🚀 go-pugleaf

caver1 <caver@inthemud.com> writes:

>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?

I just did. and if you read it, you notice I was commenting on the previous
comment not giving facts about Ubuntu. Notice also the conditional (If) I
seems from various comments that it does NOT give adequate warning, and the
warning that was posted was certainly well beyond the point at which a
warning should have been given. Do you have more information about what the
warning actually is?