In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: > Elaine C. Sharpe wrote: >> In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: >> >>> >>> Yep, I read about others having problems and loosing data. >>> >>> Dale >>> >>> :-) :-) >>> >> You can read about others having problems and losing data with pretty >> much every bit of software ever coded. *Lots* of people are not particularly >> competent and write horroe stories or bad reviews without bothering to >> mention the errors they made which actually caused the problem. >> I see evidence of that on this very list daily. So IMO your method is >> a bit suspect. :) >> >> > > The opposite can be said too. I seem to recall hal working for a lot of > people but for me, it was a miserable failure and forced me into a hard > reset. >
So, if your method doesn't really work very well but you invert it and see that then it doesn't work well either that validates the original choice? :) > Just because something works for most people, doesn't mean it will for > everyone either. If you lose data, it doesn't matter. LVM just adds > one more layer of something to go wrong. Me, I don't need the extra > risk of having a system that doesn't boot and a loss of data. I'm sure > there are a lot of people that see it the way I do too. They just don't > need the extra risk. > Using the least number of layers of abstraction you can get away with is a perfectly valid criteria. What I was pointing out was that informal polls of users with a sad story to tell is not a very effective way to conduct research. People say all kinds of things that just aren't true. -- ...she kept arranging and rearranging the rabbit and kind of waving to it. I decided, "this is the person I want to sit next to".
