This is getting old. The gun analogies are perfect and germane. Vidiot has
no one to blame but himself. He did things cheap and quickly and got
burned. So he is now looking to lessen his degree of fault.
I have done countless system installs and updates in over 3 decades. Execpt
in the rare case where I did not care about the machine I always had a
backup. I have rescheduled several updates because of backups not being
satisfactory.
Now I feel that if I wanted to complain I have more grounds than Vidiot. I
bought a copy of 5.2 in the summer and got it going over the 4th. Later I
was handed a free copy of 6.0 by Red Hat. After reading an article about
the ease of update to 6.0 I decided to try it. To get support if I needed
it I went out to buy a copy. What I found was 6.1, so I got that. I then
got the new disk images and used them. Research on Usenet indicated some
problems with windows partitions but I wasn't using that stuff so I did not
worry.
Well I did the update and ran into many minor problems. LILO, Ghostscript,
Gnome and more that ate up a month of time to get back where I was before
the update. But I had backups so nothing was lost other than time. I
attempted to use Red Hat support for a problem but did not get answer before
I did things the long way.
Well other than an email to the author of the article I did not do anything.
It was a learning experience that I really did pay for. I feel that Red Hat
in its' rush to get out a GUI installer should have taken a lot more time to
test things out. Perhaps they listened too much to loud cheap people?
John Fusek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Burgiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I'm beginning to wonder... (was: What else did RH6.1
> install forget....)
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 01:29:18PM +0000, Thomas Ribbrock
> Design/DEG" wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 11:49:32PM -0600, Vidiot wrote:
> > [...]
> > > with 6.1 custom. I believed that the 6.1 installation
> would provide the
> > > same level of installation support as 6.0 did. Mistake #4.
> > [...]
> >
> > Ok, in fairness to Vidiot, there have been more than his mails about
> > the RHL 6.1 installer on this list. I will not judge any of them
> > right now and I do not have tried 6.1 myself (until now I avoided
> > x.0 and x.1 releases from Red Hat... Hence, I'm still on 5.2) so I
> > can't judge the installer itself, but I am beginning to wonder
> > whether such a seemingly big change as an installer change was a
> > good thing to do on a minor version change. I can at least
> > understand how one could be led to expect similar behaviour from an
> > x.1 installer with regard to the x.0. I myself was actually
> > surprised to learn (from this list) that 6.1 was so much different
> > in this regard from 6.0 - that's something I'd have expected from a
> > move to 7.0. But maybe that's just me - how do other people think
> > about this?
>
> Yes, yes, yes, but 6.1 has been out since Oct, and all this has been
> rehashed so many times it must be soup by now. My first install was in
> Oct and I elected to do the text install because that's what
> I was used
> to and there were already reports of many problems with the GUI
> installer (many fixed with updated boot.imgs). I also made a point of
> reading the fine print, checked the errata, and subscribed to the
> Cartman list beforehand. And guess what, no surprises at all. This
> isn't just old news, it's ancient history. Time to move on ... 6.2 is
> around the corner.
>
> --
> Hal B
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
>
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
