Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

[Guest Gordon]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Summercool wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53

>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning

>

>

> Partition merely means dividing the data.

 

No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data"

(whatever THAT means....)

I suggest you do some serious reading on what a partition is, before you

spout that twaddle again...

[Guest Terry R.]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On 10/18/2007 12:42 AM On a whim, Allan Adler pounded out on the keyboard

> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> writes:

>

>> Let us put the shoe on the other foot. Say you have a Linux system and you

>> want to install a Windows system on it -- dual boot. Is that easier and

>> clearer than the way the OP complains of?

>>

>> I know it is much simpler to install Windows first, but say I do not want

>> to. (This is a rhetorical question, although I did install Windows XP once

>> on a machine already running Red Hat Linux 7.3. I made three full-backup

>> tapes of the system first (cannot be too careful), installed Win XP which

>> clobbered the first of three hard drives, then restored the Linux stuff (and

>> boot block) of the first hard drive from backup tape. Worked fine with no

>> surprises.)

>

> I know someone who had Windows on a laptop and wanted to add a Linux

> partition. He used Partition Magic and had no problems. Ditto when he

> wanted to uninstall Linux and make the whole thing Windows again. One

> thing I don't know is whether you can start with a PC running Linux

> and use Partition Magic to add a Windows partition without trashing the

> Linux partition. Partition Magic can reapportion an existing Windows partition

> intelligently but it seems unlikely it can do the same for a Linux partition.

 

I've used PM to resize/add partitions, including Linux, without any

issues. I have 4 Windows partitions and 1 Linux. PM has no problems

dealing with Linux partitions. Where problems do arise however, is with

unsupported hard drive sizes. I had a prior version (7 I believe) wipe

out a drive because it was larger than the version supported.

 

It is much more intuitive IMO to create the partition first and then

have the OS ask, "Do you want to use this unused space/partition?",

rather than having the OS installer resize for you and ask questions in

a way someone might not understand. But again, I find that, "...this

will destroy all data..." is about as clear as you can get.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[Guest Frank]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>

>>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

>>news:uOSdnfizv4RUE4vanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>>

>>

>>>And honestly, I find "...this will destroy all data..." to be more than

>>>clear enough. If someone can't understand the meaning of that I wonder if

>>>they should be allowed to operate a toaster...nevermind actually

>>>installing an operating system.

>>

>>Well yes its perfectly clear as long as you know what "data" is.

>>So even a simple statement like that is assuming the user is computer

>>literate.

>>I can easily see people thinking "well I didn't buy any data so I don't

>>have any to destroy".

>>Its easy to make assumptions when you know about a subject.

>

>

> And cretinous statements like these here make it perfectly clear that you

> are indeed a vista user.

> You are actually telling us that someone who has no idea what "data" is has

> any business installing an OS?

>

> Gods, are you stupid. You and Vista are a perfect match

 

Hey pete. RS needs his hairy arse kissed again and he's asking for you

to do it (again!).

How wonderful, huh.

Frank

[Guest caver1]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

> 8<

>

> Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>

> Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

> notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select

> use the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>

>>>>>>>>>

> The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

> SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>

> The following partitions are going to be formatted:

> partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3

> partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

> <<<<<<<<<

>

> For use entire disk

>

> and

>

>>>>>>>>>>>

> The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

> SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>

> The following partitions are going to be formatted:

> partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3

> partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>

> <<<<<<<<<<<

>

>

> For use largest free space.

>

>

> One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>

> Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

 

 

 

well if you don't know what a whole disk

is...............

1/2 +1/2= 1 whole or is it 1 Timbit is a hole

or.................

Free space? I guess it doesn't cost anything or

its whats between my kids ears...............

caver1

[Guest caver1]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Terry R. wrote:

> On 10/18/2007 12:42 AM On a whim, Allan Adler pounded out on the keyboard

>

>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> writes:

>>

>>> Let us put the shoe on the other foot. Say you have a Linux system

>>> and you

>>> want to install a Windows system on it -- dual boot. Is that easier and

>>> clearer than the way the OP complains of?

>>>

>>> I know it is much simpler to install Windows first, but say I do not

>>> want

>>> to. (This is a rhetorical question, although I did install Windows XP

>>> once

>>> on a machine already running Red Hat Linux 7.3. I made three full-backup

>>> tapes of the system first (cannot be too careful), installed Win XP

>>> which

>>> clobbered the first of three hard drives, then restored the Linux

>>> stuff (and

>>> boot block) of the first hard drive from backup tape. Worked fine

>>> with no

>>> surprises.)

>>

>> I know someone who had Windows on a laptop and wanted to add a Linux

>> partition. He used Partition Magic and had no problems. Ditto when he

>> wanted to uninstall Linux and make the whole thing Windows again. One

>> thing I don't know is whether you can start with a PC running Linux

>> and use Partition Magic to add a Windows partition without trashing the

>> Linux partition. Partition Magic can reapportion an existing Windows

>> partition

>> intelligently but it seems unlikely it can do the same for a Linux

>> partition.

>

> I've used PM to resize/add partitions, including Linux, without any

> issues. I have 4 Windows partitions and 1 Linux. PM has no problems

> dealing with Linux partitions. Where problems do arise however, is with

> unsupported hard drive sizes. I had a prior version (7 I believe) wipe

> out a drive because it was larger than the version supported.

>

> It is much more intuitive IMO to create the partition first and then

> have the OS ask, "Do you want to use this unused space/partition?",

> rather than having the OS installer resize for you and ask questions in

> a way someone might not understand. But again, I find that, "...this

> will destroy all data..." is about as clear as you can get.

>

 

 

gparted is PM for Linux. Looks very similar.

caver1

[Guest Telstar]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

> You see, Linux is not like Windows.

> Linux assumes you have a brain, which obviously you don't.

 

Wrong. Linux assumes you are anal retentive with time to waste.

[Guest Unruh]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

 

><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...

>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble

>> thusly:

>>> 3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx

>>> and a few I have forgotten.

>>> Which have you installed?

>>

>> Too many.

>>

>>> Do you doubt it?

>>> Have you never installed windows?

>>

>> As I said, Too many times.

>>

>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,

>>>> shall we?

>>

>>

>> Didn't think so.

>If you are so sure it does you could show the warning.

 

That of course means that he has to actually install it and then somehow

copy the warning.

>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

>exist.

 

No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all

kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that you

did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation is only

one of many possible ones.

 

>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding evidence.

 

As apparently should you.

[Guest Edward W. Thompson]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:24:13 +0100, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

>news:uOSdnfizv4RUE4vanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>

>>

>> And honestly, I find "...this will destroy all data..." to be more than

>> clear enough. If someone can't understand the meaning of that I wonder if

>> they should be allowed to operate a toaster...nevermind actually

>> installing an operating system.

>

>Well yes its perfectly clear as long as you know what "data" is.

>So even a simple statement like that is assuming the user is computer

>literate.

>I can easily see people thinking "well I didn't buy any data so I don't have

>any to destroy".

>Its easy to make assumptions when you know about a subject.

 

I do not think I am a neophyte wrt computers having cut my teeth on

DOS and used all flavours of Windows plus having built several

machines. However, I did not find installing Ubuntu on a WINXP Pro

machine intuitive. The actual installation was relatively staright

forward except when it came to the part to choose how to

format/partition the drive on which to install Ubuntu. It is apparent

to me that anyone could slip up here with disasterous consequences.

Choosing 'manual' is clearly the the safest way to go.

 

Of course once you have gone through the exercise it all becomes

'obvious' and this is the mistake many opf the contributors to this

thread seem to make. The only test for how intuitive the installation

process is, is to allow a new user to use it. In my case I did not

find the actual installation particularly intuitive and as for setting

up Grub you need a thorough understanding of how the various systems

(Ubuntu, Grub and WINXP) identify partitions and drives especially if

you are using all SATA drives, as I was.

 

What I finally did, as I wanted Ubuntu to be completely independent of

my WINXP installation, was to disconnect the drive on which WINXP was

installed and installed Ubuntu on a 'new' drive. That was as straight

forward as could be and obviously no mistakes are possible. I then

reconnected my WINXP HDD and had 'fun' configuring Grub to dual boot.

Now it is all done and I think I have an understanding of the process

anyone who can't understand it all must be mentally defficient! :-).

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

 

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

news:A5TRi.20477$G25.15136@edtnps89...

> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>

>

>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message

>>news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...

>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble

>>> thusly:

>>>> 3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx

>>>> and a few I have forgotten.

>>>> Which have you installed?

>>>

>>> Too many.

>>>

>>>> Do you doubt it?

>>>> Have you never installed windows?

>>>

>>> As I said, Too many times.

>>>

>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,

>>>>> shall we?

>>>

>>>

>>> Didn't think so.

>

>>If you are so sure it does you could show the warning.

>

> That of course means that he has to actually install it and then somehow

> copy the warning.

>

>>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

>>exist.

>

> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all

> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that you

> did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation is

> only

> one of many possible ones.

>

>

>>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding evidence.

>

> As apparently should you.

>

 

Sorry but your comments have been superseded within this thread and they are

all incorrect.

[Guest Peter Köhlmann]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

> news:A5TRi.20477$G25.15136@edtnps89...

>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>

>>

>>><spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message

>>>news:aeqfu4-0re.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com...

>>>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> didnst hastily scribble

>>>> thusly:

>>>>>

3.0,3.1,3.11,95,98,98se,nt,2000,xp,vista,soaris,fedora,unixware,ubuntu,rmx

>>>>> and a few I have forgotten.

>>>>> Which have you installed?

>>>>

>>>> Too many.

>>>>

>>>>> Do you doubt it?

>>>>> Have you never installed windows?

>>>>

>>>> As I said, Too many times.

>>>>

>>>>>> Let's see some proof that linux didn't warn him then,

>>>>>> shall we?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Didn't think so.

>>

>>>If you are so sure it does you could show the warning.

>>

>> That of course means that he has to actually install it and then somehow

>> copy the warning.

 

Exactly. To somehow satisfy the drooling idiot "dennis" one should start the

install again?

>>>The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

>>>exist.

>>

>> No. The fact that you cannot show the warning could be evidence of all

>> kinds of things, including a bad memory on your part, or the fact that

>> you did not film the screen while you were installing. Your explanation

>> is only one of many possible ones.

 

And the least likely one, to boot

The fact that "dennis" does not see something does not indicate at all that

it doesn't exist

It indicates only that "dennis" is way too stupid to understand what is

written in plain text

Which is not surprising. "Dennis" is actually stupid enough to run Vista

>>>You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding

>>>evidence.

>>

>> As apparently should you.

>>

>

> Sorry but your comments have been superseded within this thread and they

> are all incorrect.

 

Actually, no

 

He is correct in everything he posted. The one completely incorrect is the

OP (a troll) and you. Naturally you. You have yet to post something which

contains anything correct. Until now all your posts were idiotic rubbish

--

Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous

And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...

[Guest Stephan Rose]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...

>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...

>>>

>>> 8<

>>>

>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.

>>>

>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.

>>>

>>> 8<

>>

>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly

>> told the installer to wipe out the data.

>

> Yes we all know that.

> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for the

> intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is intended for

> people that are computer literate then they are OK and most such users

> will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos anyway.

> If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users then I

> don't think the messages or install routine are much good.

 

Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of users

because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't install it

right?

 

Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition

step is.

 

http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png

 

Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know

what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.

 

And look!!! The warning message!!

 

http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg

 

Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!

 

So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux

installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable

for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes installing

Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは

君のこと忘れたときがないから

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

 

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:CeydncpTEMK1Y4XanZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@giganews.com...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...

>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...

>>>>

>>>> 8<

>>>>

>>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.

>>>>

>>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.

>>>>

>>>> 8<

>>>

>>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly

>>> told the installer to wipe out the data.

>>

>> Yes we all know that.

>> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for the

>> intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is intended for

>> people that are computer literate then they are OK and most such users

>> will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos anyway.

>> If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users then I

>> don't think the messages or install routine are much good.

>

> Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of users

> because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't install it

> right?

>

> Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition

> step is.

>

> http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png

>

> Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know

> what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.

>

> And look!!! The warning message!!

>

> http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg

>

> Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!

>

> So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux

> installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable

> for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes installing

> Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.

 

Why does a discussion about Linux always end up with a Linux is better than

windows debate?

 

I agree that it could be easier to install windows.

 

However you have to select a partition and then choose to install it using

*advanced* options before you can format or delete it.

A user in normal mode doesn't get the options to delete or format partitions

and installing vista to an existing partition doesn't destroy data.

 

Compare that to Ubuntu where you typically get three tick boxes

 

A: use entire disk

B: use free space

C: do it manually

 

Now if you choose either A or B you get the /same/ warning message just

before it commits the changes (at least on a single disk machine).

 

A will delete your data and B will not.. do you not see that it is just

wrong.

[Guest chrisv]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

dennis@home wrote:

> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

> exist.

 

That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.

> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding evidence.

 

Irony meter (..../)

[Guest Stephan Rose]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:34:49 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

> news:CeydncpTEMK1Y4XanZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@giganews.com...

>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:13:20 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:13hd1p0q7uk3u6d@news.supernews.com...

>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:13hctdt2i2nmaa5@news.supernews.com...

>>>>>

>>>>> 8<

>>>>>

>>>>>> Linux does not tend to delete users data.

>>>>>

>>>>> This thread is about Linux deleting a users data.

>>>>>

>>>>> 8<

>>>>

>>>> Linux didn't delete the user's data.. by itself. The user explicitly

>>>> told the installer to wipe out the data.

>>>

>>> Yes we all know that.

>>> What is being disscussed is if the warning messages are suitable for

>>> the intended target users as he didn't understand. If Linux is

>>> intended for people that are computer literate then they are OK and

>>> most such users will only make the odd mistake and will have backupos

>>> anyway. If Linux is going to be installable by the majority of users

>>> then I don't think the messages or install routine are much good.

>>

>> Well then, you are saying that Linux is no good for the majority of

>> users because the installer is no good, right? Because they can't

>> install it right?

>>

>> Well I suppose I can see how much more detailed the windows partition

>> step is.

>>

>> http://hevnikov.com/img/061223-install-vista.png

>>

>> Really descriptive!! The majority of users are REALLY going to know

>> what's going on here! I mean seriously, it couldn't be more clear.

>>

>> And look!!! The warning message!!

>>

>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/insight/vista/11-vista.jpg

>>

>> Wait a moment? Microsoft is using the word DATA?!?!

>>

>> So if I now go by your rules which you are applying to the Linux

>> installer, the windows installer (by your rules) is equally unsuitable

>> for the masses. Which if I continue to go by your rules, makes

>> installing Windows equally unsuitable for the masses.

>

> Why does a discussion about Linux always end up with a Linux is better

> than windows debate?

 

I didn't say one is better than the other. I simply applied the rules you

apply to the Ubuntu installer to the Windows installer.

>

> I agree that it could be easier to install windows.

>

> However you have to select a partition and then choose to install it

> using *advanced* options before you can format or delete it. A user in

> normal mode doesn't get the options to delete or format partitions and

> installing vista to an existing partition doesn't destroy data.

 

If, and only if, said partition is an NTFS partition. What if it is an

Ext3 Linux partition? Seeing how Vista can't be installed on Ext3, this

would destroy the data on the Ext3 partition!

 

Or even better, what if it's a FAT32 partition? Vista can't be installed

on a FAT32 partition either. So there too would be data loss.

>

> Compare that to Ubuntu where you typically get three tick boxes

>

> A: use entire disk

> B: use free space

> C: do it manually

>

> Now if you choose either A or B you get the /same/ warning message just

> before it commits the changes (at least on a single disk machine).

 

The number of disks is irrelevant and Option C will also give you a

warning at the end.

>

> A will delete your data and B will not.. do you not see that it is just

> wrong.

 

No, I have the intelligence to understand that if I choose my entire disk

then this means the entire disk and that if I choose free space then this

means free space.

 

I also have the intelligence to not make changes that I know are liable

to affect my entire computer until I understand what the consequences are

or might be of said changes.

 

I wasn't trying to get into OS A is better than OS B. I know which is

better for me and everyone else needs to decide on their own what choice

is better for them. It's pointless arguing that.

 

The only thing I am trying to get to is that there is no significant

difference between the Windows and Ubuntu install mechanism. And that,

regardless of the OS, a user needs to know what it is they are doing and

how it will affect their system before they do it.

 

It's equally easy to screw up a system using either installer if someone

doesn't know what they are doing. This is especially true if they

haven't created a dedicated hard drive or partition for a second OS if

they choose to dual boot. And if they don't know how to do that and don't

understand the terms "disk", "whole", "entire", "all data", "partition",

"everything", then they should probably let a professional technician

fluent in English handle it.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは

君のこと忘れたときがないから

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

 

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.10.19.19.58.23.526860@nospam.invalid...

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>> The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

>> exist.

>

> That's some real clear thinking, dumbshit@home.

>

>> You really should try and get the logic correct before demanding

>> evidence.

>

> Irony meter (..../)

>

>

 

If you are so sure my logic is wrong why don't you explain where?

If you don't I will just assume you are as dumb as you sound and pop you

back.

[Guest JEDIDIAH]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On 2007-10-17, Summercool <Summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 11:44 pm, Peter Khlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de>

> wrote:

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> > The fact that I can't show the warning is just evidence that it doesn't

>> > exist.

>>

>> The "fact" that you can't show the warning is evidence that you are lying.

>> Or too stupid to even attempt a linux install. Or both

>

> Ok, I never saw a warning. I started using computer since before

> Apple ][

> If some of you know, it is called the "Superboard", and I have used

> computer for 25 years. I can program all the way from micro-code,

> machine code, all the way to C, Java, Python, and Ruby.

>

> Anyways, I didn't see any warning, and the Ubuntu tech support said

> this is a bug that it didn't detect Vista.

>

> Also, the word "Partition" may have a strong "erasing the whole hard

> drive" connotation to the Linux guys. But it also may have a

 

No. It has a strong "destroy your data" connotation to anyone

that understand what disk partitioning is or anyone that's ever installed

an OS before.

 

This includes Windows and MacOS.

> "dividing the data" connotation to people. Depending on its usage,

> sometimes people may think that it is merely creating a new partition

> for the Linux installation. So between the two possible meanings, why

> assuming there is absolutely no confusion and just go ahead with the

> destructive action?

 

--

 

My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||

/ | \

 

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

----------------------------------------------------------

** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usenet.com

[Guest Unruh]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

 

>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>8<

>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select use

>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>>>>>>>

>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

><<<<<<<<<

>For use entire disk

>and

>>>>>>>>>>>

>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

><<<<<<<<<<<

 

>For use largest free space.

 

>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

 

 

The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,

the ball game is over.

The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the

whole disk.

[Guest Unruh]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> writes:

>Summercool wrote:

>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/4e798345b0867259/a47e92401f123e53#a47e92401f123e53

>>> Installing Ubuntu erased the whole hard drive without warning

>>

>>

>> Partition merely means dividing the data.

>No it doesn't - it's got NOTHING to do with "dividing the data"

>(whatever THAT means....)

 

Agreed. It means dividing the disk, not the data. It is like putting up

boundaries to decide countries.

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

 

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>

>

>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>

>>8<

>

>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>

>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select

>>use

>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>

>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>><<<<<<<<<

>

>>For use entire disk

>

>>and

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>

>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>

>><<<<<<<<<<<

>

>

>>For use largest free space.

>

>

>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>

>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>

>

> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,

> the ball game is over.

> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the

> whole disk.

>

>

As they are the warnings they are the problem.

There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but that

is an addition.

[Guest Rick]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:22:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

> news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>

>>

>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>>

>>>8<

>>

>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>

>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I

>>>select use

>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>

>>

>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>

>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>><<<<<<<<<

>>

>>>For use entire disk

>>

>>>and

>>

>>

>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>

>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>

>>><<<<<<<<<<<

>>

>>

>>>For use largest free space.

>>

>>

>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>

>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>

>>

>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win

>> partition, the ball game is over.

>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the

>> whole disk.

>>

>>

> As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for

> more warnings or just a better partitioner but that is an addition.

 

... or maybe if you don't know why you are partitioning, you shouldn't.

 

 

 

--

Rick

[Guest Unruh]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

 

>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>

>>

>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>>

>>>8<

>>

>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>

>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select

>>>use

>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>>

>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>><<<<<<<<<

>>

>>>For use entire disk

>>

>>>and

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>>

>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>

>>><<<<<<<<<<<

>>

>>

>>>For use largest free space.

>>

>>

>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>

>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>

>>

>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,

>> the ball game is over.

>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the

>> whole disk.

>>

>>

>As they are the warnings they are the problem.

>There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but that

>is an addition.

 

No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win partition

is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is irrelevant. It was

the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data. (Yes, I know that the

data is still there and that IF you managed to repartition the disk again

to exactly the same as it was before, you could recover the data, but that

is largely irrelevant to almost all users. It is the partitioning that

destroys the ability to access the data). Thus if there is no warning on

the repartitioning then that is where the problem lies.

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

 

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...

> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>

>

>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>

>>>

>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>

>>>>8<

>>>

>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>>

>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing I

>>>>notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I select

>>>>use

>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>>>

>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>><<<<<<<<<

>>>

>>>>For use entire disk

>>>

>>>>and

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed:

>>>>SCSI1 (0,0,0)(sda)

>>>

>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted:

>>>>partition #1 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3

>>>>partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>

>>>><<<<<<<<<<<

>>>

>>>

>>>>For use largest free space.

>>>

>>>

>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>>

>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>>

>>>

>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win partition,

>>> the ball game is over.

>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use the

>>> whole disk.

>>>

>>>

>>As they are the warnings they are the problem.

>>There may be a need for more warnings or just a better partitioner but

>>that

>>is an addition.

>

> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win partition

> is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is irrelevant. It was

> the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data. (Yes, I know that the

> data is still there and that IF you managed to repartition the disk again

> to exactly the same as it was before, you could recover the data, but that

> is largely irrelevant to almost all users. It is the partitioning that

> destroys the ability to access the data). Thus if there is no warning on

> the repartitioning then that is where the problem lies.

>

>

 

Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and then

applies the changes.

It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up the

warning about destroying data.

If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I have

not checked myself).

Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and in

the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

[Guest Rick]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...

>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>

>>

>>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>8<

>>>>

>>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>>>

>>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing

>>>>>I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I

>>>>>select use

>>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>

>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>><<<<<<<<<

>>>>

>>>>>For use entire disk

>>>>

>>>>>and

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>

>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>

>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>For use largest free space.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>>>

>>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win

>>>> partition, the ball game is over.

>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use

>>>> the whole disk.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for

>>>more warnings or just a better partitioner but that

>>>is an addition.

>>

>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win

>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is

>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.

>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to

>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you

>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all

>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the

>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is

>> where the problem lies.

>>

>>

>>

> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and

> then applies the changes.

 

No, the user applies the changes.

> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up

> the warning about destroying data.

> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I

> have not checked myself).

> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and

> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

 

Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

 

--

Rick

[Guest Unruh]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:

>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...

>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>

>>>

>>>>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>>>>news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>8<

>>>>>

>>>>>>Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>>>>

>>>>>>Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing

>>>>>>I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I

>>>>>>select use

>>>>>>the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>>

>>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>>SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>>><<<<<<<<<

>>>>>

>>>>>>For use entire disk

>>>>>

>>>>>>and

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>>(0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>>

>>>>>>The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>>SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>>

>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>For use largest free space.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>>>>

>>>>>>Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win

>>>>> partition, the ball game is over.

>>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use

>>>>> the whole disk.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for

>>>>more warnings or just a better partitioner but that

>>>>is an addition.

>>>

>>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win

>>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is

>>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.

>>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to

>>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you

>>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all

>>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the

>>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is

>>> where the problem lies.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and

>> then applies the changes.

>No, the user applies the changes.

>> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up

>> the warning about destroying data.

>> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I

>> have not checked myself).

>> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and

>> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

>Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

 

Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost) impossible to

find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set up

to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give adequate

warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the fault of the

installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings Ubuntu 7.1 gives and

whether or not they are adequate.

 

The user does NOT apply the changes. The user at best agrees to allow the

system to apply those changes. At worst he has no choice, other than the

choice to install.

[Guest caver1]

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Re: Ubuntu erased my whole hard drive

 

Unruh wrote:

> Rick <none@nomail.com> writes:

>

>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:21:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>

>>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>>> news:G%tSi.22040$GO5.20439@edtnps90...

>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> "Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message

>>>>> news:fzrSi.22002$GO5.6664@edtnps90...

>>>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:%23QMATTYEIHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 8<

>>>>>>> Anyway we will forget licenses as that is irrelevant.

>>>>>>> Having downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 and finally got it to start installing

>>>>>>> I notice that I get the same warning screen (identical AFAICS) if I

>>>>>>> select use

>>>>>>> the whole disk or if I select use the biggest free space.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>>> (0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>>>> The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>>> SCSI1(,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>> For use entire disk

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The partition tables of the following devices are changed: SCSI1

>>>>>>> (0,0,0)(sda)

>>>>>>> The following partitions are going to be formatted: partition #1 of

>>>>>>> SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as ext3 partition #5 of SCSI1(0,0,0)(sda) as swap

>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> For use largest free space.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> One will erase my windows server 2008 one won't.

>>>>>>> Does anyone still think the warnings are OK?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The problem is NOT there. There problem is when the partitions were

>>>>>> created. Once they have been createdi so as to cover your Win

>>>>>> partition, the ball game is over.

>>>>>> The place that the warning should occur is when you tell it to use

>>>>>> the whole disk.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> As they are the warnings they are the problem. There may be a need for

>>>>> more warnings or just a better partitioner but that

>>>>> is an addition.

>>>> No. Once you have repartitioned the disk, the data from you win

>>>> partition is gone. defunct, non-existant. formatting the disk is

>>>> irrelevant. It was the repartitioning that destroyed the windows data.

>>>> (Yes, I know that the data is still there and that IF you managed to

>>>> repartition the disk again to exactly the same as it was before, you

>>>> could recover the data, but that is largely irrelevant to almost all

>>>> users. It is the partitioning that destroys the ability to access the

>>>> data). Thus if there is no warning on the repartitioning then that is

>>>> where the problem lies.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>> Linux sets up the partitions in ram, then asks a few more questions and

>>> then applies the changes.

>

>> No, the user applies the changes.

>

>>> It is at the point just before it applies the changes that it puts up

>>> the warning about destroying data.

>>> If you abort no changes are made (or none are supposed to be made, I

>>> have not checked myself).

>>> Its just that the warnings are inadequate for the majority of users and

>>> in the case of Ubuntu 7.10 wrong.

>

>> Then maybe those users should not be installing operating systems.

>

> Oh nuts. Linux can ONLY be installed by users. It is (almost) impossible to

> find Linux preinstalled. Thus the installation routing needs to be set up

> to allow installation by users. If the installer does not give adequate

> warning that things are going to be destroyed, it is the fault of the

> installer. It is a bug. I have no idea what warnings Ubuntu 7.1 gives and

> whether or not they are adequate.

>

 

 

If you have no idea whether they are adequate or

not, or even if they are given or not,

how can you even comment?

caver1