🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:16:26 -0400, cvp wrote:
> 
>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:yqqdneUOjLVLuojanZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:02:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "lee h" <noti@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MM7Ri.10622$lD6.5170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>> rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the simplest Ubuntu install on a windows box, use Wubi (Windows
>>>>>>> Ubuntu Installer).
>>>>>> Its a bit too late for that.
>>>>>> The lack of a suitable warning has made sure another potential Linux
>>>>>> user will stick with something else.
>>>>>> This is the problem with Linux .. it is written by geeks who have no
>>>>>> idea how simple it has to be for the mass market. Windows would have
>>>>>> warned the user at least twice before removing a Linux partition and
>>>>>> that would be after selecting the partition and saying delete.
>>>>> Oh come on Dennis...
>>>>>
>>>>> What part about "Guided - Use entire disk" is difficult to
>>>>> understand? I mean it frigging says "entire disk" right next to it!!!
>>>> Well that assumes the installer knows what a disk is to start with. If
>>>> they select manual then they get presented with even more problems.
>>> Someone that does NOT KNOW what a disk is has absolutely no business
>>> installing an operating system. Windows included because you also have
>>> to know what a disk and a partition is to install windows!
>>>
>>> Else, how would one choose the appropriate disk/partition when
>>> installing windows if one doesn't even know what that is?
>>>
>>>>> How can you blame the OS Installer if the user is incapable of
>>>>> reading the whole sentence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the Ubuntu installer will show a list of partition / file
>>>>> system changes it makes to what drives and what partition that the
>>>>> user has to OK before actually doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can't even accidentally click continue and overwrite the
>>>>> system. You need to do so twice.
>>>> At no time does it actually tell the user that the data on their
>>>> system will be lost if they proceed.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> http://fosswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/
>>> ubuntufeistyinstallpicture-8.png
>>>
>>> Same URL tiny:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2qc234
>>>
>>> Then please explain to me the meaning of this sentence on the
>>> screenshot above:
>>>
>>> "WARNING: This will destroy all data on any partitions you have removed
>>> as well as on the partitions that are going to be formatted."
>>>
>>>> As I said before Linux expects the user to know too much. It was
>>>> written by geeks who either don't understand the target audience or
>>>> don't expect Linux to be used by the masses.
>>> It isn't too much to expect someone to know how their computer works if
>>> they're going to install an OPERATING SYSTEM on it. Installing an OS
>>> isn't installing notepad for crying out loud! And this is no different
>>> installing Vista or XP!
>>>
>>>>> Also, how is this different from installing XP or Vista?
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked, XP and Vista also give you just a list of drives
>>>>> / partitions and you just go pick one to install on, or you can
>>>>> manually configure the partitions. How is that any different? Except
>>>>> of course Vista or XP don't ask a second time just to make sure you
>>>>> didn't make a mistake. I suppose that is one difference.
>>>> Except that they will not remove the data from a partition without
>>>> warning the user unlike what you state above. Also if you were
>>>> truthful you would admit that Vista and XP ask twice before removing a
>>>> partition and tell the user that it may contain data that will be lost
>>>> if they do. It even asks twice before it will format one. I suggest
>>>> you dig out you windows disks and try an install as you appear to have
>>>> forgotten what it does.
>>> Allright fair enough. I honestly try to avoid installing Windows as
>>> much as possible as I don't like calling India for activation. So
>>> windows does ask twice. Come to think of it, I think I now recall what
>>> you are referring to. I stand corrected there, no problem.
>>>
>>> So ultimately it now comes down to that the Windows Install procedure
>>> is identical to the Ubuntu Install procedure.
>>>
>>> - Choose time / keyboard / localization settings. - Choose disk /
>>> partition.
>>> - Install.
>>>
>>> The only differences may be the order in which the questions are asked,
>>> bid deal...that isn't of any relevance.
>>>
>>>
>> My first reaction to the OP was "What's not to understand about 'Use
>> Entire Disk'?", but after further thought I could see the possible
>> confusion. Using the entire disk really is different from formatting the
>> entire disk. And introducing "sda" etc. nomenclature compounds the
>> feeling that the "C: drive" will be safe.
>>
>> I also seem to remember there was another option (Guided - shrink
>> existing partitions? Or maybe that's 7.10 only). The "Manual" option
>> certainly adopts different language altogether.
> 
> The shrink existing partition I think is only available when it's 
> actually possible to do so. If the NTFS volumes are too fragmented or 
> full to be shrunk then it doesn't appear.
> 
>> Given the ability to read and write NTFS, I don't know why there isn't
>> an option to "Use existing partitions". Essentially Windows installs
>> default to this. It would require fixing the historical aberration of
>> requiring a separate partition for the swap space, but that would be a
>> good thing anyway.
> 
> Because NTFS is not a suitable file system. The ability to write to NTFS 
> partitions is extremely new and subject to Microsoft not deciding to make 
> change to NTFS tomorrow and break NTFS support. Not even XP and Vista are 
> fully compatible when it comes to NTFS after all. Microsoft doesn't 
> actually publish the specifications for NTFS so any support that exists 
> for it comes from trial and error by developers figuring out how it 
> works. Which brings me to another issue with NTFS: Licensing and legal.
> 
> Being compatible with NTFS is one thing, that is allowed. However, NTFS 
> being a proprietary file system I don't think that another OS could use 
> it as it's own file system for installation purposes without legal 
> consent from Microsoft and most certain licensing fees.
> 
> And as far as the separate partition for swap space is concerned, it is 
> not required. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from installing 
> without a swap space partition and creating a swap space image in your 
> file system and mounting that as swap.
> 
> However, having the swap space as a separate partition is far better in 
> terms of performance as it does not incur file system overhead.
> 


I see no difference between reading/writing data and reading/writing OS 
data as far as licensing NTFS is concerned. Either needed or not needed 
in both cases. Certainly it will be subject to changes at Microsoft's whim.

All the Operating Systems I'be been involved in developing used separate 
file system access methods for page/swap data, no matter how the space 
was allocated, so no overhead needs to be involved after the allocation, 
so maybe 100ms or so during allocation vs artificial partitioning. Not a 
big deal.