rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> now, as to this "server" definition. as i read it, when you select
> a "server" type install, this will (currently) wipe *all* of your
> disks. some people object to this. your objections are misplaced.
>
> one definition of a server is a machine that is up 24x7. based on
> this definition, there is no justification for anything else to
> be on the hard drive. this may be just one definition of the
> word, but it is the definition that red hat is apparently using.
> if you don't like it, too bad -- it's red hat's product, it's their
> docs, and if they choose to define it this way, that's their
> business AS LONG AS THEY DEFINE CLEARLY WHAT THAT MEANS. which
> they do.
>
Let me disagree with this. The fact that is is redhat's definition is no
justification by itself. I aggree that is their product. Granted. I also
have the right to think that a product is bad. And I am starting to feel
this way. As I asked MANY times : why the server setting is not in the custom
area ??? If we are to assume so many things about user's ability to handle
such a radical installation, why don't we assume this very user is able
to handle custom install ??
And don't get me wrong : I go custom myself as a rule. I don't say this because
I experienced any trouble.
> you can argue they should have used a different word. fine.
> they could call it a "virgin" install. or a "complete wipe"
> install. or, for that matter, a "veeblefetz" install, as long
> as they define what that means. which they do, up front and
> in big letters, with accompanying warnings. you, as the user,
> have a responsibility to not select a "server" install unless
> you know what *red hat* means by that, and they explain it pretty
> clearly. the fact that you would prefer a different definition
> is not relevant.
>
Wrong if you have an already overwelmed newbie facing the screen .
Let the WipeEverythingOut be VERY hard to find.
> so, yes, we can all take potshots at the red hat install process.
> god knows, i have. but there's a huge difference with pointing out
> areas of improvement, and claiming that it is hideously, fatally
> broken. which is why this discussion is being dragged out as
> long as it has been.
>
Not quite : I still think the server install is useless, dangerous and
coming from the most visible Linux distribution today, I think it is
a bad thing. Newbie are quite likely to come along the Redhat way because
it is the most well known. I don't think we will be able to blame a newbie
to NOT know better. And this guy will very probably not try again ( I would not).
Philippe
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
