🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13hbqqpq50pen00@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:14:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eClxAUGEIHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:28 -0700, rodolfo.garcia44 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 6:03 am, Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> After installing Ubuntu, it seemed that everything on my Drive C:
>>>>>>> was lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After hours of trying, it really turned out I lost EVERYTHING on
>>>>>>> my C: drive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I had to reformat the whole C: drive, and reinstall Vista on
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I lost all my bookmarks, in both IE and Firefox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I needed to reinstall every single application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I needed to reinstall all security update for Vista all over
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasted at least 5, 6 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can "Ubuntu - Humanity towards others" erases people's whole
>>>>>>> hard drive without a single warning?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think about it, some people may lose tens or hundreds of hours of
>>>>>>> work, or 4, 5 years of photos and memories, just because Ubuntu
>>>>>>> erases whole hard drive without warning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is the install option snapshot: IT NEVER warns you
>>>>>>> the content in drive C: will be totally erased. What's more, it is
>>>>>>> set as the DEFAULT ACTION. And it says it is "GUIDED":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/32522/2001738602340396146_rs.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> It says "Guided - Use entire disk".
>>>>>
>>>>> Now what particular part about "Use Entire Disk" is beyond your
>>>>> comprehension?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There's also an option to use free space. caver1
>>>
>>> This issue is down to what the target market for Linux is. If it is to
>>> take over the desktop then it has to be targeted at the level of a
>>> moron so that almost anyone can install it without getting unfixable
>>> problems. This means you can't assume the user understands what a disk
>>> is.. after all a lot of people think the case is a CPU.
>>
>> Then why does Windows ask about partitioning and formatting when doing
>> an install?
> 
> It has to but it does warn the user in plain English that they will lose
> data if thats what they do.
> Linux does not warn the user in plain English in any distro I have
> installed.

.. you mean like asking them if they want to use THE WHOLE DISK??? Geee, 
I dunno, maybe if I use THE WHOLE DISK, it use the whole disk, just not 
my data...

> It may be fine for someone like me that would probably have clicked on
> expert mode and done it manually anyway but its not much use for
> newbies.

If they can't figure out what 'the whole disk' means, I doubt they shuold 
be installing any operating system.

> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> This is Linux's biggest problem.. too many developers and users over
>>> estimate the knowledge of their target users. Until the developers
>>> sort out the installation routines Linux will not be mass market as it
>>> still relies on someone being able to download it and install it.
>>
>> Hopefully more vendors, especially visible ones like Dell, will start
>> shipping Linux pre-installed.
> 
> It may make a difference but until they do Linux needs to be made more
> suitable for idiots to install or it will not take off as some hope. It

Almost any idiot can install Linux on a desktop. For the most part, all 
you have to do is hit enter... and have your data backed up.... which 
they should be doing anyway.


> has always been the nerdy installation that stops the majority from
> installing Linux and even though it is easier it still uses terms most
> people do not understand and does things that people don't understand
> (probably for no good reason other than to save a few lines of code).

People should learn about whatever it is they are doing. And, AGAIN, 
installing Linux is AT LEAST as easy as installing Windows.

> 
> 
>>> Making it so that only ~5% of users can install it without problems
>>> stops the ~95% from using it.
>>
>> How many people can properly install Windows?
> 
> More than Linux IME.

I don't think so.

> Also there tends to be quite a few upgrades from windows which aren't
> succesful if the OS deletes the users data like Linux tends to. If,
> while doing an upgrade/install the user loses data then you have lost
> that user and anyone they talk to.

Linux does not tend to delete users data.

> 
>>> Linux developers haven't even worked out that users don't read manuals
>>> by the sound of it.
>>
>> People don't read manuals when running any software, for the most part.
>> They don't read them when setting up stereos and VCRs, either.
> 
> So you have to make software as idiot proof as possible if you expect
> those people to use it.

I don't expect Joe Sixpack to use Linux until he/she can easily get it 
pre-installed.

> 
> Do you really think the user will get the blame if an OS upgrade kills
> the users data?
> No it will be the OS and probably rightly so if the warnings are not
> written in plain English that computer illiterates can understand.

By definition, if a person is illiterate, h/she won't be able to read the 
directions.

> 
> I am of the opinion that software should not be able to do harm even if
> the user hasn't read the manuals without warning them in language they
> should understand i.e. not computer speak as most people don't
> understand it. If a user needs to read the manuals its pretty poor
> software and limits its potential users to a minority.

Name any operating system that conforms to your opinion.

> 
>>> Having worked in the telecoms industry I can assure you that you can
>>> *never* underestimate how dumb users are (well at least a lot of
>>> them).

-- 
Rick