>On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Vidiot wrote:
>
>> Yep, it was a major mistake to take the wrong path. It went and did what
>> it said it was going to do.
>
>good, so that's one less issue we need to beat to death.
>>
>> What I'd like to know is why RedHat feels that it is necessary to destroy
>> all partitions on all drives?
>
>arrrrggghh! because, as i recall, you asked for a "server" install, no?
>if something is going to be a server, that suggests it is going to be a
>24x7 box, never to be dual-booted. hence, the complete wiping of the
>disks and everything on them.
>
>you can disagree with this approach if you want, but if you call something
>a "server," don't complain when red hat treats it like one.
>
>rday
Servers can also have other disks installed that contain data that will be
"served." As mentioned, something may have happened that requires the
server's Linux to be reloaded. It doesn't mean that the other hard disks
on the server have problems. All they'll need is to be mounted. In my case,
the ftp and http areas are on another disk, to be "served." There is no need
to wipe them out.
Maybe a server install was used the first time and the server install fills
the bill for the next install on the system. But, now the system has more
goodies attached to it.
That is why a server install should still be told what to do with the disks
that it found. It is such a simple thing to ask to be done and i'll bet
there will be many a user who will appreciate it.
Get my drift?!
MB
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have
programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like
Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99]
Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
