I really don't want to propogate this thread further, but...
We all feel bad for you losing your data, Vidiot.
However all you can blame the vendor for (at best) is the inconvenience of
restoring your system from backups. Even then, the installer behaviour is
documented, and if you had purchased the product, and read the install
guide, you would have known what was going to happen. If this data was
that important to you, you would have taken precautions against the
multitude of other things that can and do go wrong. If the hacker had done
a
rm -rf /
on your system, would you be screaming at Red Hat for not having a hacker
proof system out of the box?
Again, sorry for the loss, but please stop blaming Red Hat. Use windows if
this is not acceptable. I'm told many people get by quite happily that way
too (although for the life of me I don't see how). ;)
charles
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Vidiot wrote:
> > The long and the short of it is...do not blame the vendor's installation
> > process for making assumptions for you when you really should have known
> > better. I feel for your loss, but "thems the breaks."
> > Michael B. Weiner
>
> Yes I can blame the vendor. Even if doing a server install, not all of the
> disks in the machine are going to get Linux placed on to them. Yes, they
> more than likely will get mounted after the install.
>
> Therefore, RedHat, or any vendor for that matter, should ask which disks are
> actually going to be used for the install. The vendor should not blindly
> assume that all of the disks are, especially if there is more than one.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
