>On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Steve Frampton wrote:
>
>vidiot's disaster is not a consequence of a flawed red hat installation
>program -- it is a result of numerous incredibly bad decisions on
>vidiot's part, including (but not limited to) getting a new release
>of the OS from a friend without the docs, refusing to read the
>easily available docs and assuming that he knows what's going to
>happen, selecting (if i recall correctly) a "server" install,
>ignoring the glaring warning about what's about to happen,
>and (most incredibly) doing something as significant as an install/
>upgrade without having done a valid backup in years. how this
>can be interpreted as red hat's fault is beyond me.
There is some false information in the above. 1) I didn't REFUSE to read
the documentation. Circumstances of the situation didn't provide the time
for doing such. Also, a version upgrade from 6.0 to 6.1 normally indicates
a minor change. In this case, the 6.1 version was more like a 7.0 version.
2) Yes, I did believe I had an understanding, since it was just a minor
version change, afterall. I am not the only one to think that the new install
should have been part of a major version change. 3) The warnings have been
around forever, but this is the first time an install has been this drastic.
4) It has not been years as far as backups are concerned. I said that it
was years of work. I have backup tapes, up to the point where the tape drive
failed. It failed late last year. It costs money to get it fixed, and
money is short at the moment. I never said that the backup problem was
RedHat's fault. That would be dumb. The backup of the main system disk
was done on the other disk in the system.
>yes, the install process can be made better. is it awkward?
>sometimes. is it inconvenient. sometimes. can it be made more
>powerful? undoubtedly. is it fatally flawed? in my opinion, no.
>and the frustration in this ongoing dialogue is a result of
>confusing the first issues with the last issue. vidiot seems to
>think that any admission that the red hat install process can be
>improved vindicates him. wrong. what vidiot did, he brought upon
>himself.
I did not bring it all upon myself. The new installer did not help in the
situation at all. If I would have used the "text" method, there wouldn't have
been a problem. Hindsight reveals all kinds of stuff.
>now, as to this "server" definition. as i read it, when you select
>a "server" type install, this will (currently) wipe *all* of your
>disks. some people object to this. your objections are misplaced.
No they are not. As pointed out, there can be more than one disk in a server.
The current server install appears to assume that the system is being built
from scratch. That is a very flawed assumption. A system my require a
server REINSTALL, which means that the other disks NOT be deleted. It was
my mistake in believing that RedHat knew the difference. I found out too
late that was not the case. Hopefully this will be corrected in the future.
>one definition of a server is a machine that is up 24x7. based on
>this definition, there is no justification for anything else to
>be on the hard drive. this may be just one definition of the
>word, but it is the definition that red hat is apparently using.
>if you don't like it, too bad -- it's red hat's product, it's their
>docs, and if they choose to define it this way, that's their
>business AS LONG AS THEY DEFINE CLEARLY WHAT THAT MEANS. which
>they do.
See above. A 24x7 server more than likely has more than one disk and those
other disks will have files that are NOT Linus OS related. Any install should
respect those disks. RedHat's install does not.
>you can argue they should have used a different word. fine.
>they could call it a "virgin" install. or a "complete wipe"
>install. or, for that matter, a "veeblefetz" install, as long
>as they define what that means. which they do, up front and
>in big letters, with accompanying warnings. you, as the user,
>have a responsibility to not select a "server" install unless
>you know what *red hat* means by that, and they explain it pretty
>clearly. the fact that you would prefer a different definition
>is not relevant.
The manual does indeed explain what will happen to the disks. Unfortunately,
the on-line help was not as foreceful is getting that point across.
Let's move on.
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.
