On 2012-03-08 17.21, daniel holtzman wrote:
> The installation routine has been thoughtfully designed and does exactly
> as intended. OpenBSD caters to the craftsman, not the casual user. If a
> user is not committed to a high level of responsibility (and freedom),
> install-time is a great time for a wake-up call. I doubt Leonardo will
> make this same mistake again. He has learned, as we all have, to look at
> tools from an enhanced perspective.
Oh, spare us the robotic rants! (And what's with the top posting?)
I'll give you another knee-jerk rant: "OpenBSD is, among other things,
known for its excellent, complete and accurate documentation." Now, while
that was indeed another example of the automatic rants we all know and
love, this one comes with an appendix that I actually used my own brain
to come up with:
The wording of user interaction steps in the installer is as much a
documentation matter as the FAQ, the man pages and the source code.
What Raimo suggests here is, in my opinion, an *improvement* to the
install procedure, one that even improves on an earlier suggestion
in this thread that also was an improvement.
Just because something is already good and its user base overall are
happy campers doesn't mean that it can't be made even better.
Also, just because the OP had the audacity to be irreverent and a bit
lacking in the grovelling department when commenting on his OpenBSD
"user experience", it doesn't mean there isn't a point to be taken in
there somewhere.
I've seen countless times on this list someone being bashed to a pulp
by the groupies, only for some of the "real devs" to later on acknowledge
that there was actually a problem. Keeping your finger firmly off the
trigger until it's actually time to fire is good advice not only for
soldiers...
Regards,
/Benny
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:43:46PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote:
>>> 08 P<P0QQP0 2012, 14:22 P>Q "Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" <czark...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 16:23 +0000, Dennis den Brok wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Use (W)hole disk (writes to disk immediately) or (E)dit the MBR?
>> [whole]"
>>>>>
>>>>> While the FAQ is indeed clear, the installer's simplicity appears
>>>>> at that point a little deceptive, in that one (I know I was) is
>>>>> tempted to think that such a user-friendly installer would not harm
>>>>> one so easily...
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think it all gets too far? One should generally expect that
>>>> choosing "use the whole disk" means that all the data on disk will be
>>>> lost. If the user doesn't pay attention to installer, this wording won't
>>>> help. Furthermore, the more chatty installer is, the less amount of
>>>> newcomers would be reading the messages.
>>>
>>> my sentiments exactly. if they don't think about what's written, will
>>> it make it better to write some more?
>>>
>>> besides, what does exactly "writes to disk immediately" mean?
>>> ok, it writes, so what? will it change MBR? will it change
>>> something else? or will it just read sector and write it back
>>> (i.e. no actual change)?
>>
>> The point is that when you choose [W] or [Enter] the MBR is overwritten
>> with new content erasing all existing partitions but if you choose [E]
>> you get to the MBR editor, where you will have to explicitly order
>> it to write to the MBR. And the immediate action of the first choice
>> is not obvious from the installer dialogue.
>>
>> This I think shows better what your choices are:
>>
>> (W)rite the MBR to use the whole disk or (E)dit the MBR? [write]
>>
>> Where the two operations Write and Edit have a clear contrasting meaning,
>> or:
>>
>> Write the MBR to use the (W)hole disk or (E)dit the MBR? [whole]
>>
>> to not having to change an installer script variable name (a lesser change)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>
--
internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must
Benny Lofgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed,
/ fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted."
/ email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
