After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
lost.

After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
drive.

So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.

I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.

I needed to reinstall every single application.

I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.

I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.

How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
drive without a single warning?

Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
whole hard drive without warning.

The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":

  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg

I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.

When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
drive and erase everything in it."

Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
as erasing the whole hard drive.

Summercool wrote:

< snip admittance of being a total retard >

Idiot
-- 
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
> 
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.

No, you chose to format your hard drive. There is no C: designatoinunder 
Linux.

> 
> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.

No, you didn't have to.

> 
> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.

No backups?

> 
> I needed to reinstall every single application.

... after you erased them.

> 
> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.

... after you erased them.

> 
> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.

Yes, you did.

> 
> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

.... you should have read the installation instructions.

> 
> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of work,
> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
> hard drive without warning.
> 
> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
> 
>   http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg

Can you not read:

Guided - use entire disk.

> 
> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know it
> isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just say
> "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best right
> after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.

Guided - use entire disk.

> 
> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C drive
> and erase everything in it."

No, it doesn't. It means use the entire disk.

> 
> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think about
> it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as skilled as
> you who will be using it. People don't have time to read thousands of
> words of warning and note for the installation. Just spend a little time
> to warn time before doing something as destructive as erasing the whole
> hard drive.


This is a lousy troll attempt. Try harder next time.


-- 
Rick

Verily I say unto thee, that Summercool spake thusly:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.

After installing XP on my P4, it seems that my bootloader was lost.

Then, as a bonus, on six occasions (so far) XP destroyed the RAID array
due to buggy drivers, and wiped out 3 operating systems (XP, FC5, FC7).

XP's quite good at destroying monitors too, since every time I run a
DirectX game, it changes the refresh rate to something too high to be
displayed (invalid sync), despite changing the advanced nVidia frequency
settings to try to keep them in spec. Eventually I needed to use a third
party utility called RefreshLock to force this brain-dead OS to capitulate.

But more than anything else, XP is stunningly proficient at simply
destroying /itself/. A stiff breeze will blow it over, and more often
than not, the only recourse is the world famous WipeNReinstall®, as
recommended by highly qualified MSCE professionals the world over.

But fear not, Windows fans, for we have Vista to the rescue ... twice
the bloat, twice the crashes, twice the price, twice the restrictions,
and half the functionality.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then just install GNU/Linux instead,
but remember to grow a brain and RTFM first, or you may end up like our
friend flatfish, who posts fake "help" posts through Google, during the
short breaks he gets from medical supervision in the mental ward.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
|  make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
|  - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
 11:46:11 up 68 days, 10:41,  2 users,  load average: 0.32, 0.11, 0.03

On Oct 16, 3:34 am, Rick <n...@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:
>
> > The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> > content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> > the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>
> >  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>
> Can you not read:
>
> Guided - use entire disk.

As I said, it asks "How would you like to partition?"
Partition doesn't have a meaning of "Erasing everything".  What It is
doing is actually Erase everything and Partition.  It shouldn't bet on
the vague point for something so dramatic.

And some of you guys, grow a heart.
Computers are still to work for people, not the other way around.

I always click ``manual.''
-- 
rhhardin@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.

> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.

> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.

That's what you get when you don't read the instructions.
HAH!

> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.

Awwww, diddums.

> I needed to reinstall every single application.

Well, you would if you blanked your hard drive. Duuuuuh

> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.

Well, you would if you blanked your hard drive. Duuuuuh

> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.

Well, you would if you blanked your hard drive. Duuuuuh

> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

It gives you warnings.
It warns you to backup before proceeding, or did last time I checked.
It warns you to be careful with your partitioning.
If you're an idiot who gives ubuntu your "C:" drive to format, you're the
only one to blame.

> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
> whole hard drive without warning.

Just because they TELL ubuntu to erase their hard drive.
With plenty of warning.
It's not ubuntu's fault if they click the wrong buttons during install
without reading the directives.

> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.

Because, for someone with half a clue at least, it isn't their entire hard
drive that gets erased. It's only the partitions they ALLOW it to tough.

> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there".

HAHAH! typical windows troll mentality. I told it to erase my entire hard
drive and now I blame IT for doing exactly what I said.

> And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
> drive and erase everything in it."

didn't occur to you to read the other options. Quoting out of context.
Another typical windows troll stupidity.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> On Oct 16, 3:34 am, Rick <n...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:
>>
>> > The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> > content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> > the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>> >  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> Can you not read:
>>
>> Guided - use entire disk.

> As I said, it asks "How would you like to partition?"
> Partition doesn't have a meaning of "Erasing everything".

It does if you tell it to use the entire disk.
You're switching to a new operating system for which you have absolutely no
experience and decide to install it onto your machine...

Do you: 
A: Read the instructions and get as much information as possible. Follow the
directives ensuring you backed up all valuable data before continuing and
follow the on screen instructions as and when they appear...

or 
B: Click buttons randomly like a chimpanzee and hope for the best?

> What It is
> doing is actually Erase everything and Partition.  It shouldn't bet on
> the vague point for something so dramatic.

It feckin WARNED you, you moron.
Probably numerous times before you got to the point of wiping out your
partition table and having it create a new one for you, writing the
filesystems to those new partitions and utterly obliterating the old hard
drive contents.

> And some of you guys, grow a heart.
> Computers are still to work for people, not the other way around.

People have to read instructions to avoid stupidities like this.
If you can't do that, you have no excuse when you wipe out a system.
You got exactly what you deserved.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summercool :
> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.

You mean /dev/hda?

> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.

/dev/hda, not C:

> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.

Ah, that would turn it back into C:

> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.

Yeah?

> I needed to reinstall every single application.

That'll happen when you format your drive.

> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.

That'll happen when you format your drive.

> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.

No, you were schooled.

> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

You were warned, you just didn't read.

> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
> whole hard drive without warning.

You were warned AND you didn't have a backup. Get a home tech.

> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":

Dude, it's /dev/hda. Not C:

>   http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg

Do you know what partitioning is? Did you do any research whatsoever
before erasing all of your stuff?

> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.

You need to learn, or experience will teach you. You also need to listen
to any high school student when they say "back up your crap, dumbass".

> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
> drive and erase everything in it."

You misinterpreted what it said, then posted that misinterpretation to
usenet for the world to see. You must be very proud.

> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
> as erasing the whole hard drive.

You don't have time to read directions? You know what they say about
people like you? "He couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions
were written on the heel".

-- 
ANTI-FASHION

http://www.websterscafe.com

Summercool :
> On Oct 16, 3:34 am, Rick <n...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:
>>
>> > The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> > content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> > the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>> >  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> Can you not read:
>>
>> Guided - use entire disk.
>
> As I said, it asks "How would you like to partition?"
> Partition doesn't have a meaning of "Erasing everything".  What It is
> doing is actually Erase everything and Partition.  It shouldn't bet on
> the vague point for something so dramatic.
>
> And some of you guys, grow a heart.
> Computers are still to work for people, not the other way around.

Fuck off. "Use entire disk" means use entire disk.


-- 
A dwarf is passing out somewhere in Detroit!

http://www.websterscafe.com

Rick wrote:

>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>
>.. after you erased them.

You mean over-writing your HD makes you lose what was on there before?

How are people supposed to know that?????

8)

Summercool wrote:

>After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>lost.

Including the viruses and spyware.

Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.

[...]

> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased.

What part of "use entire disk" is ambiguous?

*shrug*

Clearly a case of PEBKAC. It's a shame you lost all your data to learn
this lesson, but computers are a volatile storage media by nature and
inattentive operators compound that problem.

I suggest that you resolve to first learn about backups. 

Then, educate yourself on the finer points of managing your resources
through a process of trial and (more) error. Repeat your experiments
with various OS installs, and discover that if you blunder through it
without thinking about what it is you're doing they'll ALL nuke your
data.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                  https://www.mixmaster.it

Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
> 
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.
> 

Stop right there!

You didn't make a backup? Why not?

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Summercool wrote:

> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

Horse shit.
-- 
Regards,
[tv]

....He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> or 
> B: Click buttons randomly like a chimpanzee and hope for the best?

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING
-- 
Regards,
[tv]

....He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 16 October 2007 11:18 : \____

> Summercool wrote:
> 
> < snip admittance of being a total retard >
> 
> Idiot

Isn't that Gary?

-- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | FreeBSD - sidling with a little devil
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 162 total,   1 running, 161 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 16 October 2007 11:18 : \____
> 
>> Summercool wrote:
>> 
>> < snip admittance of being a total retard >
>> 
>> Idiot
> 
> Isn't that Gary?
> 

Quite probably

Certainly stupid enough to be flatfish (or the "linux-sux" cretin, for that
matter)

I always wonder how those trailer trash guys manage to breathe on their own
with that single rotten braincell
-- 
I doubt, therefore I might be.

____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 16 October 2007 15:07 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 16 October 2007 11:18 : \____
>> 
>>> Summercool wrote:
>>> 
>>> < snip admittance of being a total retard >
>>> 
>>> Idiot
>> 
>> Isn't that Gary?
>> 
> 
> Quite probably
> 
> Certainly stupid enough to be flatfish (or the "linux-sux" cretin, for that
> matter)
> 
> I always wonder how those trailer trash guys manage to breathe on their own
> with that single rotten braincell

You at least gave the OP the benefit of the doubt. Kind of you...

-- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz   
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 15:20:01 up 5 min,  5 users,  load average: 2.06, 1.15, 0.51
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
> 
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.
> 
> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
> 
> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
> 
> I needed to reinstall every single application.
> 
> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
> 
> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
> 
> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

It doesn't. You made an incorrect choice.

> 
> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
> whole hard drive without warning.

It doesn't. You made an incorrect choice.

> 
> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
> 
>   http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
> 
> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
> 
> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
> drive and erase everything in it."

"Use entire drive" means just what it says - allow Ubuntu to install
itself on THE ENTIRE DRIVE.


> 
> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
> as erasing the whole hard drive.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Summercool
<Summercoolness@gmail.com>
 wrote
on Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 -0000
<1192529001.245772.85020@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
>
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.
>
> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>
> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>
> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>
> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>
> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>
> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?

[rest snipped]

I dunno.  How does Microsoft get away with unconditionally
rewriting the boot record on a Windows install without at
least trying to play nice with GRUB and LILO?

At least they could give the options:

[1] Erase and rewrite entire boot record.  (Duh.)
[2] Leave boot record alone.  (Duh squared.)
[3] Leave boot record alone, with suggestions on how to
    add a configuration line thereto in order to boot
    the new Vista OS.  (Not that hard to do, if they
    can figure out what the boot record is.)
[4] Erase and rewrite entire boot record, after analyzing
    configuration options and copying them into BOOT.INI.
    (Very tough to do reliably.)

As far as I know, though, [1] is the only option.

Not that it matters all that much; Windows tends to be
the only preinstalled option from many vendors anyway.
(Thankfully, this is changing; Dell in particular
has a Linux option, and many vendors sell only Linux
preinstalls.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows.  Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Yes.  Here is what you should do.  Go back to Windows Vista, never try
to install Ubuntu again under any circumstances.  Then you won't have
to come back here with horror stories about what Linux did to your
computer and you'll be happy ever afterwards in your Vista world.

Something tells me you will be back, however.  We've got a steady
stream of one-time posters with their Linux horror stories appearing
on this newsgroup.    Some people might even suspect that you are one
of them.

Funny how we get all these complaints about what Linux did to people's
computers, but never anyone who has asked advice before proceeding.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 -0000, Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
> 
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.
> 
> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
> 
> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
> 
> I needed to reinstall every single application.
> 
> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
> 
> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
> 
> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?
> 
> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
> whole hard drive without warning.
> 
> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
> 
>   http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
> 
> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
> 
> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
> drive and erase everything in it."
> 
> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
> as erasing the whole hard drive.

Just restore from your latest back up.
-- 


�When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a
cross.� 
- Sinclair Lewis.

On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
>
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
> drive.
>
> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>
> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>
> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>
> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>
> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>
> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
> drive without a single warning?
>
> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
> whole hard drive without warning.
>
> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>
>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>
> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>
> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
> drive and erase everything in it."
>
> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
> as erasing the whole hard drive.


What do you expect?
You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
your homework.

You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
interesting stuff like that.
You see, Linux is not like Windows.
Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.

You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
bob <bob@home.org> didnst hastily scribble thusly:

> Just restore from your latest back up.

<summercool> What's a backup? </summercool>
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verily I say unto thee, that nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu spake thusly:

> Yes.  Here is what you should do.  Go back to Windows Vista, never 
> try to install Ubuntu again under any circumstances.  Then you won't
> have to come back here with horror stories about what Linux did to 
> your computer and you'll be happy ever afterwards in your Vista 
> world.
> 
> Something tells me you will be back, however.  We've got a steady 
> stream of one-time posters with their Linux horror stories appearing 
> on this newsgroup. Some people might even suspect that you are one of
> them.

The classic was that Troll called BushIsATraitor (well at least the
Troll wasn't entirely without merit) but he was a slavering anti-Linux
nutcase ... until the day he tried MS Office 2007 ... then he gave a
huge rant about how diabolically crap it was, and was never seen again
(presumably he decided that he couldn't take it any more, and promptly
committed suicide by throwing himself into the Humboldt Penguins
enclosure at Whipsnade Zoo:

http://www.zsl.org/zsl-whipsnade-zoo/meet-the-animals/all/humboldt-penguins,24,AN.html

"These penguins hunt in groups"

Hmm, sounds familiar. :)

> Funny how we get all these complaints about what Linux did to 
> people's computers, but never anyone who has asked advice before 
> proceeding.

It ain't funny ... it's fish+++y.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
|  make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
|  - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
 19:19:35 up 68 days, 18:14,  2 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.43, 0.38

<rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>> drive.
>>
>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>> drive without a single warning?
>>
>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
>> whole hard drive without warning.
>>
>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>
>> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>
>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
>> as erasing the whole hard drive.
>
>
> What do you expect?
> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
> your homework.
>
> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
> interesting stuff like that.
> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
>
> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
>
>
Linux is s**t
Remeber to wipe yourself before you reinstall windows 

"olfart" <olfart65@excite.com> wrote in news:5nkdpcFijr2uU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> <rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>> lost.
>>>
>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my 
C:
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>
>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>
>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>
>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>
>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu 
erases
>>> whole hard drive without warning.
>>>
>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>
>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>
>>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>>> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>>
>>> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>>
>>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as 
destructive
>>> as erasing the whole hard drive.
>>
>>
>> What do you expect?
>> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
>> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
>> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
>> your homework.
>>
>> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
>> interesting stuff like that.
>> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
>> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
>>
>> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
>> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
>>
>>
> Linux is s**t
> Remeber to wipe yourself before you reinstall windows 

Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.

Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if 
you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means, 
you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.

So there's noone/thing to blame except the user in this case.

In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an install when 
other operating systems are already on the computer. (bait)

-- 

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



<rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>> drive.
>>
>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>> drive without a single warning?
>>
>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
>> whole hard drive without warning.
>>
>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>
>> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>
>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
>> as erasing the whole hard drive.
>
>
> What do you expect?
> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
> your homework.
>
> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
> interesting stuff like that.
> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
>
> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
>
>
> 

What happened is that you did not have a backup, did not understand
instructions, and lost your data. The instructions, indeed, can be to
blame if they did not include a very clear warning about erasing your
hard drive. Your trouble is basically partly due to your fault, as
well as due to unclear instructions. 

Install Vista again, buy one more hard drive, and install Linux on
another hard drive. It is a safer approach, plus, it allows for some
data backup between the two hard drives.

My friend had an opposite experience, he tried to install Vista and 
blew away everything he had.

Shit happens. Looks like you did not lose much. 

My suggestion is to buy a hard drive for Linux, and a USB drive for
backup. Actually verify that backup is taking place every night. 

i

rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>lost.
>>
>>After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>>drive.
>>
>>So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>>I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>>I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>>I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>>I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>>How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>drive without a single warning?
>>
>>Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
>>whole hard drive without warning.
>>
>>The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>> http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>>I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>>some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>>it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>>say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>>right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>
>>When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>>choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>>entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>>already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>>drive and erase everything in it."
>>
>>Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>>about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>>skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>>thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>>spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
>>as erasing the whole hard drive.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect?
> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
> your homework.
> 
> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
> interesting stuff like that.
> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
> 
> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
> 
> 
> 
Oh yes....how wonderful!
Frank

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>
> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning


Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.

I can partition my drive without losing a single file.

yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
drive besides dividing the drive.

posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
of Mac.

"Summercool" <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1192559965.675705.53100@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>>
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
>
>
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.
>
> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.
>
> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.
>
> posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
> forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
> of Mac.
>
That 'warm feeling" is Linux running down your leg 

On 2007-10-16, Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an install when 
> other operating systems are already on the computer. (bait)
>

Any install of Windows would blow away other operating systems due to
its use of bootloader, right?

i

DanS wrote:

> "olfart" <olfart65@excite.com> wrote in news:5nkdpcFijr2uU1
> @mid.individual.net:
> 
> 
>><rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>lost.
>>>>
>>>>After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my 
> 
> C:
> 
>>>>drive.
>>>>
>>>>So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>
>>>>I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>
>>>>I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>
>>>>I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>
>>>>I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>
>>>>How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>>>drive without a single warning?
>>>>
>>>>Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>>>work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu 
> 
> erases
> 
>>>>whole hard drive without warning.
>>>>
>>>>The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>>content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>>the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>
>>>> http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>>
>>>>I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>>>>some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>>>>it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>>>>say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>>>>right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>>>
>>>>When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>>>>choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>>>>entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>>>>already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>>>>drive and erase everything in it."
>>>>
>>>>Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>>>>about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>>>>skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>>>>thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>>>>spend a little time to warn time before doing something as 
> 
> destructive
> 
>>>>as erasing the whole hard drive.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you expect?
>>>You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
>>>typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
>>>Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
>>>your homework.
>>>
>>>You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
>>>interesting stuff like that.
>>>You see, Linux is not like Windows.
>>>Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
>>>
>>>You have nobody to blame but yourself.
>>>Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Linux is s**t
>>Remeber to wipe yourself before you reinstall windows 
> 
> 
> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
> 
> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if 
> you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means, 
> you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.
> 
> So there's noone/thing to blame except the user in this case.

Absolutely!  This is not a Linux fault, the OP ended up in a 
self-inflicted predicament.  Additionally, any one doing operating 
system installations (which can require disk and partition work) on a 
disk already hosting an OS and valuable data files should not have 
neglected to have an appropriate backup and restore strategy in place.

Running a computer without backing up important files is a very bad 
practice that can end up causing much grief.  It is a mistake that 
people do not repeat twice!  Playing with operating system installations 
and disk/partition work without a proper backup of valuable data on the 
disk is sheer lunacy!

John

rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>

For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi
(Windows Ubuntu Installer).

"Wubi is an unofficial Ubuntu installer for Windows users that will bring you 
into the Linux world with a single click. Wubi allows you to install and 
uninstall Ubuntu Linux as any other application."

http://www.download.com/3000-2098_4-10702316.html

Summercool wrote:

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.
> 
On a positive note, you have reminded people the importance of good backups,
that even with clear instructions people will still screw up, so if its
important back it up. 

Your post is also a reminder that of setting up dual booting, windows first
then linux, get it wrong windows screws your system.

A good tip with linux is to give your 'home' files its own partion, it also
pays to go beyond sticking the disk in and letting the software do its
thing, read up on on how linux uses the HD. On my main box when I dual
booted I always used a second drive, today I set the partions as I want
them before installing, have a look at http://partedmagic.com/ its a nice
bootable distro that has the tools you need to do this or use it to learn
how your disk is set out.


Jem.. 

olfart wrote:

>Linux is 

*plonk*

Summercool wrote:

> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.
> 
> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.

Can you do that with the disk utility (diskpart) that is used to do 
partition work when you install Windows XP?  Can it partition or 
repartition your drive without loss of data?


> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.

Yes, I agree, it should have warned you, but then it is not a secret 
that doing this kind of work can result in loss of data!

John

On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IDIOCY SNIPPED FOR YOUR SANITY

Dude, are you for real?

Anyway, I fart in your general direction.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:44:34 -0500, Ignoramus1841
<ignoramus1841@NOSPAM.1841.invalid> wrote:

>On 2007-10-16, Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an install when 
>> other operating systems are already on the computer. (bait)
>>
>
>Any install of Windows would blow away other operating systems due to
>its use of bootloader, right?
>
>i
Well not quite.  Windows always overwrites the boot partition and
thereby screws grub, lilo or whatever.

However, all you need is your linux install disk and a bit of
knowledge and you can get to a command line in Linux, reinstall grub
to the boot partition and be back in business in no time. 

Strangely, despite being a former penguinista, I find that Vista is
alright for me (save a few flaws with my business's web based accounts
system) and that I cannot be bothered with the challenge of how to
make linux do what I want any more.  Anyway, if I want quasi unix, I
have an iMac for that sort of thing!

On 2007-10-16, Snuff <snuffin@all2worry4.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:44:34 -0500, Ignoramus1841
><ignoramus1841@NOSPAM.1841.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-10-16, Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an install when 
>>> other operating systems are already on the computer. (bait)
>>>
>>
>>Any install of Windows would blow away other operating systems due to
>>its use of bootloader, right?
>>
>>i
> Well not quite.  Windows always overwrites the boot partition and
> thereby screws grub, lilo or whatever.
>
> However, all you need is your linux install disk and a bit of
> knowledge and you can get to a command line in Linux, reinstall grub
> to the boot partition and be back in business in no time. 

Yes.

> Strangely, despite being a former penguinista, I find that Vista is
> alright for me (save a few flaws with my business's web based
> accounts system) and that I cannot be bothered with the challenge of
> how to make linux do what I want any more.  Anyway, if I want quasi
> unix, I have an iMac for that sort of thing!

Mac is Unix, not quasi Unix.

Just curious, how long does it take Vista to boot?

i

Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.
> 
> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.
> 
> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.
> 
> posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
> forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
> of Mac.

linux will always remain the domain of poorly crafted code. sorry for 
your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
while Mac users will smile and simply say: "you should have bought a 
mac".

linux is for hackers and the poor, it's not a usable OS unless you are a 
looser in life.

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>>
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning


> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.

Hahaha, clueless to the last.

> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.

If you tell it to partition the whole drive?
Let's see this wonder of wonders then shall we?

> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.

Yes, it did.

> posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
> forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
> of Mac.

A: This isn't a forum, this is a newsgroup. You don't even know THAT?
B: Try posting to the mac advocacy newsgroup about installing something and
getting your partition table wiped cos you said use the whole drive, see
where it gets you. Do the same in the windows advocacy group...

GOD, he gets stupider with every post.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message 
news:Xns99CB949D8EBF7thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
>
> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if
> you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means,
> you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.

Windows will not remove existing partitions without warning the user 
(twice).
Some distros of Linux assume the user knows he is about to destroy 
everything.
Not exactly user friendly for an OS that wants to be adopted by the masses 
is it?

So next we will get the nice friendly Linux folk going on about how stupid 
windows users are and then wonder why Linux can't be given away.

> So there's noone/thing to blame except the user in this case.

You can always blame the user no matter how bad the software is. 

"lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message 
news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>> lost.
>>>
>
> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi
> (Windows Ubuntu Installer).

Its a bit too late for that.
The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux user 
will stick with something else.
This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no idea 
how simple it has to be for the mass market.
Windows would have warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux 
partition and that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete. 

Gene Jones wrote:

> sorry for 
> your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 

Which it was.  Only a freaking idiot does partitioning and such on an
"important" machine without the knowledge that such things have the
ability to cause data loss, especially when you don't know what you're
doing.

> while Mac users will smile and simply say: "you should have bought a 
> mac"

Perhaps so, considering that the MAC comes with the OS pre-installed, so
this situation would not have come up.

However, even a Mac Moron like yourself must admit, that if the cretin who
started this thread would have attempted the same thing, but using
MacOS instead of Linux, the result (data loss) would likely have been the
same.

On 2007-10-16, dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message 
> news:Xns99CB949D8EBF7thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
>
>> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
>>
>> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if
>> you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means,
>> you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.
>
> Windows will not remove existing partitions without warning the user
> (twice).  Some distros of Linux assume the user knows he is about to
> destroy everything.  Not exactly user friendly for an OS that wants
> to be adopted by the masses is it?

That is not user friendly, however, it was not true with the distro
that I use (Fedora). It is very explicit when it is about to
repartition the drive or reformat partitions. You cannot miss it.

> So next we will get the nice friendly Linux folk going on about how
> stupid windows users are and then wonder why Linux can't be given
> away.

If the OP's report is true, then indeed, that distro needs some major
reworking. I am, however, surprised�to hear that as that has not been
my experience. 

i

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:33:17 -0600, Gene Jones wrote:

> Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
>> 
>> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.
>> 
>> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.
>> 
>> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
>> drive besides dividing the drive.
>> 
>> posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
>> forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
>> of Mac.
> 
> linux will always remain the domain of poorly crafted code. sorry for 
> your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
> while Mac users will smile and simply say: "you should have bought a 
> mac".
> 
> linux is for hackers and the poor, it's not a usable OS unless you are a 
> looser in life.

In my early 50's I'm successful in life and use linux for
any/everything. Sorry you couldn't figure it out and had to use something
that was pre-installed and pre-configured.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Gene Jones wrote:
> 
> > sorry for 
> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
> 
> Which it was.  Only a freaking idiot does partitioning and such on an
> "important" machine without the knowledge that such things have the
> ability to cause data loss, especially when you don't know what you're
> doing.

ah, on a well crafted OS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do what happened to 
this person. The Linux community screwed up, and should go to work at 
repairing ALL distros with this FLAW to make sure this combination can 
never happen again. You guys just lost 80,000 potential linux users by 
this single error. Fix it, don't bitch.

> > while Mac users will smile and simply say: "you should have bought a 
> > mac"
> 
> Perhaps so, considering that the MAC comes with the OS pre-installed, so
> this situation would not have come up.

thus OSX wins again.

> However, even a Mac Moron like yourself must admit, that if the cretin who
> started this thread would have attempted the same thing, but using
> MacOS instead of Linux, the result (data loss) would likely have been the
> same.

problem is Linux will have users that aren't poor, or uneducated, they 
EXPECT things to work like OSX or other high level OSs. Thus, you get 
posts like this from time to time. 

Linux is flawed, NEVER the user. That's a UI fact the Linux community 
just doesn't understand.

rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my
>> C: drive.
>>
>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>> drive without a single warning?
>>
>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>
>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>
>> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>
>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as
>> destructive as erasing the whole hard drive.
>
>
> What do you expect?
> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
> your homework.
>
> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
> interesting stuff like that.
> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.

Or, Linux - in a moment of supreme self-importance - thought for a 
moment that it WAS Windows and just took over you PC......

(Sorry, could not resist).

Jeff 

On 2007-10-16, Gene Jones <jasin@janus.com> wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Gene Jones wrote:
>> 
>> > sorry for 
>> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
>> 
>> Which it was.  Only a freaking idiot does partitioning and such on an
>> "important" machine without the knowledge that such things have the
>> ability to cause data loss, especially when you don't know what you're
>> doing.
>
> ah, on a well crafted OS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do what happened to 
> this person. The Linux community screwed up, and should go to work at 
> repairing ALL distros with this FLAW to make sure this combination can 
> never happen again. You guys just lost 80,000 potential linux users by 
> this single error. Fix it, don't bitch.

True. (except for the 80,000 number).

> problem is Linux will have users that aren't poor, or uneducated, they 
> EXPECT things to work like OSX or other high level OSs. Thus, you get 
> posts like this from time to time. 
>
> Linux is flawed, NEVER the user. That's a UI fact the Linux community 
> just doesn't understand.

I have been using Linux for the last 12 years. Without a doubt, it has
a long way to go to be safely usable by an "average user" (read a low
IQ person with minimal computing needs). However, that long way is not
infinite and Linux nowadays has made great progress, and being
actually easy to use is within reach. I would say in a year or two, it
will be very easy to use.

Even now, my Linux laptop works in a quite straightforward way, with
the exception of wifi (it works, but was hard to set up). Fedora 8
with NetworkManager 0.7 is supposed to fix it, though we'll see.

Windows has its flaws too, such as when an "average user" finds his
bank or PayPal account emptied due to operating system defects, or
when the OS crashes in the middle of some important task. Example of
this would be a Windows server crashing in a datacenter on a Sunday
afternoon.

i

Neither is Windows .......

Jeff

Richard Urban wrote:
> In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an
> install when other operating systems are already on the computer.
> (bait)
>
> <rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>> was lost.
>>>
>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my
>>> C: drive.
>>>
>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>
>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>
>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>
>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole
>>> hard drive without a single warning?
>>>
>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>>
>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set
>>> as the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>
>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>
>>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" --
>>> best right after people click the "partition for whole drive"
>>> option. When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard 
>>> drive",
>>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>>
>>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as
>>> destructive as erasing the whole hard drive.
>>
>>
>> What do you expect?
>> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
>> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
>> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
>> your homework.
>>
>> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
>> interesting stuff like that.
>> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
>> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
>>
>> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
>> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system. 

Snuff wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:44:34 -0500, Ignoramus1841
> <ignoramus1841@NOSPAM.1841.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-10-16, Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In other words, linux is not for the average use to perform an
>>> install when other operating systems are already on the computer.
>>> (bait)
>>>
>>
>> Any install of Windows would blow away other operating systems due to
>> its use of bootloader, right?
>>
>> i
> Well not quite.  Windows always overwrites the boot partition and
> thereby screws grub, lilo or whatever.
>
> However, all you need is your linux install disk and a bit of
> knowledge and you can get to a command line in Linux, reinstall grub
> to the boot partition and be back in business in no time.

But, the bit of knowledge is precisely what is missing here. This is a
person who though partitioning meant "dividing you data".  You really
think he knows what a boot partition or grub are?

>
> Strangely, despite being a former penguinista, I find that Vista is
> alright for me (save a few flaws with my business's web based accounts
> system) and that I cannot be bothered with the challenge of how to
> make linux do what I want any more.  Anyway, if I want quasi unix, I
> have an iMac for that sort of thing!

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
Gene Jones <jasin@janus.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Gene Jones wrote:
>> 
>> > sorry for 
>> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
>> 
>> Which it was.  Only a freaking idiot does partitioning and such on an
>> "important" machine without the knowledge that such things have the
>> ability to cause data loss, especially when you don't know what you're
>> doing.

> ah, on a well crafted OS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do what happened to 
> this person. The Linux community screwed up, and should go to work at 
> repairing ALL distros with this FLAW to make sure this combination can 
> never happen again. You guys just lost 80,000 potential linux users by 
> this single error. Fix it, don't bitch.

Fix what exacly?
Remove the ability to nuke windows and let linux take a whole drive?
Fuck off, that's one of the most valuable functions.
Why should we limit functionality just to hand hold a moron incapable of
following simple instructions?

> problem is Linux will have users that aren't poor, or uneducated, they 
> EXPECT things to work like OSX or other high level OSs. 

You expect mac users to be uneducated and poor?
At the prices apple charge, I doubt that.

> Linux is flawed, 

No, it isn't.

> NEVER the user. 

Bullshit.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gene Jones wrote:

>ah, on a well crafted OS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do what happened to 
>this person. 

Obviously wrong.  You are either very ignorant, or you're just a lying
troll.

>The Linux community screwed up, and should go to work at 
>repairing ALL distros with this FLAW to make sure this combination can 
>never happen again

It's not  flaw.  The installer did what it was told to do.  The
operator ignored clear warnings.  

But I see that you're too fscking stupid to waste any more of my time
on.  *plonk*

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:

> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>> drive.
>>
>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>> drive without a single warning?
>>
>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of work,
>> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
>> hard drive without warning.
>>
>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg

It says "Guided - Use entire disk".

Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your 
comprehension?


-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:

> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>> lost.
>>>>
>>
>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi
>> (Windows Ubuntu Installer).

> Its a bit too late for that.
> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux user 
> will stick with something else.

What lack of suitable warning?
Can you show us some screen shots of this "lack of warning"?

> This is the problem with Linux .. 

No it isn't.

> it is written by geeks who have no idea 
> how simple it has to be for the mass market.

No it isn't. Ever installed windows?


> Windows would have warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux 
> partition and that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete. 

Hahaha, oh really? Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,
shall we?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>> lost.
>>>>
>>>>
>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>> Ubuntu Installer).
> 
> Its a bit too late for that.
> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
> user will stick with something else.
> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.

Oh come on Dennis...

What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I 
mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!

How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of reading 
the whole sentence?

Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file system 
changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the user has to 
OK before actually doing it.

So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the system. 
You need to do so twice.

Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?

Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives / 
partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can manually 
configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except of course 
Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you didn't make a 
mistake. I suppose that is one difference.

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

dennis@home wrote:

>The lack of a suitable warning 

Ignorant liar.

>has made sure another potential Linux user will stick with something else.

Or at least by his machine with the OS pre-installed, as most people
should do.

>This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no idea 

This is the problem with ignorant trolls like "dennis@home" - they lie
through their teeth, making complete jackassholes of themselves in the
process.

>Windows would have warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux 
>partition and that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete. 

Windows would render the Linux partition UNBOOTABLE, with ZERO warning
to that affect, dipshit.

rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>> drive.
>>
>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>
>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>
>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>
>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>
>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>> drive without a single warning?
>>
>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases
>> whole hard drive without warning.
>>
>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>
>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> I see that intermixed at the last install info page, it is said that
>> some partition on your hard drive will get erased. But how do I know
>> it isn't some partition that Ubuntu will create for me? Why not just
>> say "it means your whole hard drive's content will be erased" -- best
>> right after people click the "partition for whole drive" option.
>>
>> When it asked "How would you like to partition your hard drive",
>> choosing "Use entire drive" seems like "Yes, I want to partition my
>> entire C: drive and just make it dual boot with whatever OS that is
>> already there". And turned out actually it means, "use my whole C
>> drive and erase everything in it."
>>
>> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
>> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
>> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
>> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
>> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
>> as erasing the whole hard drive.
> 
> 
> What do you expect?
> You didn't read the mountains of documentation that come with the
> typical Linux distribution, all via Google of course.
> Before you even begin to think about installing Linux, you must do
> your homework.
> 
> You must learn about partitioning, the dev structure and all kinds of
> interesting stuff like that.
> You see, Linux is not like Windows.
> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.
> 
> You have nobody to blame but yourself.
> Next time read the How-To's and Wikis before you damage your system.
> 
> 
> 
Bug Report Closed, By Design, Just FYI.

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:selfu4-ije.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble 
> thusly:
>
>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi
>>> (Windows Ubuntu Installer).
>
>> Its a bit too late for that.
>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux user
>> will stick with something else.
>
> What lack of suitable warning?
> Can you show us some screen shots of this "lack of warning"?
>
>> This is the problem with Linux ..
>
> No it isn't.

Linux's success says otherwise.

>> it is written by geeks who have no idea
>> how simple it has to be for the mass market.
>
> No it isn't. Ever installed windows?

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?

>
>
>> Windows would have warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux
>> partition and that would be after selecting the partition and saying 
>> delete.
>
> Hahaha, oh really?

Do you doubt it?
Have you never installed windows?

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

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> bob <bob@home.org> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> 
>> Just restore from your latest back up.
> 
> <summercool> What's a backup? </summercool>

It's what the wintrolls try to do in this group. Get people's backup..<grin>

-- 
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007, 
(K)Ubuntu 7.04. Testing: Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message 
news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>
>> Its a bit too late for that.
>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>> user will stick with something else.
>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>
> Oh come on Dennis...
>
> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I
> mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!

Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with.
If they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.

> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of reading
> the whole sentence?
>
> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file system
> changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the user has to
> OK before actually doing it.
>
> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the system.
> You need to do so twice.

At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their system will 
be lost if they proceed.
As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much.
It was written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or 
don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.

> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>
> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives /
> partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can manually
> configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except of course
> Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you didn't make a
> mistake. I suppose that is one difference.

Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without warning 
the user unlike what you state above.
Also if you were truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before 
removing a partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be 
lost if they do. It even asks twice before it will format one.
I suggest you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to 
have forgotten what it does. 

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.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
William Poaster <wp@pcbsd14-mc1.eu> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> bob <bob@home.org> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> 
>>> Just restore from your latest back up.
>> 
>> <summercool> What's a backup? </summercool>

> It's what the wintrolls try to do in this group. Get people's backup..<grin>

(c)1997, Enzo Matrix, mainframe entertainment
:)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Oct 16, 3:42 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> > posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
> > forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
> > of Mac.
>
> A: This isn't a forum, this is a newsgroup. You don't even know THAT?
> B: Try posting to the mac advocacy newsgroup about installing something and
> getting your partition table wiped cos you said use the whole drive, see
> where it gets you. Do the same in the windows advocacy group...
>
> GOD, he gets stupider with every post.

You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
someone else stupid?

On Oct 16, 1:55 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>
> > chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Gene Jones wrote:
>
> >> > sorry for
> >> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault,

Ok, Ubuntu's tech support people confirmed that it is a bug.  Ubuntu
should have detected there was Vista on the machine, and therefore
give a slide bar to re-partition the drive.

Instead, it didn't detect there was Vista, and thought it is a disk
drive without any OS and ready to be totally erased.

I would say, no matter whether it is a bug in Ubuntu that it could not
detect a pre-existing OS, or that it detects a pre-existing OS, in
either case, give out a simple warning to the user if it is to do
something so drastic as erasing the whole hard drive.

Even the Vista installation warned that "you are about to erase
everything in the hard drive" when i reinstalled Vista.  By the way,
Linux guys, remember the other people don't install Linux 20 times in
a year.  Sometimes you guys start with a brand new machine, so if you
goof up, you can just reinstall and go get a cup of coffee and come
back.  Please do know that there are people who aren't exactly like
you.  Especially if Ubuntu is to say "Humanity towards others".

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:11:42 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

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

>> No it isn't. Ever installed windows?
>
>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?

Still acting like a pompous ass aren't you. What's the matter, can't
break an old bad habit?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>
>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I
>> mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>
>Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with.

You're really getting out of control. I know what your problem is. You
simply can't stand to get corrected. Even when you are wrong. Why else
you think I keep calling you a pompous jerk.

ROTFLMAO!

>As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much.
>It was written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or 
>don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.

Don't get me started on all the Microsoft screw ups. It would be a
very long detailed list starting with illegal snooping on customer's
computers reporting back to Redmond and marking legit copies of Vista
as counterfeit. Just wondering, you REALLY want me to post such a
list?

Face facts. You're nothing but another head up your ass Microsoft
apologist that gets his shorts all bunched up any time anybody exposes
what rubes Microsoft designers really are.

>Also if you were truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before 
>removing a partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be 
>lost if they do. 

Now you're cherry picking. How come you never want to face all the
stupid things Vista does? You simply have no clue what being fair and
balanced means. If you want to start nitpicking Linux or Macs, first
clean up Microsoft's house. It's a mess. You know it too. 

>It even asks twice before it will format one.
>I suggest you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to 
>have forgotten what it does. 

I can't forget what a a-hole you always are. You make it impossible to
forget.

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:11:42 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
> 
> 
>>>No it isn't. Ever installed windows?
>>
>>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?
> 
> 
> Still acting like a pompous ass aren't you. 

Oh, I don't think he has any intention at all of stealing your pompous 
act, you as*hole!
Frank

On 2007-10-16, Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> claimed:

> I always wonder how those trailer trash guys manage to breathe on their own
> with that single rotten braincell

Flatfish went to a hair salon to get s/h/it's hair and nails done. All
of the regular hairdressers were busy. The only person available when
s/h/it arrived was a new employee.

Flattie told the new guy, "I'm tired of being blonde. I want my hair
dyed brunette and straightened. And I don't want you to remove my
headphones."

The hairdresser told Flats that it wouldn't be possible to do any work
on s/h/it's hair with headphones in the way.

Flatfish said, "I don't care! Whatever you do, DO NOT remove the
headphones! Just get the work done or I'll report you as soon as your
boss returns!"

Well, the hairdresser didn't know how that was going to work, but he
agreed, thinking he'd find a way to work around the blockage somehow.

The guy started getting things ready. He leaned Flattie back and
started wetting s/h/it's hair, getting ready to apply the color. Just
as he was getting ready to really dive in, he noticed Flats appeared to
be sleeping.

He said something to Flattie and got no response. So he lifted one of
the earpieces and asked, "How dark would you like your hair?" But
Flatso still didn't respond. The hairdresser thought about it for a
minute or so and thought, "What the heck. S/H/It's asleep." He removed
the earphones and set them over on the counter.

The attendant took care of everything Flathead said s/h/it needed,
replaced the headset on s/h/it's ears, then tried to wake s/h/it up
with a gentle nudge. S/H/It didn't respond. The hairdresser tried a
little bit harder, but s/h/it still didn't respond.

Beginning to get a little worried, the hairdresser tried harder and
harder, until, finally, Flattie fell out of the chair.

Everyone gathered round. One of the other attendants bent down and
noticed Flatso didn't seem to have a heartbeat. An ambulance was
called. They pronounced Flatfart dead at the scene and took s/h/it away
in the ambulance.

After they left the attendant saw the player and headphones had fallen
under the counter at his station. He bent down, picked it all up and
held one of the earpads to his ear.

"....in...breathe out...breathe in...breath out...breathe in....."

<Flatfart is marginally smarter than several of the other trolls>

-- 
A Nobel Peace Prize? I'd KILL for one of those!

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:18:31 -0700, Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:11:42 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> 
>> 
>>>>No it isn't. Ever installed windows?
>>>
>>>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?
>> 
>> 
>> Still acting like a pompous ass aren't you. 
>
>Oh, I don't think he has any intention at all of stealing your pompous 
>act, you as*hole!

Kiss my grits Frank.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Oh come on Dennis...
>>>
>>>What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I
>>>mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>>
>>Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with.
> 
> 
> You're really getting out of control. I know what your problem is. You
> simply can't stand to get corrected. Even when you are wrong. Why else
> you think I keep calling you a pompous jerk.

Oh the irony!
> 
> ROTFLMAO!
> 
> 
>>As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much.
>>It was written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or 
>>don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.
> 
> 
> Don't get me started on all the Microsoft screw ups. It would be a
> very long detailed list starting with illegal snooping on customer's
> computers reporting back to Redmond and marking legit copies of Vista
> as counterfeit. Just wondering, you REALLY want me to post such a
> list?
> 
> Face facts. You're nothing but another head up your ass Microsoft
> apologist that gets his shorts all bunched up any time anybody exposes
> what rubes Microsoft designers really are.
> 
> 
>>Also if you were truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before 
>>removing a partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be 
>>lost if they do. 
> 
> 
> Now you're cherry picking. How come you never want to face all the
> stupid things Vista does? You simply have no clue what being fair and
> balanced means. If you want to start nitpicking Linux or Macs, first
> clean up Microsoft's house. It's a mess. You know it too. 
> 
> 
>>It even asks twice before it will format one.
>>I suggest you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to 
>>have forgotten what it does. 
> 
> 
> I can't forget what a a-hole you always are. You make it impossible to
> forget.
> 
You must be the most brain dead jacka*s loser of all times.
You are truly one fulkked up scumbag idiot.
Frank

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
> someone else stupid?

Who was arguing?
I was stating the bleedin obvious to the terminally dense.
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
> 
>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>> Its a bit too late for that.
>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>> user will stick with something else.
>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
> 
> Oh come on Dennis...
> 
> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I 
> mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
> 
> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of reading 
> the whole sentence?
> 
> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file system 
> changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the user has to 
> OK before actually doing it.
> 
> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the system. 
> You need to do so twice.
> 
> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
> 
> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives / 
> partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can manually 
> configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except of course 
> Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you didn't make a 
> mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
> 


In my experience Windows has only ever warned if you are about to damage 
another "Windows" installation, seems like it always ignored anything 
else, at least as far as I have encountered.

Anyway this is a silly topic, the OP obviously didn't think / didn't 
read / didn't understand ow whatever and that is unfortunate but I'm 
sure we have all experienced that [Enter] Oh sh*t feeling.

You cannot go through a Ubuntu install hitting defaults, you have to 
make a conscious selection (Or unconscious depending on state of mind I 
guess) so some here are just plain lying (Surprise surprise).

In article <eupa0VCEIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>DanS wrote:
>
>> "olfart" <olfart65@excite.com> wrote in news:5nkdpcFijr2uU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>> 
>> 
>>><rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:1192557868.019180.120530@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>>lost.

[...]

Well, if you partition the drive, do you know what it means?
It means it is gone. Secondly, making a multi-boot system is like
walking on a mine field. You better know what you are doing.

>Absolutely!  This is not a Linux fault, the OP ended up in a 
>self-inflicted predicament.  Additionally, any one doing operating 
>system installations (which can require disk and partition work) on a 
>disk already hosting an OS and valuable data files should not have 
>neglected to have an appropriate backup and restore strategy in place.
>
>Running a computer without backing up important files is a very bad 
>practice that can end up causing much grief.  It is a mistake that 
>people do not repeat twice!  Playing with operating system installations 
>and disk/partition work without a proper backup of valuable data on the 
>disk is sheer lunacy!
>
>John
>

--
The most powerful tool for usenet you have ever heard of.

NewsMaestro v. 4.0.1 Hail Democracy Release has been released.

Important feature additions and various improvements
and optimizations.

Web page:

http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

NewsMaestro download page:

http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, AB <fardblos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-10-16, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de> claimed:
>
> > I always wonder how those trailer trash guys manage to breathe on their=
 own
> > with that single rotten braincell
>
> Flatfish went to a hair salon to get s/h/it's hair and nails done. All
> of the regular hairdressers were busy. The only person available when
> s/h/it arrived was a new employee.
>

Sinister Midget pulled this great joke on me one time. He was in
another room just screaming and screaming in pain. I ran in and asked
him what was wrong. He said, "My dick is stuck in the cap of this
pen!" The joke was on me though, there was plenty of room.

Summercool wrote:
> On Oct 16, 1:55 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Gene Jones wrote:
>>>>> sorry for
>>>>> your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault,
> 
> Ok, Ubuntu's tech support people confirmed that it is a bug.  Ubuntu
> should have detected there was Vista on the machine, and therefore
> give a slide bar to re-partition the drive.
> 
> Instead, it didn't detect there was Vista, and thought it is a disk
> drive without any OS and ready to be totally erased.
> 
> I would say, no matter whether it is a bug in Ubuntu that it could not
> detect a pre-existing OS, or that it detects a pre-existing OS, in
> either case, give out a simple warning to the user if it is to do
> something so drastic as erasing the whole hard drive.
> 
> Even the Vista installation warned that "you are about to erase
> everything in the hard drive" when i reinstalled Vista.  By the way,
> Linux guys, remember the other people don't install Linux 20 times in
> a year.  Sometimes you guys start with a brand new machine, so if you
> goof up, you can just reinstall and go get a cup of coffee and come
> back.  Please do know that there are people who aren't exactly like
> you.  Especially if Ubuntu is to say "Humanity towards others".
> 
> 
Well, I remember the first time I installed (Red Hat) Linux (5.0). I had
never installed Linux before. Nevertheless, I just followed directions and
installed it just fine, dual boot sharing the machine with Windows 95 (that
drove me nuts, hence the switch to Linux).

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 21:45:01 up 10 days, 5:21, 2 users, load average: 4.34, 4.18, 4.14

____/ AB on Wednesday 17 October 2007 00:21 : \____

> <Flatfart is marginally smarter than several of the other trolls>

How so? Knowing how to open E-mail accounts for new nyms doesn't take much wit.
They make it simple to sign up these days.

-- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI"
http://Schestowitz.com  |  RHAT GNU/Linux   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 03:00:01 up 11:45,  3 users,  load average: 0.36, 0.33, 0.53
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Sinister Midget pulled this great joke on me one time. He was in
> another room just screaming and screaming in pain. I ran in and asked
> him what was wrong. He said, "My dick is stuck in the cap of this
> pen!" The joke was on me though, there was plenty of room.

Jumbo jokes are too easy.

"Don't look up here!  The joke's in your hand!"

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>> lost.
>>>
>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>
>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>
>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>
>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>
>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>
>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of work,
>>> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
>>> hard drive without warning.
>>>
>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>
>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
> 
> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
> 
> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your 
> comprehension?
> 
> 


There's also an option to use free space.
caver1

dennis@home wrote:

> 
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
> news:Xns99CB949D8EBF7thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
> 
>> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
>>
>> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if
>> you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means,
>> you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.
> 
> Windows will not remove existing partitions without warning the user
> (twice).

But it will quite happily overwrite the MBR, making your linux system
unbootable.

> Some distros of Linux assume the user knows he is about to destroy
> everything.

Most distros assume that the installer actually knows what "ENTIRE DISK"
means when attempting to partition.

> Not exactly user friendly for an OS that wants to be adopted by the masses
> is it?

Why do you assume that Linux wants to be adopted by the masses?

Tell you what.... do you attempt major work on your machines without doing a
backup?

> So next we will get the nice friendly Linux folk going on about how stupid
> windows users are and then wonder why Linux can't be given away.

Linux is working just fine, everywhere... stop lying.

>> So there's noone/thing to blame except the user in this case.
> 
> You can always blame the user no matter how bad the software is.

Nothing wrong with the software in this case. It told him what he was about
to do, yet he didn't have the intelligence to understand what "Entire Disk"
means.. then proceeded to trash his computer without doing any backups...

The user is wholly to blame. Stop your pathetic trolling

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Summercool wrote:

[trolling crossposting deleted]


> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.

No, it means building a partition table on your disk. It divides
FILESYSTEMS, not data.
 
> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.

IF you are using a windows partition tool on a windows filesystem AND ONLY
IF the data is NOT BEFORE the area you are partitioning.

I can partition my drive also without losing a single file, but I STILL make
a backup before proceeding... even though I know EXACTLY what I'm doing,
which you obviously don't.

> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.

I'm afraid it did. I told you it was going to partition the ENTIRE DRIVE...
and you hit <enter> without even making a backup. 

You deserved everything that happened to you.

> posting on the Mac forum gets a warm feeling.  posting on the Windows
> forum still get a helpful feeling.  on Linux it is the very opposite
> of Mac.

Go back there. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

caver1 wrote:
> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>> lost.
>>>>
>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>
>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>
>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>
>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of work,
>>>> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
>>>> hard drive without warning.
>>>>
>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>
>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>
>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your 
>> comprehension?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> There's also an option to use free space.
> caver1


Yeah, the bit between the ears...

It is possible he unwittingly used that and his XP or whatever is still 
there.

<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.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
news:o5gah3lle5rev4826vsadfpc1hek0ishc4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:11:42 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> No it isn't. Ever installed windows?
>>
>>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?
>
> Still acting like a pompous ass aren't you. What's the matter, can't
> break an old bad habit?
>

Ho Crazy.
When do your doctors decide you have had enough free time? 

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.

Well, why should he? People who have actually installed it know that it
exists.

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

The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are lying.
Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both

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

Hilarious
-- 
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

On Oct 16, 11:44 pm, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
> > The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
> > exist.
>
> The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are lying.
> Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both

Ok, I never saw a warning.  I started using computer since before
Apple ][
If some of you know, it is called the "Superboard", and I have used
computer for 25 years.  I can program all the way from micro-code,
machine code, all the way to C, Java, Python, and Ruby.

Anyways, I didn't see any warning, and the Ubuntu tech support said
this is a bug that it didn't detect Vista.

Also, the word "Partition" may have a strong "erasing the whole hard
drive" connotation to the Linux guys.  But it also may have a
"dividing the data" connotation to people.  Depending on its usage,
sometimes people may think that it is merely creating a new partition
for the Linux installation.  So between the two possible meanings, why
assuming there is absolutely no confusion and just go ahead with the
destructive action?

Summercool wrote:

> On Oct 16, 11:44 pm, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>> > exist.
>>
>> The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are
>> lying. Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both
> 
> Ok, I never saw a warning.  I started using computer since before
> Apple ][

Ah yes. And because of that you never saw a warning?

> If some of you know, it is called the "Superboard", and I have used
> computer for 25 years.  I can program all the way from micro-code,
> machine code, all the way to C, Java, Python, and Ruby.

Big deal. If true at all. I strongly suspect that it is another outright lie
from you. And all that blather has nothing to do with any warnings, seen or
not

> Anyways, I didn't see any warning, and the Ubuntu tech support said
> this is a bug that it didn't detect Vista.

Really? Care to show us where you found that particular lie?

> Also, the word "Partition" may have a strong "erasing the whole hard
> drive" connotation to the Linux guys.  

No, it has not. It has to do with the consequences. One of them being that
after partitioning, the FS has to be formatted. Particularly if it was NTFS
before

> But it also may have a "dividing the data" connotation to people.  

It had *never* to do with "dividing data"
It was always about filesystems, not data

I don't care where you found that particularly absurd connotation, but it is
extremely idiotic

> Depending on its usage, 
> sometimes people may think that it is merely creating a new partition
> for the Linux installation.  So between the two possible meanings, why
> assuming there is absolutely no confusion and just go ahead with the
> destructive action?

Because that bloke actually clicked "OK"
After being introduced to an explanation what happens next
-- 
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:25:41 -0400, caver1 wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>> lost.
>>>>
>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my
>>>> C: drive.
>>>>
>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>
>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>
>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>
>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>>>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>>>
>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>
>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>> 
>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>> 
>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>> comprehension?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> There's also an option to use free space. caver1

Not on that screenshot there isn't.

I think the free space option only appears if there acutally *is* free 
space that could be used in the first place or if there is a partition 
that can be safely resized to make free space.

And then, the option will also be called such and won't be called "Use 
entire disk".

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
news:j8gah3p9lebb67c6g3m0fr5heql6o6runf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>>
>>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand? I
>>> mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>>
>>Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with.
>
> You're really getting out of control. I know what your problem is. You
> simply can't stand to get corrected. Even when you are wrong. Why else
> you think I keep calling you a pompous jerk.

Because you are crazy thats why.
Didn't I make it plain enough for you?
Lets try again.

You are crazy.

>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
>>As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much.
>>It was written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or
>>don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.
>
> Don't get me started on all the Microsoft screw ups. It would be a
> very long detailed list starting with illegal snooping on customer's
> computers reporting back to Redmond and marking legit copies of Vista
> as counterfeit. Just wondering, you REALLY want me to post such a
> list?

Do I care what you think of anything?
No not really. every time you open your mouth I think less of what you say.

>
> Face facts. You're nothing but another head up your ass Microsoft
> apologist that gets his shorts all bunched up any time anybody exposes
> what rubes Microsoft designers really are.

Lets face facts Adam you act crazy.
I don't know what you get out of appearing crazy so I assume you really are 
crazy.
Have a nice day and remember to take the pills it will make everyone feel 
better.

>
>>Also if you were truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice 
>>before
>>removing a partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will 
>>be
>>lost if they do.
>
> Now you're cherry picking. How come you never want to face all the
> stupid things Vista does? You simply have no clue what being fair and
> balanced means. If you want to start nitpicking Linux or Macs, first
> clean up Microsoft's house. It's a mess. You know it too.

Maybe it because unlike you I am not an expert on Vista so I can hardly 
pronounce upon it like you do.
However I am sure the vast majority recognise your expertise for waht it is 
and act appropriatly.

>
>>It even asks twice before it will format one.
>>I suggest you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear 
>>to
>>have forgotten what it does.
>
> I can't forget what a a-hole you always are. You make it impossible to
> forget.
>

At least I am not crazy like you Adam.
I doubt if I will be able to forget that either.. who did you say you were?
Do you have any significance here? I thought not. 

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
news:eClxAUGEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>> lost.
>>>>
>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>
>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>
>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>
>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>
>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of work,
>>>> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
>>>> hard drive without warning.
>>>>
>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>
>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>
>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>
>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your 
>> comprehension?
>>
>>
>
>
> There's also an option to use free space.
> caver1

This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is.
If it is to take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of 
a moron so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable 
problems.
This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after all 
a lot of people think the case is a CPU.

This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over 
estimate the knowledge of their target users.
Until the developers sort out the installation routines Linux will not be 
mass market as it still relies on someone being able to download it and 
install it.
Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems stops 
the ~95% from using it.
Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals by 
the sound of it.

Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can *never* 
underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).

Summercool wrote:

> Humanity towards others -- yes, when you make the software, think
> about it can be you, your children in the future, or someone not as
> skilled as you who will be using it. People don't have time to read
> thousands of words of warning and note for the installation. Just
> spend a little time to warn time before doing something as destructive
> as erasing the whole hard drive.
> 

Dont dry poodles in microwave?

Summercool wrote:
> On Oct 16, 1:55 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Gene Jones wrote:
>>>>> sorry for
>>>>> your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault,
> 
> Ok, Ubuntu's tech support people confirmed that it is a bug.  Ubuntu
> should have detected there was Vista on the machine, and therefore
> give a slide bar to re-partition the drive.
> 
> Instead, it didn't detect there was Vista, and thought it is a disk
> drive without any OS and ready to be totally erased.

I looked at the screen shot you sent. It clearly says "Use entire disk". 
So you knew you had another operating system on there, you elected to 
use the entire disk and are then surprised that you no longer have the 
original operating system?

Which part of "Entire disk" did you notunderstand?

If there is a bug, it's with you. If you had tried to install any 
operating system on the entire disk that currently had an existing 
operating system you would have ended up with the same result whether 
that operating system was Vista or DOS 3.1

In <2394653.UIGiKl19Fb@netscape.net> Gregory Shearman:

[Snip...]

> Go back there. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Indeed; something in my scorefile plonked their whining from gitgo, but I
ran across it in FU's. Some of the most pathetic trolling ever...   :)

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

On Oct 16, 7:47 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>
> > You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
> > someone else stupid?
>
> Who was arguing?
> I was stating the bleedin obvious to the terminally dense.

They're synonymous and you just wanted to be an ass. Mission
accomplished. Add BS in assholery to your sig.

In article <ff4atl$r7k$02$1@news.t-online.com>, peter.koehlmann@t-
online.de says...
> The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are lying.
> Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both

I just installed Ubuntu 7.0.4 last night on a computer running Windows - 
I was given 3 options for the install, one of them was something like 
Maximum size (and I picked it) and there was no warning/error message 
about it wiping the drive - now, I knew it would wipe it and that's what 
I wanted, but there was no message warning me about it.

I can see, easily, where if someone wanted the maximum space for Ubuntu 
while trying to keep their Windows stuff, that they could screw up 
without knowing and erase their entire drive.

Maybe you should try it with Ubuntu 7.0.4.

-- 

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a 
  drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:14:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:eClxAUGEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my
>>>>> C: drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>>
>>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole
>>>>> hard drive without a single warning?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>>>>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set
>>>>> as the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>
>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>
>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>>> comprehension?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's also an option to use free space. caver1
> 
> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is. If it is to
> take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of a moron
> so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable problems.
> This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after
> all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.

Then why does Windows ask about partitioning and formatting when doing an 
install?


> 
> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over
> estimate the knowledge of their target users. Until the developers sort
> out the installation routines Linux will not be mass market as it still
> relies on someone being able to download it and install it.

Hopefully more vendors, especially visible ones like Dell, will start 
shipping Linux pre-installed.


> Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems
> stops the ~95% from using it.

How many people can properly install Windows?

> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals
> by the sound of it.

People don't read manuals when running any software, for the most part. 
They don't read them when setting up stereos and VCRs, either.

> 
> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).


-- 
Rick

In article <13hbqqpq50pen00@news.supernews.com>, none@nomail.com says...
> Hopefully more vendors, especially visible ones like Dell, will start 
> shipping Linux pre-installed.

Lets hope they wait until Linux has gained mass hardware support from 
vendors so that customers are not limited.

-- 
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that 
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look 
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website: 
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-223485.html all exposed 
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth). 
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and 
'exposed to kids'.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:52:59 -0700, Summercool wrote:

> I would say, no matter whether it is a bug in Ubuntu that it could not
> detect a pre-existing OS, or that it detects a pre-existing OS, in
> either case, give out a simple warning to the user

FYI If you have a Linux distro installed on a HD and try to install a 
Windoze version, guess what? The Windoze version doesn't 'see' the Linux 
distro.

-- 
John Brendan Doherty 1922-2007
Soldier, Father, Grandfather, Admirable man.
Requiescat in Pacem

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:17:41 +0000, cc wrote:

>> > You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
>> > someone else stupid?
>>
>> Who was arguing?
>> I was stating the bleedin obvious to the terminally dense.
> 
> They're synonymous and you just wanted to be an ass. Mission
> accomplished. Add BS in assholery to your sig.

Web forum and Usenet newsgroup synonymous???????????? Jesus! Now I've 
seen it all. 

-- 
John Brendan Doherty 1922-2007
Soldier, Father, Grandfather, Admirable man.
Requiescat in Pacem

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
> news:eClxAUGEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on my C:
>>>>> drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>>
>>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole hard
>>>>> drive without a single warning?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of 
>>>>> work,
>>>>> or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu erases whole
>>>>> hard drive without warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>
>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>
>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your 
>>> comprehension?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> There's also an option to use free space.
>> caver1
> 
> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is.
> If it is to take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the 
> level of a moron so that almost anyone can install it without getting 
> unfixable problems.
> This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after 
> all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
> 
> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over 
> estimate the knowledge of their target users.
> Until the developers sort out the installation routines Linux will not 
> be mass market as it still relies on someone being able to download it 
> and install it.
> Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems 
> stops the ~95% from using it.
> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals 
> by the sound of it.
> 
> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can 
> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).
> 


If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then 
that person
has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper 
backups
and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is 
Linux,Windows or whatever.
caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>Until the developers sort out the installation routines 

Ignorant twat.  Anyone who has recently installed Windows and Linux
knows that installing Linux is generally easier and more logical.

Summercool wrote:

>Ok, Ubuntu's tech support people confirmed that it is a bug. 

Prove it, google troll.

caver1 wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>> 
< snip >

>>> There's also an option to use free space.
>>> caver1
>> 
>> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is.
>> If it is to take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the
>> level of a moron so that almost anyone can install it without getting
>> unfixable problems.
>> This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after
>> all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
>> 
>> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over
>> estimate the knowledge of their target users.
>> Until the developers sort out the installation routines Linux will not
>> be mass market as it still relies on someone being able to download it
>> and install it.
>> Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems
>> stops the ~95% from using it.
>> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals
>> by the sound of it.
>> 
>> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
>> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).
>> 
> 
> 
> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then
> that person
> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper
> backups
> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is
> Linux,Windows or whatever.

You are talking to dennis the "MD5 guru"

In short, it can't get any dumber and more clueless than him

-- 
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:14:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:


>This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is.
>If it is to take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of 
>a moron so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable 
>problems.
>This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after all 
>a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
>
>This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over 
>estimate the knowledge of their target users.

I would never over estimate your knowledge or intelligence. How's
walking and chewing gum at the same time working out for you Dennis?
Do you know how to do it yet?

I keep telling you what your problem is. You disrespect everyone, call
them morons and fake being an expert yourself. Then you wonder why I
keep referring to you as some pompous jackass. You redefine the term
slow learner. That's because you don't see that's how you are thought
of here.

>Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can *never* 
>underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).

Of course you think you're as smart as a pistol right? You keep
implying it. After all that's what you've been trying to tell us for
months now. Well sorry fool, I'm not buying your act. Neither will
anyone else. Well, maybe Frank will, he'll believe anything if you
first tell him Microsoft said so. 

I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at
home. So I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a
Windows zealot. 

Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean
that Linux is perfect.

That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has
made progress, it still SUCKS as far as

- Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help
- Giving user control over partitioning using a simple language (other
than /dev/sde1 etc)
- controlling settings of grub

Windows install sucks even more, of course, since it blows out other
operating systems without choice. But Linux setup sucks as well. It
needs to be addressed and worked on as a large project.

i

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>>
>>> Its a bit too late for that.
>>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>>> user will stick with something else.
>>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>>
>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>
>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to understand?
>> I mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
> 
> Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with. If
> they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.

Someone that does NOT KNOW what a disk is has absolutely no business 
installing an operating system. Windows included because you also have to 
know what a disk and a partition is to install windows!

Else, how would one choose the appropriate disk/partition when installing 
windows if one doesn't even know what that is?

> 
>> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of reading
>> the whole sentence?
>>
>> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file system
>> changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the user has to
>> OK before actually doing it.
>>
>> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the system.
>> You need to do so twice.
> 
> At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their system
> will be lost if they proceed.

Really?

http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png

Same URL tiny:
http://tinyurl.com/2qc234

Then please explain to me the meaning of this sentence on the screenshot 
above:

"WARNING: This will destroy all data on any partitions you have removed 
as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted."

> As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much. It was written
> by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or don't expect
> Linux to be used by the masses.

It isn't too much to expect someone to know how their computer works if 
they're going to install an OPERATING SYSTEM on it. Installing an OS 
isn't installing notepad for crying out loud! And this is no different 
installing Vista or XP!

> 
>> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>>
>> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives /
>> partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can manually
>> configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except of course
>> Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you didn't make a
>> mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
> 
> Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without
> warning the user unlike what you state above. Also if you were truthful
> you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before removing a partition
> and tell the user that it may contain data that will be lost if they do.
> It even asks twice before it will format one. I suggest you dig out you
> windows disks and try an install as you appear to have forgotten what it
> does.

Allright fair enough. I honestly try to avoid installing Windows as much 
as possible as I don't like calling India for activation. So windows does 
ask twice. Come to think of it, I think I now recall what you are 
referring to. I stand corrected there, no problem. 

So ultimately it now comes down to that the Windows Install procedure is 
identical to the Ubuntu Install procedure.

- Choose time / keyboard / localization settings.
- Choose disk / partition.
- Install.

The only differences may be the order in which the questions are asked, 
bid deal...that isn't of any relevance.

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:12:30 -0500, Ignoramus27577 wrote:

> I have been a Linux user for 12 years and do not use Windows at home. So
> I hope that this statement will make it clear that I am not a Windows
> zealot.
> 
> Windows is not worth using for many reasons, but that does not mean that
> Linux is perfect.
> 
> That said, it my firm opinion that though Linux install process has made
> progress, it still SUCKS as far as
> 
> - Providing 100% clear, understandable instructions and help - Giving
> user control over partitioning using a simple language (other than
> /dev/sde1 etc)
> - controlling settings of grub

Well what do you suggest it should use?

Should my drive listing look like this?

"The big black box in slot number 1 in the big case under my desk?"
"The big black box in slot number 2 in the big case under my desk?"
"The big black box in slot number 3 in the big case under my desk?"

Honestly I find 

/dev/sda
/dev/sdb
/dev/sdc

To be perfectly fine and reasonable. If someone can't deal with that 
naming convention they have little business installing an OS. The only 
way that could be removed is via a recovery disk that is intended to 
restore an entire PC to factory defaults. 

Now that said, I agree that configuring grub could be made a bit easier. 
Not that I ever have a need to do so, but I suppose if someone does have 
a need to do so or wants other settings than the default, the installer 
could give some options regarding setting up grub. 

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

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

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


I think you are right but wasn't sure enough to say that.

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

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

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

How about: 

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

etc

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

I do too, but my parents would not.

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

That is presumptious.

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

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

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

Does not mean that it no longer needs improvements.

i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything always needs improvements. =)

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

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


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

I think the original post was little more than someone complaining that 
he set fire to his house and now blames the maker of the matches for 
giving him the option... MacDonalds and Coffee spring to mind :)

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:16:26 -0400, cvp wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
>> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of them).
>
>
> -- 
> Rick 

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

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

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

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

Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on the 
desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't get far 
unless you do. 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...

hi crazy.
I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side. 

dennis@home wrote:

> 
> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13hbqqpq50pen00@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:14:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

< snip >

>>>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>>>
>>>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>>>>> comprehension?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's also an option to use free space. caver1
>>>
>>> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is. If it is to
>>> take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of a moron
>>> so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable problems.
>>> This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk is.. after
>>> all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
>>
>> Then why does Windows ask about partitioning and formatting when doing an
>> install?
> 
> It has to but it does warn the user in plain English that they will lose
> data if thats what they do.
> Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
> installed.

That is because you have *not* installed linux. Ever

> 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.
> 

You and "expert mode" will never match. 

< snip more incredibly stupid Vista users bullshit >
-- 
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.

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


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

All the Operating Systems I'be been involved in developing used separate 
file system access methods for page/swap data, no matter how the space 
was allocated, so no overhead needs to be involved after the allocation, 
so maybe 100ms or so during allocation vs artificial partitioning. Not a 
big deal.

On 10/17/2007 7:49 AM On a whim, dennis@home pounded out on the keyboard

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

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

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


-- 
Terry R.

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

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc,
Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:17:41 +0000, cc wrote:

>>> > You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
>>> > someone else stupid?
>>>
>>> Who was arguing?
>>> I was stating the bleedin obvious to the terminally dense.
>> 
>> They're synonymous and you just wanted to be an ass. Mission
>> accomplished. Add BS in assholery to your sig.

> Web forum and Usenet newsgroup synonymous???????????? Jesus! Now I've 
> seen it all. 

Indeed.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There you go again. You simply can't stop suggesting you are so
computer smart and everybody else couldn't possibly know as much as
you do. You have any idea what a pompous windbag you always sound
like?

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


That is not adequate, we need a location for "Your desk", and please 
supply some more data to enable us to locate the front door, chair, 
keyboard, telephone (for calling India) and power outlets, or can we use 
Ubuntu without electricity?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

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

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

ROTFLMAO!

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


I don't know about a disk with no free space.
With free space I get;
Use free space
use entire disk
manual partition.
caver1

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


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

Adam Albright wrote:

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

I bet you could get both of your feet in your mouth at the same time and 
still manage to shove your pointy bald head up your fat hairy arse.
Frank

Summercool wrote:
> On Oct 16, 3:34 am, Rick <n...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:
>>
>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>> Can you not read:
>>
>> Guided - use entire disk.
> 
> As I said, it asks "How would you like to partition?"

No, it does not. It shows a screen like this:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/pirisisi/test/kubuntuinstallation.png

The default is:"Guided - resize IDE1 master, partition #1 (hda1) and use
freed space". So just clicking OK all through the installation would
have left your Windows intact. Why didn't you do that? Are you stupid or
something? Why, oh why didn't you accept the default? There even is a
slider to adjust the space needed for Linux.

Now, that screen capture is from Kubuntu 7.04. Will you feel even more
stupid if you say that Ubuntu does this differently? Yes you will.

> Partition doesn't have a meaning of "Erasing everything".  What It is
> doing is actually Erase everything and Partition.  It shouldn't bet on
> the vague point for something so dramatic.
> 
> And some of you guys, grow a heart.
> Computers are still to work for people, not the other way around.
> 
> 


-- 
Timo Pirinen
pirisisi@dlc.fi

"Stephan Rose" <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote in message 
news:Z6WdnZP9nbXIjovanZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:27:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...
>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home
>>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>
> 3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx
>>>> and a few I have forgotten.
>>>> Which have you installed?
>>>
>>> Too many.
>>>
>>>> Do you doubt it?
>>>> Have you never installed windows?
>>>
>>> As I said, Too many times.
>>>
>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then, shall we?
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't think so.
>>
>> If you are so sure it does you could show the warning. The fact that I
>> can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't exist.
>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>> evidence.
>
> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>
> Same URL tiny:
> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234

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

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

Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase all your 
documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on this machine. 
This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of all you stuff on 
separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please read the documentation or 
ask questions at http://.." 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
news:a6cch31qkr560o9ner9e30v1dldaimp71t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
>>installed.
>
>>It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
>>expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for newbies.
>
> There you go again... pretending you are some kind of expert and
> everybody else is a dummy. You can't stop yourself can you. LOL!

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


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

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

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

Have you any idea how crazy you are? 

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

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


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

Welcome to the world of computing as used by the masses.
It doesn't help when computer shopper put Linux disks on the cover. 

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

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

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

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

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
news:OxbTJ1NEIHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
>> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, then 
>>> that person
>>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the proper 
>>> backups
>>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is 
>>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>>
>> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world and 
>> see who does get blamed for things like that.
>>
>> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that makes 
>> no difference to the user.
>> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think Linux is 
>> OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are like Peter and 
>> that will be more black marks.
>>
>> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on the 
>> desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't get far 
>> unless you do.
>
>
> I guess I do live in a fantasy world. Never have even thought about the 
> real world.

Well if you think the user isn't going to blame the OS then you may? ;-)

> Where in my posts have you ever found me insulting someone?

Sorry that was a generic thing having had experience of how friendly some 
Linux advocates are.
I didn't mean to apply it to you and I should have been more clear in the 
way I said it.

> The biggest thing wrong in this world is that most people do not want to 
> take
> responsibility for their own actions. That way they don't have to learn or 
> take care of themselves.
> caver1 

dennis@home wrote:

>Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase all your 
>documents and pictures and any games and programs...   (snip)

Maybe something alongs the lines of "STFU, dennis@home, you ignorant
twat."

dennis@home wrote:

>Have you noticed whom it is that thinks they are an expert here?

What is "here", cretin?

>A hint its you.

Not in cola, where pretty-much everyone can see that you're an idiot
who likes to pretend that he has a clue.

>However I expect that everyone else is like me and knows you are just crazy.

Wrong again.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:58:48 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>dennis@home wrote:
>
>>Have you noticed whom it is that thinks they are an expert here?
>
>What is "here", cretin?
>
>>A hint its you.
>
>Not in cola, where pretty-much everyone can see that you're an idiot
>who likes to pretend that he has a clue.
>
>>However I expect that everyone else is like me and knows you are just crazy.
>
>Wrong again.

Too funny! Dennis calls anyone that kicks his ass crazy. He's just
another pompous wannabe phony. We have more of that type in this
newsgroup on a percentage basis then any newsgroup I can remember
visiting which includes CIWAH which is the equivalent of this one for
HTML Authoring, where they have a very high number of self elected
"expert" types that spend their days pontificating and looking down
their noses on anyone not members of their little club.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:30:32 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
>news:a6cch31qkr560o9ner9e30v1dldaimp71t@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
>>>installed.
>>
>>>It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
>>>expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for newbies.
>>
>> There you go again... pretending you are some kind of expert and
>> everybody else is a dummy. You can't stop yourself can you. LOL!
>
>Still here crazy.
>I would have thought you had made enough of a fool of yourself in the vista 
>groups without doing it here too.

More proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I AM
posting to the Microsoft Vista General group you babbling ninny. You
being an idiot cross posted. So without redirecting replies others are
too if they respond to your bile. Need any more help understanding how
Usenet works Mr. Computer expert?

You also seem confused. You begin saying 'Still HERE crazy' then
follow up with saying 'doing it here too' You simply don't know what
you're babbling about do you.

I sure had you pegged as a blowhard didn't I.

ROTFLMAO!

dennis@home wrote:

> 
> "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message 
> news:eLvkeQNEIHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 
>> On 10/17/2007 7:49 AM On a whim, dennis@home pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, 
>>>> then that person
>>>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the 
>>>> proper backups
>>>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is 
>>>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world 
>>> and see who does get blamed for things like that.
>>>
>>> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that 
>>> makes no difference to the user.
>>> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think 
>>> Linux is OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are 
>>> like Peter and that will be more black marks.
>>>
>>> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on 
>>> the desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't 
>>> get far unless you do.
>>
>>
>> The FACTS are, almost ALL Windows installations are pre-installed. 
>> Those who have installed additional OS's learned how to do it 
>> properly, some by trial and error.  If a system came pre-installed 
>> with Linux and a person tried to install Windows, the same thing could 
>> easily happen and then the user would be blaming Windows for their 
>> loss of data.  The FACTS are that most people don't travel into the 
>> realm of setting up multiple OS's.  I'm a consultant and I have 5 OS's 
>> on my system and I still don't think I understand fully all there is 
>> to know about it.
> 
> 
> The facts are that if Linux is to be big on the desktop someone is going 
> to have to install it.
> That will have to be the user AFAICS.
> If you really think Dell or the other small time operators are going to 
> make serious in-roads into windows sales then you are going to be 
> dissapointed.
> Its this "it would be OK if it were pre installed" attitude that stops 
> the solution IMO, no-one wants to fix it because the problem will go away
> 
> 
>>
>> Those who haphazardly attempt it without doing the research in advance 
>> can expect problems.  And if they don't know the basic terms used on 
>> computers and are attempting to install an additional OS on their 
>> system (without making a backup first), they may not be "idiots", but 
>> they're not very smart.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the world of computing as used by the masses.
> It doesn't help when computer shopper put Linux disks on the cover.

Humm, AOL did that and look how they have grown!

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
news:rprch35321uel07hsnhqfkhbh35bpsq4gj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:58:48 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>Have you noticed whom it is that thinks they are an expert here?
>>
>>What is "here", cretin?
>>
>>>A hint its you.
>>
>>Not in cola, where pretty-much everyone can see that you're an idiot
>>who likes to pretend that he has a clue.
>>
>>>However I expect that everyone else is like me and knows you are just 
>>>crazy.
>>
>>Wrong again.
>
> Too funny! Dennis calls anyone that kicks his ass crazy. He's just
> another pompous wannabe phony. We have more of that type in this
> newsgroup on a percentage basis then any newsgroup I can remember
> visiting which includes CIWAH which is the equivalent of this one for
> HTML Authoring, where they have a very high number of self elected
> "expert" types that spend their days pontificating and looking down
> their noses on anyone not members of their little club.
>

Wrong again.
You are crazy.
chrisv is just a linux zealot who can't win an argument by logic so he has 
to resort to insults. 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:42:34 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message 

>> The FACTS are, almost ALL Windows installations are pre-installed. Those 
>> who have installed additional OS's learned how to do it properly, some by 
>> trial and error.  If a system came pre-installed with Linux and a person 
>> tried to install Windows, the same thing could easily happen and then the 
>> user would be blaming Windows for their loss of data.  The FACTS are that 
>> most people don't travel into the realm of setting up multiple OS's.  I'm 
>> a consultant and I have 5 OS's on my system and I still don't think I 
>> understand fully all there is to know about it.
>
>The facts are that if Linux is to be big on the desktop someone is going to 
>have to install it.
>That will have to be the user AFAICS.
>If you really think Dell or the other small time operators are going to make 
>serious in-roads into windows sales then you are going to be dissapointed.
>Its this "it would be OK if it were pre installed" attitude that stops the 
>solution IMO, no-one wants to fix it because the problem will go away

The fact is you try to argue something starting with a false premise.
Like all clueless Microsoft fanboys you're scared shitless that some
day Windows will no longer be the dominant OS. Well duh, that isn't
why people use Linux or suggest others try it. Being open source it is
simply offered as an alternative that for some people depending on how
they use their computers may or may not make sense. 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
>news:e3dch317en7ndqtb7rms2au4vdi1l0070b@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>hi crazy.
>>>I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.
>>
>> I see you must have completed Frank's course on how to be seen as a
>> Usenet moron. Just call everybody crazy and hope nobody notices how
>> you act.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>
>Do you want me to give them a run down of you behavior so that they can 
>judge for themselves?
>OK I will.
>
>Adam is a troll of the worst kind.
>He deliberately antagonizes other posters for any reason he can find.
>He will pop and accuse them of being experts and pontificating even when the 
>poster is asking for help.
>
>That OK or do you think more than a summary is needed? 

You're just pissed-off I exposed you as the phony you obviously are.
Better luck next time. 

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

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

... you mean like asking them if they want to use THE WHOLE DISK??? Geee, 
I dunno, maybe if I use THE WHOLE DISK, it use the whole disk, just not 
my data...

> 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.

If they can't figure out what 'the whole disk' means, I doubt they shuold 
be installing any operating system.

> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over
>>> estimate the knowledge of their target users. Until the developers
>>> sort out the installation routines Linux will not be mass market as it
>>> still relies on someone being able to download it and install it.
>>
>> Hopefully more vendors, especially visible ones like Dell, will start
>> shipping Linux pre-installed.
> 
> It may make a difference but until they do Linux needs to be made more
> suitable for idiots to install or it will not take off as some hope. It

Almost any idiot can install Linux on a desktop. For the most part, all 
you have to do is hit enter... and have your data backed up.... which 
they should be doing anyway.


> has always been the nerdy installation that stops the majority from
> installing Linux and even though it is easier it still uses terms most
> people do not understand and does things that people don't understand
> (probably for no good reason other than to save a few lines of code).

People should learn about whatever it is they are doing. And, AGAIN, 
installing Linux is AT LEAST as easy as installing Windows.

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

I don't think so.

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

Linux does not tend to delete users data.

> 
>>> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals
>>> by the sound of it.
>>
>> People don't read manuals when running any software, for the most part.
>> They don't read them when setting up stereos and VCRs, either.
> 
> So you have to make software as idiot proof as possible if you expect
> those people to use it.

I don't expect Joe Sixpack to use Linux until he/she can easily get it 
pre-installed.

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

By definition, if a person is illiterate, h/she won't be able to read the 
directions.

> 
> 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.

> 
>>> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
>>> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of
>>> them).

-- 
Rick

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? What distro do you use?



-- 
Rick

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:e%23JRo1PEIHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
> Humm, AOL did that and look how they have grown!
>

I know.. I don't really understand why though.
I suppose they were offering a service that people thought they wanted.
It wasn't anywhere near as popular here in the UK AFAIK.

I don't remember there being any cases of AOL software deleting user files 
but it did have some serious problems from what i remember people posting.
I have never used AOL myself or actually know anyone that has (or will admit 
to it). 

"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?

"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, 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),

>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. 

Summercool wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
> 
> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  It doesn't mean erasing.
> 
> I can partition my drive without losing a single file.
> 
> yet ubuntu's partition didn't clearly say that it will erase the whole
> drive besides dividing the drive.

My "favorite" Linux bug of all time was when an installer
for one of the major commercial distros destroyed a partition with a
lot of valuable data. The problem, it turns out, was that the installer
used one program to identify the partitions when it asked you which
partitions to use for what. Then it used a different program to
do the formatting. But the two programs put the partitions in different
order under some circumstances. Well ... it just so happened that my
partitions were ordered differently by these two programs, so the wrong
partition got overwritten.

I had so many problems like that during the decade I was running Linux
.... God only knows how I hung on as long as I did. I still get a
nauseated feeling when I see a Linux desktop, more than a year and a
half after switching to Mac.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:48:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message 
>>news:e3dch317en7ndqtb7rms2au4vdi1l0070b@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:50:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>><dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:bi1ch3pr73d1ia35lj214cconleh2oraeo@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>hi crazy.
>>>>I bet the Linux crowd are glad you aren't on their side.
>>>
>>>I see you must have completed Frank's course on how to be seen as a
>>>Usenet moron. Just call everybody crazy and hope nobody notices how
>>>you act.
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO!
>>>
>>
>>Do you want me to give them a run down of you behavior so that they can 
>>judge for themselves?
>>OK I will.
>>
>>Adam is a troll of the worst kind.
>>He deliberately antagonizes other posters for any reason he can find.
>>He will pop and accuse them of being experts and pontificating even when the 
>>poster is asking for help.
>>
>>That OK or do you think more than a summary is needed? 
> 
> 
> You're just pissed-off I exposed you as the phony you obviously are.
> Better luck next time. 
> 
He's nailed your fat stupid pig ass so many times you'd proly sink if 
you went swimming...hahaha...lol!
Frank

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:08:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e%23JRo1PEIHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 
> 
>> Humm, AOL did that and look how they have grown!
>>
>>
> I know.. I don't really understand why though. I suppose they were
> offering a service that people thought they wanted. It wasn't anywhere
> near as popular here in the UK AFAIK.
> 
> I don't remember there being any cases of AOL software deleting user
> files but it did have some serious problems from what i remember people
> posting. I have never used AOL myself or actually know anyone that has
> (or will admit to it).

Linux doesn't delete user data, either.



-- 
Rick

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.

> 
>>> 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.





-- 
Rick

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.

-- 
Rick

Timo Pirinen wrote:

> Summercool wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 3:34 am, Rick <n...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:21 +0000, Summercool wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you the
>>>> content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is set as
>>>> the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>> Can you not read:
>>>
>>> Guided - use entire disk.
>> 
>> As I said, it asks "How would you like to partition?"
> 
> No, it does not. It shows a screen like this:
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/pirisisi/test/kubuntuinstallation.png
> 
> The default is:"Guided - resize IDE1 master, partition #1 (hda1) and use
> freed space". So just clicking OK all through the installation would
> have left your Windows intact. 

Hard disk partitioning
Hold on, don't run away yet! The hard disk partitioning is an easy task, so
I am very sure that you will manage to handle it too. You have here two
options:
1. If you want to keep your Windows system, select the option that
says "Guided - resize the partition and use the freed space".
2. If you want to delete your Windows system, select the option that
says "Guided - use entire disk".

Once you've decided, click the Forward button.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Install-Ubuntu-7-04-Windows-User-P-O-V-52973.shtml

http://news.softpedia.com/images/reviews/large/installfeistyfawn-large_010.png

> Why didn't you do that? Are you stupid or something? 

Naturally, it's a wintroll.

> Why, oh why didn't you accept the default? There even is a 
> slider to adjust the space needed for Linux.

Yes, but you're dealing with a troll which has very little brain.
 
> Now, that screen capture is from Kubuntu 7.04. Will you feel even more
> stupid if you say that Ubuntu does this differently? Yes you will.
> 
>> Partition doesn't have a meaning of "Erasing everything".  What It is
>> doing is actually Erase everything and Partition.  It shouldn't bet on
>> the vague point for something so dramatic.
>> 
>> And some of you guys, grow a heart.
>> Computers are still to work for people, not the other way around.
 

-- 
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007, 
(K)Ubuntu 7.04. Testing: Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

On Oct 17, 12:02 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc,
> Aardvark <Aardv...@youllnever.know> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:17:41 +0000, cc wrote:
> >>> > You're going to argue semantics over forum vs. newsgroup and call
> >>> > someone else stupid?
>
> >>> Who was arguing?
> >>> I was stating the bleedin obvious to the terminally dense.
>
> >> They're synonymous and you just wanted to be an ass. Mission
> >> accomplished. Add BS in assholery to your sig.
> > Web forum and Usenet newsgroup synonymous???????????? Jesus! Now I've
> > seen it all.
>
> Indeed.

Forum, not web forum. And you obviously knew what he meant, because
you decided to be a dick about it. What's a newsgroup if not a forum
for discussion?

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.
> 
> I think that anyone familiar with computers would understand those 
> warnings. but then they wouldn't need them anyway.
> Its still not particularly clear to a computer illiterate.
> 
> Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase all 
> your documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on this 
> machine. This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of all you 
> stuff on separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please read the 
> documentation or ask questions at http://.."


Thats the same as the warning for your iron.  "Do not Ingest"
caver1

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:26:53 +0100, 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.
> 
> I think that anyone familiar with computers would understand those
> warnings. but then they wouldn't need them anyway. Its still not
> particularly clear to a computer illiterate.
> 
> Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase all
> your documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on this
> machine. This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of all you
> stuff on separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please read the
> documentation or ask questions at http://.."

Dennis, it does not matter. Seriously, it does not matter. No matter how 
much you spell it out, no matter how detailed one explains...some user in 
this world simply will NOT get it.

It's one of the neverending problems I face writing software. No matter 
how idiot proof I try to make the user interface, the world always 
manages to invent a better idiot.

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.


-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

dennis@home wrote:
> 
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
> news:OxbTJ1NEIHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:uYEggtLEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> If a a person has no idea what a disc is, let alone a partition, 
>>>> then that person
>>>> has no business installing an OS. And if they do try without the 
>>>> proper backups
>>>> and research, then they can't blame the OS no matter if it is 
>>>> Linux,Windows or whatever.
>>>
>>> You can say that if you like but maybe you should try the real world 
>>> and see who does get blamed for things like that.
>>>
>>> Note that I did not say the blame was entirely warranted but that 
>>> makes no difference to the user.
>>> BTW calling them stupid and thick isn't going to help them think 
>>> Linux is OK.. its just going to make them think all Linux users are 
>>> like Peter and that will be more black marks.
>>>
>>> Lets face facts.. if you want Linux to be as successful as windows on 
>>> the desktop you are going to have to deal with thick users. You can't 
>>> get far unless you do.
>>
>>
>> I guess I do live in a fantasy world. Never have even thought about 
>> the real world.
> 
> Well if you think the user isn't going to blame the OS then you may? ;-)


I agree. Most people in this world always blame someone else.
But I have taught my kids to take your own bumps.
Just because most do doesn't make it right.
caver1

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.......
caver1

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:26:53 +0100, 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.
>>
>> I think that anyone familiar with computers would understand those
>> warnings. but then they wouldn't need them anyway. Its still not
>> particularly clear to a computer illiterate.
>>
>> Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase all
>> your documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on this
>> machine. This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of all you
>> stuff on separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please read the
>> documentation or ask questions at http://.."
> 
> Dennis, it does not matter. Seriously, it does not matter. No matter how 
> much you spell it out, no matter how detailed one explains...some user in 
> this world simply will NOT get it.
> 
> It's one of the neverending problems I face writing software. No matter 
> how idiot proof I try to make the user interface, the world always 
> manages to invent a better idiot.
> 
> 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.
> 


Any recommendations re toasters? I am getting one for my birthday to 
burn CDs..

(Someone had to say it)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:03:48 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:26:53 +0100, 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.
>>>
>>> I think that anyone familiar with computers would understand those
>>> warnings. but then they wouldn't need them anyway. Its still not
>>> particularly clear to a computer illiterate.
>>>
>>> Maybe something along the lines of  "If you continue you will erase
>>> all your documents and pictures and any games and programs you have on
>>> this machine. This is not recoverable unless you have made copies of
>>> all you stuff on separate media e.g. DVD. If you are unsure please
>>> read the documentation or ask questions at http://.."
>> 
>> Dennis, it does not matter. Seriously, it does not matter. No matter
>> how much you spell it out, no matter how detailed one explains...some
>> user in this world simply will NOT get it.
>> 
>> It's one of the neverending problems I face writing software. No matter
>> how idiot proof I try to make the user interface, the world always
>> manages to invent a better idiot.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Any recommendations re toasters? I am getting one for my birthday to
> burn CDs..
> 
> (Someone had to say it)

Hahahaha!!! Now that was a good one, thanks for that. =)


-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

In article <1578669.FNU4c13y3v@netscape.net>, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> wrote:
>dennis@home wrote:
>
>> 
>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99CB949D8EBF7thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
>> 
>>> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
>>>
>>> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so if
>>> you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually means,
>>> you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.
>> 
>> Windows will not remove existing partitions without warning the user
>> (twice).
>
>But it will quite happily overwrite the MBR, making your linux system
>unbootable.
>
>> Some distros of Linux assume the user knows he is about to destroy
>> everything.
>
>Most distros assume that the installer actually knows what "ENTIRE DISK"
>means when attempting to partition.
>
>> Not exactly user friendly for an OS that wants to be adopted by the masses
>> is it?
>
>Why do you assume that Linux wants to be adopted by the masses?
>
>Tell you what.... do you attempt major work on your machines without doing a
>backup?

Well, the thing is, it is not that apparent,
especially for those, who do not have much experience
or understanding of disk partitioning schemes, MBR, etc.
When you do install, you have reems of questions, and
for newcomers, some of it is kinda dizzying.

At the point where user is asked if he wants to partition
his drive, it MUST be explained in the LARGE letters,
that the consequences may be lethal, especially if he
currently has some other OS installed.

Simple yes/no is deadly.

>> So next we will get the nice friendly Linux folk going on about how stupid
>> windows users are and then wonder why Linux can't be given away.

"Friendly Linux folk", "stoopid windows users"?

Is it some kind of a propaganda department,
the microsux style?

>Linux is working just fine, everywhere... stop lying.

Again, assumptions and fabrications.
Linux IS kinda OK. But to say it works fine,
you must have a plug between your ears.

>The user is wholly to blame. Stop your pathetic trolling

Wtf?
Who are you here? Some kind of cop?
You blabber what you want, not a problem at all.
But why do you think you are the only one,
who is the final determinant?

Think about it, Jack.


--
The most powerful tool for usenet you have ever heard of.

NewsMaestro v. 4.0.1 Hail Democracy has been released.

Important feature additions and various improvements
and optimizations.

Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

Download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

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.
caver1

Stephan Rose wrote:


> 
> Dennis, it does not matter. Seriously, it does not matter. No matter how
> much you spell it out, no matter how detailed one explains...some user in
> this world simply will NOT get it.
> 
> It's one of the neverending problems I face writing software. No matter
> how idiot proof I try to make the user interface, the world always
> manages to invent a better idiot.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
Stephan
your just wasting time trying to explain things to this jerk.
this asshole in none other than our old friend Hadron Quark, whom has
nymshifted because he has made a ass out of himself too many times

Almond wrote:

> In article <1578669.FNU4c13y3v@netscape.net>, Gregory Shearman
> <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> wrote:
>>dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns99CB949D8EBF7thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...
>>> 
>>>> Linux has nothing to do with this particular users problem.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what....Windows asks how you want to partition the drive too, so
>>>> if you have no clue as to what partitioning is or what it actually
>>>> means, you could get screwed no matter what OS you are installing.
>>> 
>>> Windows will not remove existing partitions without warning the user
>>> (twice).
>>
>>But it will quite happily overwrite the MBR, making your linux system
>>unbootable.
>>
>>> Some distros of Linux assume the user knows he is about to destroy
>>> everything.
>>
>>Most distros assume that the installer actually knows what "ENTIRE DISK"
>>means when attempting to partition.
>>
>>> Not exactly user friendly for an OS that wants to be adopted by the
>>> masses is it?
>>
>>Why do you assume that Linux wants to be adopted by the masses?
>>
>>Tell you what.... do you attempt major work on your machines without doing
>>a backup?
> 
> Well, the thing is, it is not that apparent,
> especially for those, who do not have much experience
> or understanding of disk partitioning schemes, MBR, etc.
> When you do install, you have reems of questions, and
> for newcomers, some of it is kinda dizzying.

And yet, even an absolute moron would know that they should back up their
machines before doing major work such as  the installation of an OS on a
machine with an existing OS.

> At the point where user is asked if he wants to partition
> his drive, it MUST be explained in the LARGE letters,
> that the consequences may be lethal, especially if he
> currently has some other OS installed.

Perhaps the "user" should ask someone with some sense to do it for them, if
they cannot understand what "entire disk" means, and doesn't even do
backups.

> Simple yes/no is deadly.

Only when you don't know what you are doing.

>>Linux is working just fine, everywhere... stop lying.
> 
> Again, assumptions and fabrications.
> Linux IS kinda OK. But to say it works fine,
> you must have a plug between your ears.

It works fine, on servers, set top boxes, DVR, desktops... mobile phones,
hardware routers, etc etc....

Some people have problems installing operating systems. Perhaps they should
get professional help to do it for them.

>>The user is wholly to blame. Stop your pathetic trolling
> 
> Wtf?
> Who are you here? Some kind of cop?

I had to remove about 8 groups added, mainly microsoft and windows groups.

It certainly sounds like a troll to me.

> You blabber what you want, not a problem at all.
> But why do you think you are the only one,
> who is the final determinant?
> 
> Think about it, Jack.

Fine.. you want to put up with crossposting trolls, then go ahead.

BTW, the name's Gregory, not Jack. Please get it right, whoever you are.... 

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Summercool wrote:
> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
> lost.

Yes, the OP here is a troll, likely flatfish under yet another false 
name, but the actual complaint is correct. Ubuntu's installation 
procedure has far too little explanation and not enough "are you really 
sure" screen at a very crucial step in the installation. And since when 
is wiping the entire disk the most likely installation option? I for one 
have never done it. Why isn't there a 'guided' option that does nice 
repartitioning according to a good plan (keep 'doze, add /, /home, and 
swap)? Personally, I don't think Ubuntu is all that crash hot. I have 
had better results from debian than ubuntu, quite consistently. But that 
doesn't change the trollness of the OP, because if you search anything 
hard enough, you will find faults, and this OP has an entire research 
department of a huge multinational behind him seeking out every dumb 
mistake in every distro. It's nice of him to post these warnings, but 
don't take it to heart as any kind of measure of the quality of linus - 
it's PR, nothing more.

-- 
Ron House
   rhouse@smartchat.net.au

Stephan Rose wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Dennis, it does not matter. Seriously, it does not matter. No matter how 
> much you spell it out, no matter how detailed one explains...some user in 
> this world simply will NOT get it.
> 
You know, all this brouhaha about erasing a hard drive?

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.)

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 22:35:01 up 11 days, 6:11, 1 user, load average: 4.25, 4.25, 4.19

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?

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 22:45:01 up 11 days, 6:21, 1 user, load average: 4.26, 4.29, 4.24

Rick wrote:
> 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 sure does in the following distributions:

1.) Red Hat Linux 5.0
2.) Red Hat Linux 6.0
3.) Red Hat Linux 6.2
4.) Red Hat Linux 7.3
5.) Fedora Core 2
6.) Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
7.) CentOS 4
8.) Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.

Those are the only ones I have tried (and in that order, over the last 10
years or so). It is difficult to believe that _only Red Hat distributions_
make this warning. In fact, it is just about impossible.

>> 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? What distro do you use?
> 
> 
> 


-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 22:50:01 up 11 days, 6:26, 1 user, load average: 4.13, 4.22, 4.22

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message 
news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.
>>
>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.
>>
>> 8<
>
> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly told
> the installer to wipe out the data.

Yes we all know that.
What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for the 
intended target users as he didn't understand.
If Linux is intended for people that are computer literate then they are OK 
and most such users will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos 
anyway.
If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users then I don't 
think the messages or install routine are much good.


>
>>
>>>> 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.
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.
I suppose that might change if people get used to the cr@p service they get 
from mobiles. ;-) 

"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 Oct 18, 6:17 am, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
> > "Stephan Rose" <nos...@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 h=
as
> any business installing an OS?
>
> Gods, are you stupid. You and Vista are a perfect match

You really get worked up over a newsgroup post. Why don't you take it
easy and sit the next one out champ.

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

"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? 

Summercool wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
> 
> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  

No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data" 
(whatever THAT means....)
I suggest you do some serious reading on what a partition is, before you 
spout that twaddle again...

Summercool wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
> 
> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  

No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data"
(whatever THAT means....)
I suggest you do some serious reading on what a partition is, before you
spout that twaddle again...

Summercool wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
> 
> 
> Partition merely means dividing the data.  

No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data"
(whatever THAT means....)
I suggest you do some serious reading on what a partition is, before you
spout that twaddle again...

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 K=F6hlmann wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>news:uOSdnfizv4RUE4vanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>And honestly, I find "...this will destroy all data..." to be more tha=
n
>>>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.
>=20
>=20
> And cretinous statements like these here make it perfectly clear that y=
ou
> 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?
>=20
> 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=20
to do it (again!).
How wonderful, huh.
Frank

Ron House wrote:
> Summercool wrote:
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C: was
>> lost.
> 
> Yes, the OP here is a troll, likely flatfish under yet another false 
> name, but the actual complaint is correct. Ubuntu's installation 
> procedure has far too little explanation and not enough "are you really 
> sure" screen at a very crucial step in the installation. And since when 

Such things may be nice, like the trash, that warns you to delete stuff, 
but some programs dont do that. Maybe "professional" ones.

Like it or not: computers are complicated. Not very much, but you should 
have some basic understanding of what you do.

I like /stand/sysinstall in FreeBSD.


H.


> is wiping the entire disk the most likely installation option? I for one 
> have never done it. Why isn't there a 'guided' option that does nice 
> repartitioning according to a good plan (keep 'doze, add /, /home, and 
> swap)? Personally, I don't think Ubuntu is all that crash hot. I have 
> had better results from debian than ubuntu, quite consistently. But that 
> doesn't change the trollness of the OP, because if you search anything 
> hard enough, you will find faults, and this OP has an entire research 
> department of a huge multinational behind him seeking out every dumb 
> mistake in every distro. It's nice of him to post these warnings, but 
> don't take it to heart as any kind of measure of the quality of linus - 
> it's PR, nothing more.
> 

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. 

Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1192529001.245772.85020@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com: 

> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my
> Drive C: was lost.
> 
> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost
> EVERYTHING on my C: drive.

This thread has been dragging on for so long I finally had to 
take a look.

Forgive me if I repeat what other posters have said, I only read 
the last 2 posts and your original one.

First of all, WTF were you doing installing Ubuntu on a Vista 
machine? Really bored or just looking for trouble?

Second, RTFM. Or applicable web pages.

Even *I* who am no fan of MS, and still use 95B and 98SE lite 
(and will NEVER use anything else from MS) and know VERY little 
about Linux except that I may have to use it someday due to the 
worldwide "hardware mafia", know enough not to attempt to put 
Vista and Linux on the same drive. (To begin with, I would never 
have Disasta installed in the first place.)

Also... Ever heard the phrase "back up the important stuff 
before you fuck around with your system"???

"Computers are our friends."

-- 
Waiting for the day when it is illegal to use anything but Vista 
on any computer in the world.

thanatoid :
> This thread has been dragging on for so long I finally had to 
> take a look.

You really should read the thread, it was fun

Linux gave my mother cancer dammit....

-- 
Are you selling NYLON OIL WELLS??  If so, we can use TWO DOZEN!!

http://www.websterscafe.com

"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. 

thanatoid wrote:
> Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1192529001.245772.85020@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com: 
> 
>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my
>> Drive C: was lost.
>>
>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost
>> EVERYTHING on my C: drive.
> 
> This thread has been dragging on for so long I finally had to 
> take a look.
> 
> Forgive me if I repeat what other posters have said, I only read 
> the last 2 posts and your original one.
> 
> First of all, WTF were you doing installing Ubuntu on a Vista 
> machine? Really bored or just looking for trouble?
> 
> Second, RTFM. Or applicable web pages.
> 
> Even *I* who am no fan of MS, and still use 95B and 98SE lite 
> (and will NEVER use anything else from MS) and know VERY little 
> about Linux except that I may have to use it someday due to the 
> worldwide "hardware mafia", know enough not to attempt to put 
> Vista and Linux on the same drive. (To begin with, I would never 
> have Disasta installed in the first place.)
> 
> Also... Ever heard the phrase "back up the important stuff 
> before you fuck around with your system"???
> 
> "Computers are our friends."
> 
I would try to be gentler, but I agree. By now I suppose I am an experienced
installer. I have installed a lot of Linux distributions (sort-of: they were
all Red Hat or Fedora distributions) and never had a problem.

For my installation of Red Hat 5.0, I purchased a separate hard drive to put
the Linux on. The main one had Windows 95. I later put Red Hat 6.0 on there,
and Red Hat 7.3 after that.

My second machine was Linux-only and came with Linux pre-installed from VA
Linux Systems (who no longer make computers). But I immediately re-installed
it because their default partitioning was not what I wanted. 4 years or so
later, I put Windows XP on it. One of the hard drives has two Windows
partitions on it. The main Windows partition is NTFS. The second one is
VFAT. That system is partitioned like this:

Disk /dev/hda: 81.9 GB, 81964302336 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9964 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *           1        3134    25173823+   7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/hda2            3135        3657     4200997+   c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda3            3658        3670      104422+  83  Linux
/dev/hda4            3671        9964    50556555    f  W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5            3671        4193     4200966   83  Linux
/dev/hda6            4194        4324     1052226   82  Linux swap
/dev/hda7            4325        4847     4200966   83  Linux
/dev/hda8            4848        5370     4200966   83  Linux
/dev/hda9            5371        5893     4200966   83  Linux
/dev/hda10           5894        6938     8393931   83  Linux

Disk /dev/sda: 9184 MB, 9184760832 bytes
64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 8759 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *           1        1000     1023984   83  Linux
/dev/sda2            1001        6000     5120000   83  Linux

Disk /dev/sdb: 9184 MB, 9184760832 bytes
64 heads, 32 sectors/track, 8759 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 = 1048576 bytes

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1   *           1        1000     1023984   83  Linux
/dev/sdb2            1001        6000     5120000   83  Linux

and I never have trouble with that.

/dev/hda3 is /boot for Linux
/dev/hda5 is / for Linux

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 08:45:01 up 12 days, 16:21, 2 users, load average: 4.28, 4.33, 4.37

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:31:28 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> 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.
>>
>>>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. 

What a fu*cking DICKHEAD loser this Dennis clown is proving to be.

ROTFLMAO!

dennis@home wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, no

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

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

And look!!! The warning message!!

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

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

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

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

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

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

I agree that it could be easier to install windows.

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

Compare that to Ubuntu where you typically get three tick boxes

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

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

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

dennis@home wrote:

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

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

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

Irony meter (..../)

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:34:49 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.10.19.19.58.23.526860@nospam.invalid...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>> exist.
>
> That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.
>
>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding 
>> evidence.
>
> Irony meter (..../)
>
>

If you are so sure my logic is wrong why don't you explain where?
If you don't I will just assume you are as dumb as you sound and pop you 
back. 

Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
news:CeydncpTEMK1Y4XanZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@giganews.com: 

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

The "masses" don't "install" Windows, they buy overpriced brand-
name shit computers with Windows pre-installed and locked in 
with a pact with the dyevyll.

-- 
Waiting for the day when it is illegal to use anything but Vista 
on any computer in the world.

On 2007-10-16, Gene Jones <jasin@janus.com> wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Gene Jones wrote:
>> 
>> > sorry for 
>> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault, 
>> 
>> Which it was.  Only a freaking idiot does partitioning and such on an
>> "important" machine without the knowledge that such things have the
>> ability to cause data loss, especially when you don't know what you're
>> doing.
>
> ah, on a well crafted OS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do what happened to 
> this person. The Linux community screwed up, and should go to work at 

	You mean that MacOS comes with it's own version of partition
magic? If this same guy would have done this same thing only done it
with a MacOS installation CD the exact thing would have happened.

[deletia]

	Don't make the mistake of thinking that none of us have
actual mac experience.


-- 

	My Macintosh runs Ubuntu.              		       |||
					                      / | \


 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2007-10-16, Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 1:55 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>
>> > chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Gene Jones wrote:
>>
>> >> > sorry for
>> >> > your loss, but linux kids will bitch and complain that it is YOUR fault,
>
> Ok, Ubuntu's tech support people confirmed that it is a bug.  Ubuntu
> should have detected there was Vista on the machine, and therefore
> give a slide bar to re-partition the drive.

	...which would do squat without the ability to monkey around
with an already existing NTFS partition.

>
> Instead, it didn't detect there was Vista, and thought it is a disk
> drive without any OS and ready to be totally erased.

	The best it could have done in that situation is presented some
lame ass Windows style "do you really want do to this, we don't trust you"
sort of click through dialog box.

[deletia]


-- 


 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2007-10-17, Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 11:44 pm, Peter Khlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't
>> > exist.
>>
>> The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are lying.
>> Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both
>
> Ok, I never saw a warning.  I started using computer since before
> Apple ][
> If some of you know, it is called the "Superboard", and I have used
> computer for 25 years.  I can program all the way from micro-code,
> machine code, all the way to C, Java, Python, and Ruby.
>
> Anyways, I didn't see any warning, and the Ubuntu tech support said
> this is a bug that it didn't detect Vista.
>
> Also, the word "Partition" may have a strong "erasing the whole hard
> drive" connotation to the Linux guys.  But it also may have a

	No. It has a strong "destroy your data" connotation to anyone
that understand what disk partitioning is or anyone that's ever installed
an OS before.

	This includes Windows and MacOS.

> "dividing the data" connotation to people.  Depending on its usage,
> sometimes people may think that it is merely creating a new partition
> for the Linux installation.  So between the two possible meanings, why
> assuming there is absolutely no confusion and just go ahead with the
> destructive action?

-- 

				My macintosh runs Ubuntu.      |||	
							      / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

"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. 

Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:

>Summercool wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53
>>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning
>> 
>> 
>> Partition merely means dividing the data.  

>No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data" 
>(whatever THAT means....)

Agreed. It means dividing the disk, not the data. It is like putting up
boundaries to decide countries. 

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

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:22:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

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

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



-- 
Rick

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


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

No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win partition
is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is irrelevant. It was
the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data. (Yes, I know that the
data is still there and that IF you managed to repartition the disk again
to exactly the same as it was before, you could recover the data, but that
is largely irrelevant to almost all users. It is the partitioning that
destroys the ability to access the data). Thus if there is no warning on
the repartitioning then that is where the problem lies.

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

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

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

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

No, the user applies the changes.

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

Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

-- 
Rick

Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:

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

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

>No, the user applies the changes.

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

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

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

The user does NOT apply the changes. The user at best agrees to allow the
system to apply those changes. At worst he has no choice, other than the
choice to install. 

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


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

caver1 wrote:
> Unruh wrote:
>> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:


>> Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost) 
>> impossible to
>> find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set up
>> to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give adequate
>> warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the fault of the
>> installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings Ubuntu 7.1 gives and
>> whether or not they are adequate.
> 
> 
> If you have no idea whether they are adequate or not, or even if they 
> are given or not,    
> how can you even comment?
> caver1

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

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?

In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

> Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. 

Is that what he said?
he didn't say any, he said THOSE. Those being the ones so STUPID they'd try
to stop a chainsaw with their genitals if it didn't say not to on the label.

People like the original poster.

> It is (almost) impossible to
> find Linux preinstalled. 

Then use it as a live CD until you can find a friend who knows what a disk
partition is. 
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:03:24 +0000, 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. 

IMO, it can easily be installed by most computer literate users. Those 
users that shouldn't be installing LInux, also shouldn't be installing 
Windows and maybe not even MacOS.

> It is (almost) impossible to find Linux preinstalled. 

Well, there is Dell, if you look hard.  :-)

> 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.

There have been screen shots posted in this thread.

> 
> The user does NOT apply the changes. The user at best agrees to allow
> the system to apply those changes.

OK, the user makes the decision.

> At worst he has no choice, other than the choice to install.

The user has a number of choices. Go install Ubuntu somewhere.



-- 
Rick

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:43:32 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> caver1 wrote:
>> Unruh wrote:
>>> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>> Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost)
>>> impossible to
>>> find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set
>>> up to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give
>>> adequate warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the
>>> fault of the installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings
>>> Ubuntu 7.1 gives and whether or not they are adequate.
>> 
>> 
>> If you have no idea whether they are adequate or not, or even if they
>> are given or not,
>> how can you even comment?
>> caver1
> 
> The warnings on our local gasoline pumps are adequate but that doesn't
> stop the occasional unforeseen error or some idiot setting themselves
> alight.

.... then the warnings are adequate and the idiot shouldn't be pumping gas.



-- 
Rick

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

The second is a kubuntu install.

-- 
Rick

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.



-- 
Rick

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

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 ...



-- 
Rick

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

dumbass@home wrote:

> "chrisv" wrote:
>>
>> dumbass@home wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it
>>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.
>>
>>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Irony meter (..../)
>>
> If you are so sure my logic is wrong why don't you explain where? If you
> don't I will just assume you are as dumb as you sound and pop you back.

The irony meter remains pegged, as I am accused of "sounding dumb" by the 
dummy who thinks that a cretin claiming inability to show something is 
evidence that the thing does not exist.  

Stupid troll.

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.

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... 

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
news:eu2QUSEFIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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.

You have not read what I wrote.

With Ubuntu you get the same warning even if no data is going to be lost.
What this does is stop newbies from installing it as they are going to lose 
data (even though they aren't).
The experienced user will ignore the message as he knows it is talking 
rubbish when it says it is going to remove data and will delete his system.

The messages are wrong!

Its bad enough that they are cryptic but in the case of Ubuntu they are 
*wrong* they do not apply to what is actually going to happen.
Is that clear enough?

If you read the posts you will even see where I posted what the messages 
said for the example where I selected use the entire disk and use the free 
space and they are the *same*. 

"Doug W." <stand@attention> wrote in message 
news:emMELmFFIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> UBUNTU HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS XP. For gawds sake quit posting 
> about it on this NG.

Stop screaming and kill the thread if you don't like it.

Click in the column with the specs on adjacent to the post until a red 
no-entry sign appears if you don't know how.

Abracadabra no more posts in this thread. 

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
news:D4A33D23-205D-4B94-B259-9450A8473E3E@microsoft.com...
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
> news:eu2QUSEFIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>
> You have not read what I wrote.
>
> With Ubuntu you get the same warning even if no data is going to be lost.
> What this does is stop newbies from installing it as they are going to 
> lose data (even though they aren't).
> The experienced user will ignore the message as he knows it is talking 
> rubbish when it says it is going to remove data and will delete his 
> system.
>
> The messages are wrong!
>
> Its bad enough that they are cryptic but in the case of Ubuntu they are 
> *wrong* they do not apply to what is actually going to happen.
> Is that clear enough?
>
> If you read the posts you will even see where I posted what the messages 
> said for the example where I selected use the entire disk and use the free 
> space and they are the *same*.

It's up to the user to know what partitions are on what devices, so when the 
installed gives the message that partition x will be formatted, the user 
knows what was on that partition to start with.

The warning is a general warning, indicating to the user any change he has 
made to a partition will result in the loss of any data on that drive.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the messages in context. I can only 
assume english is not your first language. 

dobey wrote:
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
> news:D4A33D23-205D-4B94-B259-9450A8473E3E@microsoft.com...
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
>> news:eu2QUSEFIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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.
>> You have not read what I wrote.
>>
>> With Ubuntu you get the same warning even if no data is going to be lost.
>> What this does is stop newbies from installing it as they are going to 
>> lose data (even though they aren't).
>> The experienced user will ignore the message as he knows it is talking 
>> rubbish when it says it is going to remove data and will delete his 
>> system.
>>
>> The messages are wrong!
>>
>> Its bad enough that they are cryptic but in the case of Ubuntu they are 
>> *wrong* they do not apply to what is actually going to happen.
>> Is that clear enough?
>>
>> If you read the posts you will even see where I posted what the messages 
>> said for the example where I selected use the entire disk and use the free 
>> space and they are the *same*.
> 
> It's up to the user to know what partitions are on what devices, so when the 
> installed gives the message that partition x will be formatted, the user 
> knows what was on that partition to start with.
> 
> The warning is a general warning, indicating to the user any change he has 
> made to a partition will result in the loss of any data on that drive.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend the messages in context. I can only 
> assume english is not your first language. 
> 
> 


Hehe, the simple fact is that even if the user should end up with a 
"Dual Boot" system (Which is unlikely but Dennis knows best of course) 
his "Data" has still been lost, in the sense that what he had originally 
  is no longer there. and without changing GRUB or something he probably 
won't be able to use it. Claiming that "Use entire disk" and "Use free 
space" are the same is simply lying, at least as far as my experience 
demonstrates, the result is the "Same" if you get to that point and 
cancel, it makes no changes, but if you understand what "Free Space" 
means then the results are not. As for the answers being "Cryptic" I 
don't see how anyone claiming Dennis' great experience and expertise on 
all things OS could possibly be fooled.

Yes a complete idiot could mangle their system, just as they could by 
not following the rather misleading "Start / Shutdown" procedure, or by 
pulling the plug or having ActiveX install a virus. You may have heard 
about the Lawyer's secretary who donated $1000s to a Nigerian 
"Businessman" with access to someone's bank account. Fact is though that 
most users (yes even just plain users) are not that stupid and those who 
are will break something whatever.

Prediction:- "If" Dennis is correct Linux will get all the smart users 
and Windows will get all the idiots, who have not yet broken their 
systems but will, over and over again.

Charlie Tame wrote:

< snip > 

> Prediction:- "If" Dennis is correct Linux will get all the smart users
> and Windows will get all the idiots, who have not yet broken their
> systems but will, over and over again.

Color me confused, but what exactly would change then?
Isn't that the situation we have right now?
-- 
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

"dobey" <a@v.nox> wrote in message 
news:uDpO3WKFIHA.284@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message 
> news:D4A33D23-205D-4B94-B259-9450A8473E3E@microsoft.com...
>>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message 
>> news:eu2QUSEFIHA.5752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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.
>>
>> You have not read what I wrote.
>>
>> With Ubuntu you get the same warning even if no data is going to be lost.
>> What this does is stop newbies from installing it as they are going to 
>> lose data (even though they aren't).
>> The experienced user will ignore the message as he knows it is talking 
>> rubbish when it says it is going to remove data and will delete his 
>> system.
>>
>> The messages are wrong!
>>
>> Its bad enough that they are cryptic but in the case of Ubuntu they are 
>> *wrong* they do not apply to what is actually going to happen.
>> Is that clear enough?
>>
>> If you read the posts you will even see where I posted what the messages 
>> said for the example where I selected use the entire disk and use the 
>> free space and they are the *same*.
>
> It's up to the user to know what partitions are on what devices, so when 
> the installed gives the message that partition x will be formatted, the 
> user knows what was on that partition to start with.
>
> The warning is a general warning, indicating to the user any change he has 
> made to a partition will result in the loss of any data on that drive.
>
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend the messages in context. I can 
> only assume english is not your first language.
>

They are the *same* even though different things are being done to the disk.
I assume that although English is your first language you don't bother to 
read things properly.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:13:33 -0600, Doug W. wrote:

> UBUNTU HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS XP. For gawds sake quit 
> posting about it on this NG.

For gawds sake learn how to read headers
comp.os.linux.misc,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy,
24hoursupport.helpdesk,microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

For gawds sake direct your comment to the window troll that cross posted
that way to create this thread.

For gawds sake stop shouting.

For gawds sake stop top posting.

For gawds sake trim your posts.

For gawds sake and so on and so on

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13hee7ebru8sn95@news.supernews.com
on 10/18/07 3:43 AM:

> 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.

A challenge Linux has that OS X and Windows do not is that most people who
use Linux do not have a machine with the OS pre-installed.


-- 
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein