn't be doing it.


--
Rick
 
Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:


>The warnings on our local gasoline pumps are adequate but that doesn't
>stop the occasional unforeseen error or some idiot setting themselves
>alight.

I was that idiot, didn't blaze on, but once I was empty and pulled
into the only available gas pump and filled up.

Only after I paid and went to leave did I noticed I filled my VW Van
with diesel. Hell it even had a green nozzle :)


--

Girl gives Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger handjob!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/daft-hands-p1.php
-Wait for it
 
Unruh wrote:
> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:45:54 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>
>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the
>>> previous comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>>> conditional (If) I seems from various comments that it does NOT give
>>> adequate warning, and the warning that was posted was certainly well
>>> beyond the point at which a warning should have been given. Do you have
>>> more information about what the warning actually is?
>
>> There have been at least 2 screenshots posted.
>
>> The original poster's:
>> <http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg>
>
> And the first gives only two choices, guided and use the whole disk, or
> manual. I am sorry, that is a bug, if that disk contained a previously
> installed system.


The partitioning does not take place when you select that, nothing
happens when you select that except preparation.



> And note that under Ubuntu, if you choose the whole disk it does NOT say
> that this will destroy all data on that disk. This is an inadequate
> warning. This is a bug, and the OP had every right to be upset.


Yes it does, it askes if you want to write the changes to disk or quit.




> And knowing this, you do not realise that the kubuntu one is different than
> the ubuntu one, and gives two choices for guided partitioning, letting the
> user know that is a choice and one is liable to be more destructive than
> the other?


Not here it isn't you get warned quite adequately.

You're just lying, plain and simple, either lying or incredibly obtuse.
 
Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
> Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The warnings on our local gasoline pumps are adequate but that doesn't
>> stop the occasional unforeseen error or some idiot setting themselves
>> alight.
>
> I was that idiot, didn't blaze on, but once I was empty and pulled
> into the only available gas pump and filled up.
>
> Only after I paid and went to leave did I noticed I filled my VW Van
> with diesel. Hell it even had a green nozzle :)
>
>


Ha, reminds me, Simon did that to our company Toyota.

Needless to say it was me had to take off the tank and flush it all out.

It did not work too well,,, did get a few hundred yards but you should
have seen the smoke :)
 
Unruh wrote:
> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:45:54 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>
>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the
>>> previous comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>>> conditional (If) I seems from various comments that it does NOT give
>>> adequate warning, and the warning that was posted was certainly well
>>> beyond the point at which a warning should have been given. Do you have
>>> more information about what the warning actually is?
>
>> There have been at least 2 screenshots posted.
>
>> The original poster's:
>> <http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg>
>
> And the first gives only two choices, guided and use the whole disk, or
> manual. I am sorry, that is a bug, if that disk contained a previously
> installed system. Note that the kubuntu one below specifically asks if you
> want to resize the prior windows partition and use the freed space. Note
> also that if it detects Vista, it should tell you to go and use the Vista
> resizer instead, since then it is MS fault, and because MS at least knows
> what the specs are for their NTFS, which they have refused to release to
> anyone else.
>
> And note that under Ubuntu, if you choose the whole disk it does NOT say
> that this will destroy all data on that disk. This is an inadequate
> warning. This is a bug, and the OP had every right to be upset.
>


And how are you going to use the whole disk and
not destroy the data already
on there? This has been a fact since the DOS DAYS.
CAVER1
 
"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OHHcn2CFIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> And how are you going to use the whole disk and not destroy the data
> already
> on there? This has been a fact since the DOS DAYS.

But why does Ubuntu put out exactly the same warning when it isn't going to
destroy any data?
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OHHcn2CFIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> And how are you going to use the whole disk and not destroy the data
>> already
>> on there? This has been a fact since the DOS DAYS.
>
> But why does Ubuntu put out exactly the same warning when it isn't going
> to destroy any data?


?
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OHHcn2CFIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> And how are you going to use the whole disk and not destroy the data
>> already
>> on there? This has been a fact since the DOS DAYS.
>
> But why does Ubuntu put out exactly the same warning when it isn't going
> to destroy any data?


The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to
bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is there?
Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn you when
nothing is wrong?

Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?

You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
understand a simple message like this one?

http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
 
"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to bomb
> somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is there? Are you
> know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn you when nothing is
> wrong?
>
> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?

Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?

> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot understand
> a simple message like this one?
>
> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg

So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick they are
all correct.
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to
>> bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is there?
>> Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn you when
>> nothing is wrong?
>>
>> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?
>
> Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?
>
>> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
>> understand a simple message like this one?
>>
>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>
> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick they
> are all correct.


WTF difference does it make which HAS data, the installer is telling you
that it soon won't have if you proceed. If by this time in the procedure
you don't know then a) you should not be installing operating systems
and b) you cancel the operation and check.

If you are suggesting the installer should detect and identify every
operating system and file system ever created then you better tell them
to correct the Vista and XP installers because they don't wipe your butt
for you either...

What you have proven conclusively is your ability to behave like a
complete idiot...
 
dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to
>> bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is there?
>> Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn you when
>> nothing is wrong?
>>
>> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?
>
> Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?
>
>> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
>> understand a simple message like this one?
>>
>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>
> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick they
> are all correct.


There is no pleasing you. No matter what the
answer you say but- "what if?'
You're shown that the warning is there. Then you
ask why is it there.
The partitions that are going to be destroyed are
the ones that you are going to repartition.
If its the whole disk its the whole disk. If its
the free space its the free space. If you do it
manually its the ones you pick. No you cannot use
the same partition for two different OS's.
Of course if you say okay you might want to warn
your neighbors that they will have to shut their
computers down so it won't destroy their data.
And by the way give me a screen shot to prove that
it won't.
caver1
 
caver1 wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>
>>> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to
>>> bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is there?
>>> Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn you when
>>> nothing is wrong?
>>>
>>> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?
>>
>> Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?
>>
>>> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
>>> understand a simple message like this one?
>>>
>>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>>
>> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
>> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick
>> they are all correct.
>
>
> There is no pleasing you. No matter what the answer you say but- "what if?'
> You're shown that the warning is there. Then you ask why is it there.
> The partitions that are going to be destroyed are the ones that you are
> going to repartition.
> If its the whole disk its the whole disk. If its the free space its the
> free space. If you do it manually its the ones you pick. No you cannot
> use the same partition for two different OS's.
> Of course if you say okay you might want to warn your neighbors that
> they will have to shut their computers down so it won't destroy their data.
> And by the way give me a screen shot to prove that it won't.
> caver1


Well the point is quite admirably illustrated. There is no pleasing
someone who does not want to be pleased.

It is unfortunate that it is not possible to make things completely
idiot proof but it is not, and all Dennis has proved is that not only is
it impossible but if anyone could prove that fact 'twould be Dennis.

You don't give a ten year old a gallon of gas and some matches and tell
him to light the grill, and apparently some are not safe with a CD. I
guess that's life :)
 
Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going to
>>>> bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is
>>>> there? Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn
>>>> you when nothing is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?
>>>
>>> Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?
>>>
>>>> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
>>>> understand a simple message like this one?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>>>
>>> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
>>> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick
>>> they are all correct.
>>
>>
>> There is no pleasing you. No matter what the answer you say but- "what
>> if?'
>> You're shown that the warning is there. Then you ask why is it there.
>> The partitions that are going to be destroyed are the ones that you
>> are going to repartition.
>> If its the whole disk its the whole disk. If its the free space its
>> the free space. If you do it manually its the ones you pick. No you
>> cannot use the same partition for two different OS's.
>> Of course if you say okay you might want to warn your neighbors that
>> they will have to shut their computers down so it won't destroy their
>> data.
>> And by the way give me a screen shot to prove that it won't.
>> caver1
>
>
> Well the point is quite admirably illustrated. There is no pleasing
> someone who does not want to be pleased.
>
> It is unfortunate that it is not possible to make things completely
> idiot proof but it is not, and all Dennis has proved is that not only is
> it impossible but if anyone could prove that fact 'twould be Dennis.
>
> You don't give a ten year old a gallon of gas and some matches and tell
> him to light the grill, and apparently some are not safe with a CD. I
> guess that's life :)


Thank you Charlie.
caver1
 
caver1 wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uN%23NKlDFIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same reason that GW Bush doesn't announce when he's NOT going
>>>>> to bomb somebody, because then there's nothing to worry about, is
>>>>> there? Are you know complaining that Linux doesn't constantly warn
>>>>> you when nothing is wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Christ almighty, what is wrong with this?
>>>>
>>>> Its a poor analogy? Who knows what else is wrong with what you said?
>>>>
>>>>> You are saying that someone with your claimed experience cannot
>>>>> understand a simple message like this one?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>>>>
>>>> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
>>>> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick
>>>> they are all correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no pleasing you. No matter what the answer you say but-
>>> "what if?'
>>> You're shown that the warning is there. Then you ask why is it there.
>>> The partitions that are going to be destroyed are the ones that you
>>> are going to repartition.
>>> If its the whole disk its the whole disk. If its the free space its
>>> the free space. If you do it manually its the ones you pick. No you
>>> cannot use the same partition for two different OS's.
>>> Of course if you say okay you might want to warn your neighbors that
>>> they will have to shut their computers down so it won't destroy their
>>> data.
>>> And by the way give me a screen shot to prove that it won't.
>>> caver1
>>
>>
>> Well the point is quite admirably illustrated. There is no pleasing
>> someone who does not want to be pleased.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that it is not possible to make things completely
>> idiot proof but it is not, and all Dennis has proved is that not only
>> is it impossible but if anyone could prove that fact 'twould be Dennis.
>>
>> You don't give a ten year old a gallon of gas and some matches and
>> tell him to light the grill, and apparently some are not safe with a
>> CD. I guess that's life :)
>
>
> Thank you Charlie.
> caver1


Well it is rather like politics and religion, since there IS no definite
answer the debate can be endless.

I wouldn't get rich but wouldn't turn down $10 for every time I've fskd
something up and wished it wasn't my fault. If all else fails read the
instructions. I personally think that both the Windows and Ubuntu
installers are as idiot proof as is necessary, there'll always be a
better idiot than you can create a workaround for :)

I wasn't very happy when my install failed but there IS something about
my particular system here that's causing it which I can isolate because
I have the luxury of slide mounted drives. I "Could" have just said to
hell with it but would rather try and at least isolate the problem even
if I am not able to find a technical reason for it. I suspect it may be
because GRUB is installed on a data drive but either way it is worth
knowing about.
 
UBUNTU HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS XP. For gawds sake quit
posting about it on this NG.
-

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:tWKSi.24082$G25.11445@edtnps89...
> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>
>>Unruh wrote:
>>> caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Unruh wrote:
>>>>> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:G%tSi.22040$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?
>>>
>>> I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting
>>> on the previous
>>> comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the
>>> conditional (If) I
>>> seems from various comments that it does NOT give adequate
>>> warning, and the
>>> warning that was posted was certainly well beyond the point
>>> at which a
>>> warning should have been given. Do you have more information
>>> about what the
>>> warning actually is?
>
>
>>Here is a quote as I haven't figured out how to
>>get a screen shot in here,
>> "If you continue,the changes listed below
>>will be written to the
>>disks. Otherwise, you will be able to make further
>>changes manually.
>
>>Warning: This will destroy all data on any
>>partition you have removed as well as on the
>>partitions that are going to be formatted.
>>................................
>>Write the changes to disk?"
>
>>caver1
>
>
> I believe that occurs during the formatting, not the selection
> of
> partitions. And the warning is generic. It comes up if you
> placed
> partitions onto a completely empty disk, as well as one that
> was previously
> partitioned. The system KNOWS if the disk had previous
> partitions on it. It
> is at that point that the system should warn you, not after it
> has
> repartitioned the disk. It especially KNOWS if there were NTFS
> partitions
> on the disk previously. That is when it should give the
> warning. IF the
> user selects manaul repartitioning, the system may well assume
> that he
> knows what he is doing. If the system automatically
> repartitions the disk
> for the user, the system should assume that the person's grasp
> of
> partitioning is weak and be extra careful to give warnings,
> and not generic
> idiotic warnings like the above, which you get if you
> partition a brand new
> completely blank disk.
>
> I believe that the OP stated that the Ubuntu people have
> admitted that the
> lack of warning is a bug. If there is a lack of warning at the
> repartitioning stage, then that IS a bug.
>
>
 
"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:upTIUCEFIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> http://www.tames.net/screenshot.jpg
>>
>> So which of those partitions has data on that is going to be destroyed?
>> Answer: none or one or both or the ones not listed, take your pick they
>> are all correct.
>
>
> WTF difference does it make which HAS data, the installer is telling you
> that it soon won't have if you proceed. If by this time in the procedure
> you don't know then a) you should not be installing operating systems and
> b) you cancel the operation and check.

But what you say is not ture.
The installer may be going to destroy data or it may not be.
If you continue you may end up with a dual boot system or not.
Why is it you can't see that the warnings are wrong as in some circumstances
they lie.

>
> If you are suggesting the installer should detect and identify every
> operating system and file system ever created then you better tell them to
> correct the Vista and XP installers because they don't wipe your butt for
> you either...

No I am suggesting that if the installer is not going to destroy data it
should not say it is.
At best it confuses the newbies and they abandon linux, at worst the
experience user will ignore it as they know its wrong and delete their
system.
Its simple enough if you think about it.
>
> What you have proven conclusively is your ability to behave like a
> complete idiot...
 
Back
Top