"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:13hd1t017df1377@news.supernews.com...

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:24:41 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:13hcthh1srtj7bf@news.supernews.com...

>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> )snip)

>>>>

>>>> It has to but it does warn the user in plain English that they will

>>>> lose data if thats what they do.

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

>>>> installed.

>>>> It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on

>>>> expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for

>>>> newbies.

>>> (snip)

>>>

>>> What were the last 3 distros you installed?

>>

>> Fedora core 3,

> 3??? 3 ???? .... real current.

>

>> gentoo (real pain that one as it didn't compile my disk

>> controller in so it wouldn't boot first time), and ubuntu (but that

>> hasn't finished yet and doesn't work on vpc),

>

> ... it works on VMWare. I installed using VMWare just to see what the

> buzz is about.

>

>>

>>>What distro do you use?

>>

>> None here (unless you count my nas drives, router and mail server) as my

>> linux notebook got dropped and the new one is vista (insurance company

>> doesn't do linux) and I haven't got around to repartitioning it yet.

>

> Wow... from your statements, you sound like you haven't used a Linux

> distro in your life.

 

You sound like a part of the reason Linux still isn't very popular.

You give the standard answers.. its the users fault.. he should have read

the manuals.. Linux is for real nerds.

"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.

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.

--

Ignorantly,

Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>

* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and

* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

"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.

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:eYFL5DSEIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote in message

>> news:Z6WdnZP9nbXIjovanZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@giganews.com...

>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:27:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message

>>>> news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...

>>>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home

>>>>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:

>>>>>>

>>> 3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx

>>>>>> and a few I have forgotten.

>>>>>> Which have you installed?

>>>>>

>>>>> Too many.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Do you doubt it?

>>>>>> Have you never installed windows?

>>>>>

>>>>> As I said, Too many times.

>>>>>

>>>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then, shall we?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Didn't think so.

>>>>

>>>> If you are so sure it does you could show the warning. The fact that I

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

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

>>>> evidence.

>>>

>>> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/

>>> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png

>>>

>>> Same URL tiny:

>>> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234

>>

>> Thanks for that.. I downloaded 7.04 to see what it did but it wouldn't

>> run under VPC so I still haven't seen the install screens myself.

>>

>

>

> That's good. I have no knowledge about this subject but I can tell you

> what's wrong.

 

That's not actually true.

I am like many users who have done it before and can't remember what it says

and we have the screen shoots posted assuming they are genuine.

"Jean-David Beyer" <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:hOzRi.8627$0k2.3828@trnddc05...

> 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.

>>>

>>> Name any operating system that conforms to your opinion.

>>

>> How about the one that runs a telephone exchange?

>>

>>

>>

> Did you ever try to install the software in a #5 ESS?

 

No I worked on System X in the UK as part of the design team for the fault

resilient processor.

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

--

Warning: You have moved the mouse.

Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent

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 he doesn't understand partitioning hard drives, he shouldn't be

partitioning them, or he should accept the responsibility and

consequences.

> 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.

 

Linux is at least as installable as Windows. IMO it installs easier.

>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>>> Name any operating system that conforms to your opinion.

>>>

>>> How about the one that runs a telephone exchange?

>>

>> ... install it on a personal computer... and without any instruction.

>

> Personal computers lack the uptime needed for the job whatever OS they

> run.

 

What? They do fine as small web servers, wp, ss, smallish databases,

graphic editing, web surfing, and a large amount of other tasks.

> In fact they probably fail too often while they are in the box

> waiting to be sold.

> Telephone exchanges need to be up and running 365x24 with no downtime

> for upgrades, etc.

 

That has nothing to do with Joe Sixpack installing an operating system.

> I suppose that might change if people get used to the cr@p service they

> get from mobiles. -)

 

Buy a clue.

 

--

Rick

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:54:00 +0100, 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..

 

No, it isn't.

> are you suggesting licenses for Linux?

 

As a matter of fact, yes. It is called the GPL.

 

> BTW I'm in the UK so I don't know if you need a license in the USA just

> that it appears not.

 

You need a license for Linux in the UK, too.

--

Rick

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:15:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:13hd1t017df1377@news.supernews.com...

>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:24:41 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:13hcthh1srtj7bf@news.supernews.com...

>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>> )snip)

>>>>>

>>>>> It has to but it does warn the user in plain English that they will

>>>>> lose data if thats what they do.

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

>>>>> installed.

>>>>> It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked

>>>>> on expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for

>>>>> newbies.

>>>> (snip)

>>>>

>>>> What were the last 3 distros you installed?

>>>

>>> Fedora core 3,

>> 3??? 3 ???? .... real current.

>>

>>> gentoo (real pain that one as it didn't compile my disk controller in

>>> so it wouldn't boot first time), and ubuntu (but that hasn't finished

>>> yet and doesn't work on vpc),

>>

>> ... it works on VMWare. I installed using VMWare just to see what the

>> buzz is about.

>>

>>

>>>>What distro do you use?

>>>

>>> None here (unless you count my nas drives, router and mail server) as

>>> my linux notebook got dropped and the new one is vista (insurance

>>> company doesn't do linux) and I haven't got around to repartitioning

>>> it yet.

>>

>> Wow... from your statements, you sound like you haven't used a Linux

>> distro in your life.

>

> You sound like a part of the reason Linux still isn't very popular. You

> give the standard answers.. its the users fault..

 

It was the users fault. He wiped his hard drive. It would have been the

same if he had tried to install Windows.

> he should have read the manuals..

 

He should have read about partitioning hard drives. It seems the prase

"use the whole disk" was too complicated.

> Linux is for real nerds.

 

I have never said that. Linux/OSS is not just for nerds.

 

 

 

--

Rick

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:24:13 +0100, 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.

 

If a person is that illiterate, that person should not install an

operating system. Period. Not Windows. Not OS X. Not Linux. That person

should take his box to a store or a technician or someone that know what

they are doing.

 

--

Rick

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...

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> "Unruh" wrote:

>>>

>>> "dennis@home" writes:

>>>>

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

>>>>exist.

>>>

>>> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all

>>> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that

>>> you did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation

>>> is only one of many possible ones.

>

>And the least likely one, to boot

 

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

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

>>>>evidence.

 

Wow. That's simply amazing, that anyone make that much of a jackass

of themselves. Just FLAUNTING his stupidity and illogic.

"Peter Köhlmann" . wrote in message

news:ffadbr$26q$02$1@news.t-online.com...

>

> He is correct in everything he posted. The one completely incorrect is the

> OP (a troll) and you. Naturally you. You have yet to post something which

> contains anything correct. Until now all your posts were idiotic rubbish

 

 

Hi.

I don't usually call people liars but in your case its obviously so.

If you read the thread you will notice that I have installed Ubuntu 7.10 and

the warning messages are as I posted.

They are completely wrong and unhelpful even to a techie.

If you think that I lie about it you have the opportunity to install it

yourself and look but as it will make you look stupid I don't expect you to.

Now shut up and go back to the kill file.