-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: rant of the day: installing fedora Date : Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:54:28 +0200 De : François Patte francois.patte@mi.parisdescartes.fr Organisation : Université Paris Descartes Pour : jehan.procaccia@tem-tsp.eu
Le 08/07/2013 10:02, jehan procaccia a écrit :
I did had the possibility to partition manually ! I choosed my disk, uncheck it and check it again then it proposed me to partition manullay ("personalisé "). that's for the manual way to install,
Thanks for this. I could (I hope, because the feed back for the user is minimal...) keep my previous partitionning. BTW, the logic of this escapes my mind! It is like if there is some secret door!
Now, the install has begun and... I don't know what will be installed.... I had a minimal choice (gnome, xfce...) I can see that a lot of gnome packages will be installed: It will take me a lot of time to get rid of this packages... because I want a totally gnome free installation! And I will have to check carefully what is missing....
Also, no time for installation is displayed, I'm stcked there waiting for an end!
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:12:12PM +0200, François Patte wrote:
Le 08/07/2013 10:02, jehan procaccia a écrit :
I did had the possibility to partition manually ! I choosed my disk, uncheck it and check it again then it proposed me to partition manullay ("personalisé "). that's for the manual way to install,
Thanks for this. I could (I hope, because the feed back for the user is minimal...) keep my previous partitionning. BTW, the logic of this escapes my mind! It is like if there is some secret door!
Now, the install has begun and... I don't know what will be installed.... I had a minimal choice (gnome, xfce...) I can see that a lot of gnome packages will be installed: It will take me a lot of time to get rid of this packages... because I want a totally gnome free installation! And I will have to check carefully what is missing....
Also, no time for installation is displayed, I'm stcked there waiting for an end!
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
Du calme, Francois. Ce que nous voyons ici c'est: 'Monsieur Hulot et les ordinateurs' ou 'Francois et les ordinateurs'.
First there are 'installation guides' (though one is too terse and the other long-winded and turgid). By browsing these you would have known about 'manual partitioning', 'keeping existing partitions', 'choosing desktops', etc. in the new anaconda setup.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Quick_Start...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Guide/index...
Second there are live spins of some desktops (KDE, LXDE, Xfce, etc) so it is actually quite easy to evade Gnome entirely.
https://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options
You have been around long enough to know these things. And I expect research is still practised at UFR de mathématiques et informatique :-)
Reflect before you 'rant'.
AV
Alexander Volovics wrote:
Du calme, Francois. Ce que nous voyons ici c'est: 'Monsieur Hulot et les ordinateurs' ou 'Francois et les ordinateurs'.
First there are 'installation guides' (though one is too terse and the other long-winded and turgid). By browsing these you would have known about 'manual partitioning', 'keeping existing partitions', 'choosing desktops', etc. in the new anaconda setup.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Quick_Start...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Guide/index...
Reflect before you 'rant'.
Je ne suis pas d'accord.
The complaint was completely justified. The default should never be to make a dramatic change, unless this is essential. The default should always be to leave things as they are, as far as possible.
But even if you don't accept that, and also believe users should read what looks like a 100-page document before installing (in general, the people who write Fedora installation manuals are somewhat deficient in common sense, believing that the more information given the better), I don't actually see in the manuals you refer to any statement of how to avoid automatic re-partitions. Both show the same screen shot, and then say ---------------------- Figure 9.17. Disk Partitioning Setup
On this screen you can choose to create the default partition layout automatically, or choose to partition storage devices manually to create a custom layout. ---------------------- But I don't see anything on the screen shot as shown offering this choice.
On 07/08/2013 08:58 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Alexander Volovics wrote:
Du calme, Francois. Ce que nous voyons ici c'est: 'Monsieur Hulot et les ordinateurs' ou 'Francois et les ordinateurs'.
First there are 'installation guides' (though one is too terse and the other long-winded and turgid). By browsing these you would have known about 'manual partitioning', 'keeping existing partitions', 'choosing desktops', etc. in the new anaconda setup.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Quick_Start...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Guide/index... Reflect before you 'rant'.
Je ne suis pas d'accord.
The complaint was completely justified. The default should never be to make a dramatic change, unless this is essential. The default should always be to leave things as they are, as far as possible.
But even if you don't accept that, and also believe users should read what looks like a 100-page document before installing (in general, the people who write Fedora installation manuals are somewhat deficient in common sense, believing that the more information given the better), I don't actually see in the manuals you refer to any statement of how to avoid automatic re-partitions. Both show the same screen shot, and then say
Figure 9.17. Disk Partitioning Setup
On this screen you can choose to create the default partition layout automatically, or choose to partition storage devices manually to create a custom layout.
But I don't see anything on the screen shot as shown offering this choice.
And this is why I started looking for upgrade methods. It became clear to me that Anaconda now existed for one purpose only: to make a fresh install of the entire partition system and force the system administrator to restore the /home system from backup, or else store all users' files on paired servers. All very well in the enterprise but /not/ for the individual user running a system at home (as in "domicile").
I can understand--just barely--deciding that using Anaconda to upgrade an existing installation had too many problems, and now you had this new, nifty tool called "fedup" that could handle that sort of upgrade. What I cannot understand is forcing a complete reformat of the hard drive just because you want a fresh re-installation. It's bad enough having to re-install every application you had (and risking forgetting what applications you had loaded on the old system) without having to write down military-grade login username and password to restore /home/everyuser from online backup. (Not to mention that this solution costs money.)
And avoiding that reformat shouldn't have to mean "going through the back door."
Temlakos
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:58:47PM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The default should always be to leave things as they are, as far as possible.
Did you protest against the new anaconda, I can't remember. I didn't because I believe in flexibility and adaptation, certainly when the end result is an improvement in a lot of ways.
and also believe users should read what looks like a 100-page document
I said 'browse' (and then read the bits you need obviously)
in general, the people who write Fedora installation manuals are somewhat deficient in common sense, believing that the more information given the better
I wouldn't put it quite that way :-) but I did mention that one of the guides was too terse and the other long-winded and turgid.
I don't actually see in the manuals you refer to any statement of how to avoid automatic re-partitions. Both show the same screen shot, and then say
Figure 9.17. Disk Partitioning Setup
On this screen you can choose to create the default partition layout automatically, or choose to partition storage devices manually to create a custom layout.
But I don't see anything on the screen shot as shown offering this choice.
Look at section 12 "storage and partitioning" in the 'Quick Start Guide' figure 9 + comments.
And then sections 9.13 and 9.14 in the 'Installation Guide'.
(It's a lot like reading math books/papers skipping the proofs because you want to try them yourselve first). Here you browse the guides and then experiment with anaconda.
And François is no newcomer to the list or linux.
AV
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 08/07/2013 13:49, Alexander Volovics a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:12:12PM +0200, François Patte wrote:
Le 08/07/2013 10:02, jehan procaccia a écrit :
I did had the possibility to partition manually ! I choosed my disk, uncheck it and check it again then it proposed me to partition manullay ("personalisé "). that's for the manual way to install,
Thanks for this. I could (I hope, because the feed back for the user is minimal...) keep my previous partitionning. BTW, the logic of this escapes my mind! It is like if there is some secret door!
Now, the install has begun and... I don't know what will be installed.... I had a minimal choice (gnome, xfce...) I can see that a lot of gnome packages will be installed: It will take me a lot of time to get rid of this packages... because I want a totally gnome free installation! And I will have to check carefully what is missing....
Also, no time for installation is displayed, I'm stcked there waiting for an end!
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
Du calme, Francois. Ce que nous voyons ici c'est: 'Monsieur Hulot et les ordinateurs' ou 'Francois et les ordinateurs'.
Merci pour Monsieur Hulot: in his films, Tati shows some stupidities in the life...
First there are 'installation guides' (though one is too terse and the other long-winded and turgid). By browsing these you would have known about 'manual partitioning', 'keeping existing partitions', 'choosing desktops', etc. in the new anaconda setup.
OK! That's (almost) true! But this requires to have two computers: while you install one, you follow the instructions on the other. Next time, I'll ring at my neighbour door, kiss her if her husband is not there and ask her for her computer.
More seriously, is it so difficult to put two buttons: "automatic partitionning", "manual partitionning"? Or even: "automatic installation" and "install according to your wishes" ?
When I saw only one button "automatic.." I tried to come back to see if I did not missed something.... And as even this: a simple button "go back" is not there, I had to boot again the install disk.... And came back to the same dilemma : "what will happen if I continue? Shall I loose my data on this computer?"... Because an overview of what happens next is not there.
When I dared to continue, I saw an icon of the disk with this mention: "only 1.7Gb are free and you need at least 3.5Gb". What to do? No help (my neighbour was not at home).
At last, you find a button "start installation" and the installation starts. You have no idea of what will be installed: the only choice I had was to choose among window managers and I could ask to have some development tools (gcc???? what else?) and libre office.
I don't know if I have gimp, texlive, emacs.... Absolutely no list of what the installer has installed! I am obliged to do something like: rpm - -qa, then read the list, then complete the installation to fit my desires. And try to remove what is of no use.... For instance, I don't want any gnome tools, but I have plenty of them! Why? I tried something like yum groupremove gnome, and yum wants to erase a lot of xfce tools that I asked for!
Reflect before you 'rant'.
!!! I think that some people could reflect before building such an installer! I will waste a lot of time now to analyse and complete this installation and it will take me several weeks before I have what I need.
So long!
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2013, François Patte sent:
But this requires to have two computers: while you install one, you follow the instructions on the other.
I've, long since, come to realise that it's nearly impossible to manage with just one computer. Your instructions are on-file/on-line, and your one source for more information is on-line. Most of the time you cannot use a badly broken computer system to find out how to fix it up, you need another (either for the instructions, or to carry out the fixes). And much of the time, you can't use a computer while it's OS is being installed to do any research or reading, at the same time. It would seem that *only* if things go without error can you manage with just one computer.
Or, at least, have two hard drives, so you can swap to a spare to try out an install on, keeping your working one safely unplugged while you experiment.
Sorry for top posting this. My bb won't allow bottom posting.
My $0.02 on this topic.
My nfs server is running fc5. Very outdated but I see no reason to upgrade it as there are 3 firewalls between it and the Net. It is doing what I want it to do. Serve files.
My other machines are all F17. Only one of them is connected to the net. They do specialized tasks.
If your OS is doing what you want, you have had no crack attempts, and is working properly, why upgrade your OS?
Dave Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity
-----Original Message----- From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au Sender: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:52:10 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: rant of the day: installing fedora
Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2013, François Patte sent:
But this requires to have two computers: while you install one, you follow the instructions on the other.
I've, long since, come to realise that it's nearly impossible to manage with just one computer. Your instructions are on-file/on-line, and your one source for more information is on-line. Most of the time you cannot use a badly broken computer system to find out how to fix it up, you need another (either for the instructions, or to carry out the fixes). And much of the time, you can't use a computer while it's OS is being installed to do any research or reading, at the same time. It would seem that *only* if things go without error can you manage with just one computer.
Or, at least, have two hard drives, so you can swap to a spare to try out an install on, keeping your working one safely unplugged while you experiment.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 08/07/2013 18:03, davidschaak1@mobilicity.blackberry.com a écrit :
Sorry for top posting this. My bb won't allow bottom posting.
My $0.02 on this topic.
My nfs server is running fc5. Very outdated but I see no reason to upgrade it as there are 3 firewalls between it and the Net. It is doing what I want it to do. Serve files.
My other machines are all F17. Only one of them is connected to the net. They do specialized tasks.
If your OS is doing what you want, you have had no crack attempts, and is working properly, why upgrade your OS?
Don't know if you are joking.... Need of new soft or new version of old ones with new possibilities... And because softwares use libraries and depend on other ones.... you need a new install.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, davidschaak1@mobilicity.blackberry.com wrote:
Sorry for top posting this. My bb won't allow bottom posting.
My $0.02 on this topic.
My nfs server is running fc5. Very outdated but I see no reason to upgrade it as there are 3 firewalls between it and the Net. It is doing what I want it to do. Serve files.
My other machines are all F17. Only one of them is connected to the net. They do specialized tasks.
If your OS is doing what you want, you have had no crack attempts, and is working properly, why upgrade your OS?
Dave Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Mobilicity
One security-oriented response to your statement is that you fundamentally never know whether or not you have been compromised. You only know you have not discovered evidence of a compromise. I have a friend who worked for the government. His job was, literally, to break into homes/businesses and manually install keyloggers on computers (with a warrant, I assume). His whole orientation was to ensure that there was no evidence of his intrusion, since he was all about surveillance.
I tend to upgrade my personal box via fresh install just as a periodic spring cleaning. The bottom line is that I know a lot of stuff about these computing machines, but I don't know everything. There's always the chance that there's some security breach that I don't know about, some rootkit that has outwitted me, etc. And, of course, a lot of these compromises lay dormant for a long time before they pop up and you find yourself the source of spam or a zombie in a DoS or something. Yeah, I'm careful. Yeah, I run tripwire. Yeah, I read my logs. But still...
So, every couple of months, I back up my box and install something. Usually it's Fedora, but every now and then it's something else just for kicks. Mint was fun. Mageia was a little disappointing. Backtrack was cool.
What does that do for me? Well, I clean my disk. If I have an intrusion, it's gone. I wipe my slack space. I'm not going to be anybody's zombie in the near future. I get to learn about some new stuff, because there's always some new stuff. Since I always do an epoch-level backup at that point, then I know I have a full backup in my pocket.
Setting up the servers again is really not much of a hassle for a one-horse operation like mine. If I ran a distributed web server with a hundred boxes and had my own mini-isp, then it might be a problem. But with basically a couple of personal/home-business boxes, and one-box mailserver, webserver, nameserver, etc., it takes just a few more minutes after the installation to get back up in business. You just gotta plan things out. I could speed it up even more by scripting it, but I like to poke around by hand.
The only time this hasn't held is when I moved some of my stuff to a virtual box in the cloud. It turns out that apparently you gotta get the box reprovisioned by the company running the virtual server (at least for me), so it's a hassle getting everything done on my schedule. Choosing F16 was a mistake -- I can't even upgrade because I can't see or interact with the boot screen. I'm moving to CentOS for that machine, and will likely sit on it for awhile...
billo
Alexander Volovics a.volovic@upcmail.nl writes:
(It's a lot like reading math books/papers skipping the proofs because you want to try them yourselve first). Here you browse the guides and then experiment with anaconda.
And François is no newcomer to the list or linux.
That a non-newcomer cannot figure out easily how to get the partitioning they want when installing an OS they are familiar with should give the creators of the installer a lot to think about. Letting users guess and forcing them to experiment with partitioning is *not* the way to go.
And on a side note, forcing them to put /usr onto the root partition is just retarded.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:12:12PM +0200, François Patte wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- -------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: rant of the day: installing fedora Date : Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:54:28 +0200 De : François Patte francois.patte@mi.parisdescartes.fr Organisation : Université Paris Descartes Pour : jehan.procaccia@tem-tsp.eu
Le 08/07/2013 10:02, jehan procaccia a écrit :
I did had the possibility to partition manually ! I choosed my disk, uncheck it and check it again then it proposed me to partition manullay ("personalisé "). that's for the manual way to install,
Thanks for this. I could (I hope, because the feed back for the user is minimal...) keep my previous partitionning. BTW, the logic of this escapes my mind! It is like if there is some secret door!
Now, the install has begun and... I don't know what will be installed.... I had a minimal choice (gnome, xfce...) I can see that a lot of gnome packages will be installed: It will take me a lot of time to get rid of this packages... because I want a totally gnome free installation! And I will have to check carefully what is missing....
You want to be Gnome free? you can download the KDE, lxde, or xfce spins. I think the last two are Gnome but KDE isn't.
Also, no time for installation is displayed, I'm stcked there waiting for an end!
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
Wrong!
Everyone else seems to be able to manage their own computers. Not sure what your problem is.
A poor workman blames his tools.
Am 08.07.2013 22:26, schrieb Robert Holtzman:
Also, no time for installation is displayed, I'm stcked there waiting for an end!
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
Wrong!
Everyone else seems to be able to manage their own computers. Not sure what your problem is.
A poor workman blames his tools.
maybe the direction try to hide mostly anything from the users because one could overwhelm them with options and possibilities which cripples down the IT the last few years by spit powerusers in the face and prevent beginners to learn details which are more and more hidden?
finally this leads that we in 10 years hardly have any new powerusers with real knowledge because all the beginners are trained in "OK, click; OK, OK, OK"
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:47:56AM -0400, Temlakos wrote:
On 07/08/2013 08:58 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Alexander Volovics wrote:
Du calme, Francois. Ce que nous voyons ici c'est: 'Monsieur Hulot et les ordinateurs' ou 'Francois et les ordinateurs'.
First there are 'installation guides' (though one is too terse and the other long-winded and turgid). By browsing these you would have known about 'manual partitioning', 'keeping existing partitions', 'choosing desktops', etc. in the new anaconda setup.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Quick_Start...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/19/html/Installation_Guide/index... Reflect before you 'rant'.
Je ne suis pas d'accord.
The complaint was completely justified. The default should never be to make a dramatic change, unless this is essential. The default should always be to leave things as they are, as far as possible.
But even if you don't accept that, and also believe users should read what looks like a 100-page document before installing (in general, the people who write Fedora installation manuals are somewhat deficient in common sense, believing that the more information given the better), I don't actually see in the manuals you refer to any statement of how to avoid automatic re-partitions. Both show the same screen shot, and then say
Figure 9.17. Disk Partitioning Setup
On this screen you can choose to create the default partition layout automatically, or choose to partition storage devices manually to create a custom layout.
But I don't see anything on the screen shot as shown offering this choice.
And this is why I started looking for upgrade methods. It became clear to me that Anaconda now existed for one purpose only: to make a fresh install of the entire partition system and force the system administrator to restore the /home system from backup, or else store all users' files on paired servers. All very well in the enterprise but /not/ for the individual user running a system at home (as in "domicile").
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
I gotta admit, however, that the new Anaconda is not my favorite installer, it's confusing to figure out what needs to be done, and sometimes when I try to click on an item it says must be done, it just sits there and does nothing.
I fail to see what was wrong with the older method of giving you sequential tasks to do until they're all done. certainly easier to use that way.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:55:06 -0400 Fred Smith wrote:
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-).
No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick partitions."
I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
On 07/08/2013 09:09 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:55:06 -0400 Fred Smith wrote:
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-).
No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick partitions."
I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I thought I was the only one who didn't trust the installer :)
Took me 3 tries before I finally figured out how to get Fedora 19 onto a HD with two clean existing partitions which had been pre-formatted with ext4. For 10 minutes I lived in fear the installer was going to wipe the disk clean and destroy Windows 7 (my wife would have killed me!) . I am retired and have been around Linux in various incarnations for close to 15 years.Sorry but it is not user friendly. But I still love Fedora :)
On 07/09/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:55:06 -0400 Fred Smith wrote:
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-).
No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick partitions."
I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I think that part of the problem is mislabeling of buttons and controls and no advisory information. I too only found the partition section after clicking Done, believing that I was about to wipe out everything. For me it didn't matter, I have minimal applications and what there is could be replaced. My only gripe is that postgres did not work after updating and I still have no workaround. Interesting observation, Fedora 19 is blisteringly fast on my old Dell1520 and much slower on my Desktop which was a FedUp upgrade, so I'm still not convinced that upgrade is the way to fly Fedora airlines. Roger
On 07/08/2013 09:23 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 07/08/2013 09:09 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:55:06 -0400 Fred Smith wrote:
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-).
No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick partitions."
I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I thought I was the only one who didn't trust the installer :) Took me 3 tries before I finally figured out how to get Fedora 19
onto a HD with two clean existing partitions which had been pre-formatted with ext4. For 10 minutes I lived in fear the installer was going to wipe the disk clean and destroy Windows 7 (my wife would have killed me!) . I am retired and have been around Linux in various incarnations for close to 15 years.Sorry but it is not user friendly. But I still love Fedora :)
I just installed Korora 19 the other day. It must use the same installer, and I went thru the same sort of problems. I had originally created and formatted a / and a /home partition, but I had a devil of a time getting the installer to let me direct the system to these. Whoever is responsible for this installer should be tied in front of a Windows machine for the next 6 months or so as punishment!
--doug
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:53:22 -0400 Doug dmcgarrett@optonline.net wrote:
On 07/08/2013 09:23 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 07/08/2013 09:09 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:55:06 -0400 Fred Smith wrote:
I don't understand,.. I had no trouble installing F19 on a system where I did NOT want to wipe out all the partitions, just some of them...
How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-).
No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick partitions."
I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I thought I was the only one who didn't trust the installer :) Took me 3 tries before I finally figured out how to get Fedora 19
onto a HD with two clean existing partitions which had been pre-formatted with ext4. For 10 minutes I lived in fear the installer was going to wipe the disk clean and destroy Windows 7 (my wife would have killed me!) . I am retired and have been around Linux in various incarnations for close to 15 years.Sorry but it is not user friendly. But I still love Fedora :)
I just installed Korora 19 the other day. It must use the same installer, and I went thru the same sort of problems. I had originally created and formatted a / and a /home partition, but I had a devil of a time getting the installer to let me direct the system to these. Whoever is responsible for this installer should be tied in front of a Windows machine for the next 6 months or so as punishment!
Liked this:-)
While I don't quite understand the rationale behind this new installer (started in F18), the installer itself is a hit-or-miss. Sometimes, after a lot of cursing, I have been successful, later coming back after months, I have been at sea. Trouble is that even when it has worked, I have not always been sure how i got wherever. There are some radio-buttons and if you click the correct ones in the correct but seemingly arbitrary order, you can get there. Many of these icons are hard to see, harder to understand. And since no one has access to installation notes when installing (it has been suggested a requirement of having two machines -- reminds me of that now-retired well-minted sage who did not, in the mid-90s, think it was a problem that his commercial OS was requiring so much resources, because of course they should get a newer machine), what would be helpful is clearer instructions such as a bubble when mousing over. This already exists (the information part, not the clearer or useful part).
Btw, what was the need for this obtuse installer? The old one was perfect: could that not have been improved upon for whatever was missing? But on the other hand, something named anaconda should perhaps have justified its name in the first place, something which it appears to have finally achieved.....for that, the developers, whose work I am very grateful for, need to be given some leave for feeling some satisfaction!
Best wishes, Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
Doug wrote:
Whoever is responsible for this installer should be tied in front of a Windows machine for the next 6 months or so as punishment!
Actually Windows - at least Windows XP - is very good on this score. It tells you clearly what partitions it sees, and asks you where you would like to install Windows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 08/07/2013 22:26, Robert Holtzman a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:12:12PM +0200, François Patte wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Many thanks to all those crapy packagers who think that common people are to stupid to manage their own computer!
Wrong!
Everyone else seems to be able to manage their own computers. Not sure what your problem is.
My problem is clear enough: when you reach the page where you have to choose how to partition your disk: *the only choice you have is to click a button "automatic partition""
So 1- you have no choice!
2- you fear to loose everything on your disk
A poor workman blames his tools.
This is the usual and stupid conclusion on every "hotline": we are perfect, our tools are perfectly working and every user asking questions is wrong, has a bad configuration, is unable to understand anything.... is a dumb person.
Progress is going on with people like R.H.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:39 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
One security-oriented response to your statement is that you fundamentally never know whether or not you have been compromised. You only know you have not discovered evidence of a compromise.
Yet another reason for fresh installs, rather than upgrades, stopping undetected problems from propagating along.
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:03 +0000, davidschaak1@mobilicity.blackberry.com wrote:
Sorry for top posting this. My bb won't allow bottom posting.
Or for thread hijacking? (Your message was not in reply to what I wrote, but that's how you posted it...)
My nfs server is running fc5. Very outdated but I see no reason to upgrade it as there are 3 firewalls between it and the Net. It is doing what I want it to do. Serve files.
*Possibly* for a specific server inside a LAN, that may not be a problem. You're hoping that (a) another machine inside your LAN won't attack it, and (b) that you won't need to install any new software on your server.
Certain servers could be a right pain to keep going across updates, I'm thinking of databases. You have to be able to manage its updating; or worse, migrate its data across to new software if the database software isn't available for the updated OS.
Running things that directly access the net, or are directly accessible from the net, on out-of-date software has a much higher security risk. And a higher inconvenience risk as you come across sites that block you for having an too-old browser, or too-old flash plug-in.
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:26 -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
A poor workman blames his tools.
And an idiot thinks there's nothing wrong with broken tools.
Some programmers, and users, seriously need to read "The Emperor's New Clothes."
| From: Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com
| How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk | drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? | (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-). | | No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances | when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. | Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system | did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick | partitions." | | I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely | won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every | other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I find the installer confusing. I would need to take a movie of using it so I can actually accurately report the confusion. But here goes an unreliable report:
When you are selecting the disk(s) for the installer, you are NOT selecting the partitions. I think that Tom didn't know this and hence was scared by this screen. With good reason: I don't remember that this was explained clearly on the screen.
When you left-click on a disk icon on this screen, the icon gets highlighted. Apparently this does not constitute "selection"! I found right-clicking would flip a checkmark, and that is selecting. Sheesh.
Then you press "done". If I remember correctly, nothing happens for a bit. Not even a cue that the system is busy (like the mouse cursor changing).
I forget exactly what happens next, but after a modest delay, you get to select a method of specifying how partitioning is set up (wipe disk, use free parts, or manual, for example).
Everything is obvious in retrospect. Too bad we don't travel the right way in time for that to be good enough.
Anaconda(?) really needs to cue the user about its state: the user needs to know when it is busy and the screen doesn't yet reflect the user's last action. This comes up in more than one situation so I infer that it is a general Anaconda problem.
Anaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Hi
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, D. Hugh RedelmeierAnaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer
and less scary to the user.
Perhaps you can file a bug report? It appears in this thread, noone yet has done this
Rahul
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 22:11 -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
Anaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Agreed. I found several things confusing about it, especially the partitioning screen, though I finally managed it. However it's worth noting that the first screen has a button (lower right) clearly indicating "We won't touch your disks until you click here".
poc
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 23:45 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, D. Hugh RedelmeierAnaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Perhaps you can file a bug report? It appears in this thread, noone yet has done this
Like most people I tend to use the installer only once per new release, so if it isn't straightforward it can be difficult, in the relief of managing to get past it, to remember the exact sequence of failures and retries one has gone through, in order to formulate a useful bug report.
A poor excuse, but my own.
poc
On 12 July 2013 12:23, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 23:45 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, D. Hugh RedelmeierAnaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Perhaps you can file a bug report? It appears in this thread, noone yet has done this
Like most people I tend to use the installer only once per new release, so if it isn't straightforward it can be difficult, in the relief of managing to get past it, to remember the exact sequence of failures and retries one has gone through, in order to formulate a useful bug report.
A poor excuse, but my own.
Nailed it, not many people will go through the installer enough times to work out how it actually works and how it should work. I've done various live installs for testing, but by the time you've done that you're familiar enough with what's going on that it doesn't occur to you anymore.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 12/07/2013 05:45, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Hi
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM, D. Hugh RedelmeierAnaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer
and less scary to the user.
Perhaps you can file a bug report? It appears in this thread, noone yet has done this
File a bug report on what? So many problems with this "new" anaconda! the partitionning problem, the lack of keyboard selection in rescue mode....
And now: backward compatibility to upgrade old fedora install which seems to be not recognised by f18 installer: I installed an f10 on two disks in a raid array using lvm.
I tried to install f18 using the previous raid config and partitionning: f18 installer is unable to do anything: it sees the raid, but I cannot reuse it (nor the partitions): everything is gray and you cannot access to anything.
awkward compatibility!
F.P.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
Hi
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, François Patte < francois.patte@mi.parisdescartes.fr> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 12/07/2013 05:45, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
File a bug report on what? So many problems with this "new" anaconda! the partitionning problem, the lack of keyboard selection in rescue mode.... http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
For any or all the problems one might have. You could do it in a VM just to test and report the problems as well. Feel free to post the links here so that others can provide their feedback as well. If you want to discuss it first, use the Anaconda devel list. I don't think any of the installer developers are in this list.
Rahul
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com writes:
| From: Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com
| How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk | drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? | (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-). | | No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances | when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. | Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system | did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick | partitions." | | I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely | won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every | other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I find the installer confusing. I would need to take a movie of using it so I can actually accurately report the confusion. But here goes an unreliable report:
When you are selecting the disk(s) for the installer, you are NOT selecting the partitions. I think that Tom didn't know this and hence was scared by this screen. With good reason: I don't remember that this was explained clearly on the screen.
Yes, it tells you that your disks won't be touched before you click on the Done button, and the obvious conclusion is that it may touch them once you click it, possibly overwriting your data.
When you're finished partitioning, it tells you it won't touch anything before you click the Finish button. Apparently they have taken care not to overwrite your data, but this part of the installer needs a thorough redesign. Even after trying it, I would not trust the installer not to overwrite data when I click on the Done button.
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either. Not clicking that button means no install. That means no install when you have data on disks you cannot physically disconnect before trying to install.
Everything is obvious in retrospect. Too bad we don't travel the right way in time for that to be good enough.
Nothing is obvious, imho. I almost gave up trying to install Fedora because it didn't seem possible to get the partitioning I wanted.
The installer tries to do the partitioning for you. It totally ignores that you may want to have your partitions in a particular order, like swap partitions first because that may be faster. It totally ignores that you may want a particular partition --- like for /home --- on a different disk.
What you need to do is run cfdisk or the like and create your partitions before running the installer. Then you need to get the installer to use the partitioning you created, and it is kinda the opposite of obvious how to that. I only found out by chance when looking at the screen, asking myself which distribution to try out instead.
There also needs to be a way to go back once you started partitioning. You have to quit the installer and start over every time you're not happy with the partitioning it tries to do.
You're probably screwed when you need LVM or software raid or encryption with the partitioning you need. Is there any way to get that? Can you install Fedora on software raid with the partitioning you need? And can you do that with encrypted partitions?
Anaconda(?) really needs to cue the user about its state: the user needs to know when it is busy and the screen doesn't yet reflect the user's last action. This comes up in more than one situation so I infer that it is a general Anaconda problem.
I didn't have the waiting time you experienced, and at no time I felt that the progress wasn't shown. The installation went fast (from an USB stick) and flawless and everything worked out of the box.
Other than the partitioning and the installer not using the keyboard layout I specified, I'm really impressed.
Anaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Yes, it is not at all clear in any way at which point your disks might be touched.
And there needs to be something like an option for extended partitioning that allows you to do whatever you want. Having the installer do it for you is a nice option to have and it's not enough.
On a side note, you can now put /usr onto its own partition like it should be.
On 12 July 2013 21:45, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
And there needs to be something like an option for extended partitioning that allows you to do whatever you want. Having the installer do it for you is a nice option to have and it's not enough.
On install from live discs at least there is definitely custom partitioning.
On a side note, you can now put /usr onto its own partition like it should be.
Does anyone know whether this is a good idea given usrmove? Everything in /bin is supposed to end up in /usr/bin so far as I know.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 12/07/2013 22:45, lee a écrit :
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com writes:
You're probably screwed when you need LVM or software raid or encryption with the partitioning you need. Is there any way to get that? Can you install Fedora on software raid with the partitioning you need? And can you do that with encrypted partitions?
No! I did not find, up to now, how to re-use my previous partitioning: I had two disks sda and sdb with two raid arrays md0 and md1 (software raid 1).
On md0 / and swap
On md1 rest of system and data in lvm.
Installer sees sda, partitions on it (sda1, sda2....) and lvm; it sees sdb as "unknown" and is unable to show the (mirror) partitions on it.
I don't want to erase anything and make a new raid-lvm partitions, the job was done a long time ago and it fits my desires... why should I change?
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
François Patte francois.patte@mi.parisdescartes.fr writes:
Le 12/07/2013 22:45, lee a écrit :
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com writes:
You're probably screwed when you need LVM or software raid or encryption with the partitioning you need. Is there any way to get that? Can you install Fedora on software raid with the partitioning you need? And can you do that with encrypted partitions?
No! I did not find, up to now, how to re-use my previous partitioning: I had two disks sda and sdb with two raid arrays md0 and md1 (software raid 1).
On md0 / and swap
On md1 rest of system and data in lvm.
Installer sees sda, partitions on it (sda1, sda2....) and lvm; it sees sdb as "unknown" and is unable to show the (mirror) partitions on it.
That's imho worth a bug report. Redundancy, like RAID, is a requirement for me, and when installing on a laptop, encryption is also a requirement. When you cannot install Fedora on encrypted RAID partitions, it won't go on a laptop (which doesn't have hardware RAID, but which laptop does).
I don't want to erase anything and make a new raid-lvm partitions, the job was done a long time ago and it fits my desires... why should I change?
How about upgrading instead?
Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com writes:
On 12 July 2013 21:45, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
And there needs to be something like an option for extended partitioning that allows you to do whatever you want. Having the installer do it for you is a nice option to have and it's not enough.
On install from live discs at least there is definitely custom partitioning.
Are you referring to the option the installer gives you to do your own/custom partitioning? If so, you can do that, but you do not know where on the disks the partitions are being put --- or is there way to see and to decide that?
On a side note, you can now put /usr onto its own partition like it should be.
Does anyone know whether this is a good idea given usrmove? Everything in /bin is supposed to end up in /usr/bin so far as I know.
When installing F17, the installer didn't let me put /usr onto its own partition. The installer of F19 doesn't mind. It may be a bad idea, yet it works.
On 14 July 2013 00:51, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com writes:
On 12 July 2013 21:45, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
And there needs to be something like an option for extended partitioning that allows you to do whatever you want. Having the installer do it for you is a nice option to have and it's not enough.
On install from live discs at least there is definitely custom partitioning.
Are you referring to the option the installer gives you to do your own/custom partitioning? If so, you can do that, but you do not know where on the disks the partitions are being put --- or is there way to see and to decide that?
Okay, I didn't quite realise what you wanted. If you're talking about block-level control of the partition creation you can't do that (though it's probably a bit redundant these days). On the other hand I think they should be created in the order they're displayed on the partitioning screen, so that should just be a case of adding them in the order you want.
On a side note, you can now put /usr onto its own partition like it should be.
Does anyone know whether this is a good idea given usrmove? Everything in /bin is supposed to end up in /usr/bin so far as I know.
When installing F17, the installer didn't let me put /usr onto its own partition. The installer of F19 doesn't mind. It may be a bad idea, yet it works.
Would be interested if someone could chip in on whether this is a good idea or not. In the standard hierarchy it should be possible, but usrmove has broken with that.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:45 PM, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com writes:
| From: Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com
| How did you get past the screen that only lets you pick a whole disk | drive then, as the only possible option after that, click "Done"? | (Or, as I did the first time I saw it, push the reset button :-). | | No power on earth could get me to click "Done" under those circumstances | when installing on a system that contains data I want to preserve. | Only after trying the install on a totally trashable test system | did I find that "Done" actually means, "OK, now you get to pick | partitions." | | I don't have enough trust available to believe that they surely | won't actually wipe out the whole disk (especially when every | other part of the redesign has been to reduce or eliminate options).
I find the installer confusing. I would need to take a movie of using it so I can actually accurately report the confusion. But here goes an unreliable report:
When you are selecting the disk(s) for the installer, you are NOT selecting the partitions. I think that Tom didn't know this and hence was scared by this screen. With good reason: I don't remember that this was explained clearly on the screen.
Yes, it tells you that your disks won't be touched before you click on the Done button, and the obvious conclusion is that it may touch them once you click it, possibly overwriting your data.
When you're finished partitioning, it tells you it won't touch anything before you click the Finish button. Apparently they have taken care not to overwrite your data, but this part of the installer needs a thorough redesign. Even after trying it, I would not trust the installer not to overwrite data when I click on the Done button.
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either. Not clicking that button means no install. That means no install when you have data on disks you cannot physically disconnect before trying to install.
Everything is obvious in retrospect. Too bad we don't travel the right way in time for that to be good enough.
Nothing is obvious, imho. I almost gave up trying to install Fedora because it didn't seem possible to get the partitioning I wanted.
The installer tries to do the partitioning for you. It totally ignores that you may want to have your partitions in a particular order, like swap partitions first because that may be faster. It totally ignores that you may want a particular partition --- like for /home --- on a different disk.
What you need to do is run cfdisk or the like and create your partitions before running the installer. Then you need to get the installer to use the partitioning you created, and it is kinda the opposite of obvious how to that. I only found out by chance when looking at the screen, asking myself which distribution to try out instead.
There also needs to be a way to go back once you started partitioning. You have to quit the installer and start over every time you're not happy with the partitioning it tries to do.
You're probably screwed when you need LVM or software raid or encryption with the partitioning you need. Is there any way to get that? Can you install Fedora on software raid with the partitioning you need? And can you do that with encrypted partitions?
Anaconda(?) really needs to cue the user about its state: the user needs to know when it is busy and the screen doesn't yet reflect the user's last action. This comes up in more than one situation so I infer that it is a general Anaconda problem.
I didn't have the waiting time you experienced, and at no time I felt that the progress wasn't shown. The installation went fast (from an USB stick) and flawless and everything worked out of the box.
Other than the partitioning and the installer not using the keyboard layout I specified, I'm really impressed.
Anaconda's screens need to be more wordy to make things clearer and less scary to the user.
Yes, it is not at all clear in any way at which point your disks might be touched.
And there needs to be something like an option for extended partitioning that allows you to do whatever you want. Having the installer do it for you is a nice option to have and it's not enough.
On a side note, you can now put /usr onto its own partition like it should be.
-- Fedora 18 --
Why not install it and make partitions at a later time?
Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com writes:
On 14 July 2013 00:51, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com writes:
On 12 July 2013 21:45, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Are you referring to the option the installer gives you to do your own/custom partitioning? If so, you can do that, but you do not know where on the disks the partitions are being put --- or is there way to see and to decide that?
Okay, I didn't quite realise what you wanted. If you're talking about block-level control of the partition creation you can't do that (though it's probably a bit redundant these days).
It is required as an option. It doesn't necessarily have to be built into the installer. The installer could offer you to start cfdisk or parted and make it easy to then use the partitions you created. There's no need to re-invent the wheel for creating partitions.
On the other hand I think they should be created in the order they're displayed on the partitioning screen, so that should just be a case of adding them in the order you want.
That won't work unless you want the installer to move existing partitions. And it won't allow you to decide onto which disk they will be put.
What if you have your partitions created in such a way that, in some cases, the last partition on disk N would have to continue on disk N+1 to provide you with partitions in the order and in the sizes you specified?
Forcing users to indiscriminately select disks before starting to partition them is not a good way to begin with. The installer is obfuscating the partitioning and confusing about it. It comes nowhere even close to the simple clarity a tool like cfdisk or parted has.
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either.
Why not install it and make partitions at a later time?
Does the installer support creating a file system directly on a device without partitioning it?
Even if it does, how do you later make partitions on a device that contains a file system and no partitions?
On 7/15/2013 12:57 AM, lee wrote:
Richard Vickeryrichard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either.
Why not install it and make partitions at a later time?
Does the installer support creating a file system directly on a device without partitioning it?
Even if it does, how do you later make partitions on a device that contains a file system and no partitions?
I recently installed Korora, which is closely derived from Fedora, I'm told. As is my usual preference, I used GParted to make and format partitions before I installed Korora in a multi-boot configuration with Windows 7 and PCLOS-KDE. It was quite difficult and non obvious how to install Korora on the / and /home partitions I made for it, but it can be done. From other posts here, I believe the Fedora and Korora installers are the same, and, to be honest, they suck! I don't usually post such language, but in this case it's deserved!
--doug
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:57 PM, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either.
Why not install it and make partitions at a later time?
Does the installer support creating a file system directly on a device without partitioning it?
Even if it does, how do you later make partitions on a device that contains a file system and no partitions?
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not. Once upon a time there was even a GUI partition maker that may of may not still exist.
Doug dmcgarrett@optonline.net writes:
Fedora and Korora installers are the same, and, to be honest, they suck! I don't usually post such language, but in this case it's deserved!
That's going a bit far, imho. It is awful when it comes to partitioning and otherwise seems to work fine.
I guess the idea was to make installing easy, and it kinda does that. It might help to remove partitioning from the installer.
For partitioning, a specialised application could be created, independent from the installer. It would allow to do everything that might be needed and, if necessary, hand over required information (like where to mount what) to the installer, using a well defined API.
Such an application won't be limited to be used with Fedora. It could be used with all distributions. They all need partitioning, so why do many distributions try to re-invent the wheel for that? Who said when that partitioning must be part of an installer?
Installers would simply show the users the existing partitioning and ask them if they want to use it. In case information from the partitioner is available, the installer would show that, too, and offer to use it.
If the user doesn't want to use the information, the installer only needs to ask them "Where do you want to install?" and let them pick a partition or free space. Unless it is too small, the installer installs everything there.
If the user wants to use the information from the partitioner, the installer uses that.
That's plain and simple. Users wouldn't have to try to figure out with every new version of an installer how they might get the partitioning they want.
They could even save the information from the partitioner and reuse it. They could prepare for installing several distributions when they are partitioning and simply assign partitions to distributions. It would be easy to have many distributions installed at the same time.
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not.
Well ok, in that case you may be better off running fdisk /before/ installing so that you can install the system onto the partitions you want right away. The installer --- since it comes as part of a live system --- gives you everything you need for that.
The question is whether you can get it to use the partitions you created. That was difficult enough even without RAID or LVM.
In case I want to install more distributions or a fallback Fedora, I need to tell their installers again where to install what. A universal partitioning tool could save me that.
Am 15.07.2013 19:56, schrieb Richard Vickery:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:57 PM, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
If I had had disks with data on them when I tried out the installer, I wouldn't have clicked on that Done button, either.
Why not install it and make partitions at a later time?
Does the installer support creating a file system directly on a device without partitioning it?
Even if it does, how do you later make partitions on a device that contains a file system and no partitions?
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not. Once upon a time there was even a GUI partition maker that may of may not still exist
way too late for many setups
that works for ordinary setups but not for complexer intented to run over many years without re-install
the system below was installed with Fedora 14 in 2011
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 ext4 29G 6.0G 23G 21% / /dev/md0 ext4 477M 30M 447M 7% /boot /dev/md2 ext4 3.6T 1.6T 2.0T 46% /mnt/data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /dev/md0: Version : 1.0 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:48 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 511988 (500.07 MiB 524.28 MB) Used Dev Size : 511988 (500.07 MiB 524.28 MB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Mon Jul 15 00:15:41 2013 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0
Name : localhost.localdomain:0 UUID : 1d691642:baed26df:1d197496:4fb00ff8 Events : 521
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1 5 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1 4 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1 3 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /dev/md1: Version : 1.1 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:52 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 30716928 (29.29 GiB 31.45 GB) Used Dev Size : 15358464 (14.65 GiB 15.73 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Intent Bitmap : Internal Update Time : Mon Jul 15 22:31:58 2013 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 512K Name : localhost.localdomain:1 UUID : b7475879:c95d9a47:c5043c02:0c5ae720 Events : 11793
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 50 0 active sync /dev/sdd2 5 8 34 1 active sync /dev/sdc2 4 8 2 2 active sync /dev/sda2 3 8 18 3 active sync /dev/sdb2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /dev/md2: Version : 1.1 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:56 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 3875222528 (3695.70 GiB 3968.23 GB) Used Dev Size : 1937611264 (1847.85 GiB 1984.11 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Intent Bitmap : Internal Update Time : Mon Jul 15 22:32:03 2013 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 512K Name : localhost.localdomain:2 UUID : ea253255:cb915401:f32794ad:ce0fe396 Events : 305189
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 51 0 active sync /dev/sdd3 5 8 35 1 active sync /dev/sdc3 4 8 3 2 active sync /dev/sda3 3 8 19 3 active sync /dev/sdb3
On Jul 15, 2013 8:33 PM, "lee" lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not.
Well ok, in that case you may be better off running fdisk /before/ installing so that you can install the system onto the partitions you want right away. The installer --- since it comes as part of a live system --- gives you everything you need for that.
The question is whether you can get it to use the partitions you created. That was difficult enough even without RAID or LVM.
In case I want to install more distributions or a fallback Fedora, I need to tell their installers again where to install what. A universal partitioning tool could save me that.
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) --
There is no real difference between pre-installation and disk / cfdisk, and all post-partitions are as usable as pre-install work.
Why question it? If you are interested in what I see as unnecesary partitions, just do it.
You are asking the wrong person. I quit worrying about pre-partitioning a 15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore. The installer gives the user all that person requires.
If you really care, please email Adam Williamson for a more complete explanation.
Go watch some YouTube videos on partitioning in Linux?
On Jul 15, 2013 9:56 PM, "Richard Vickery" richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 15, 2013 8:33 PM, "lee" lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not.
Well ok, in that case you may be better off running fdisk /before/ installing so that you can install the system onto the partitions you want right away. The installer --- since it comes as part of a live system --- gives you everything you need for that.
The question is whether you can get it to use the partitions you created. That was difficult enough even without RAID or LVM.
In case I want to install more distributions or a fallback Fedora, I need to tell their installers again where to install what. A universal partitioning tool could save me that.
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) --
There is no real difference between pre-installation and disk / cfdisk,
and all post-partitions are as usable as pre-install work.
Why question it? If you are interested in what I see as unnecesary
partitions, just do it.
You are asking the wrong person. I quit worrying about pre-partitioning a
15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore. The installer gives the user all that person requires.
If you really care, please email Adam Williamson for a more complete
explanation.
Go watch some YouTube videos on partitioning in Linux?
I don't go partitioning my hard drive anymore, and the installer created 2 for me.
I invite you to: man disk
On 07/16/2013 06:56 AM, Richard Vickery wrote:
I quit worrying about pre-partitioning a 15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore.
I disagree - Could you elaborate what you makes you think this?
Never had a system with multiple OSes installed in parallel?
Never had a system with different versions of an OS or different setups of an OS (e.g. Fedora) installed in parallel?
The installer gives the user all that person requires.
Well, though the F19 installer isn't as miserable as F18's was, it's still close to being unusable, IMHO.
Ralf
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
There is no real difference between pre-installation and disk / cfdisk, and all post-partitions are as usable as pre-install work.
So you install first, without making any partitions, and then create partitions afterwards?
Why question it? If you are interested in what I see as unnecesary partitions, just do it.
Because it doesn't work. Which installer allows you to install right onto the device, with no partitions created?
Even if one does, you'd have to go to lengths to create partitions after installing to the device, if that's even possible without deleting the installation.
You are asking the wrong person. I quit worrying about pre-partitioning a 15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore. The installer gives the user all that person requires.
If you really care, please email Adam Williamson for a more complete explanation.
Go watch some YouTube videos on partitioning in Linux?
Do you have a link for a video that shows how one installs Fedora on a device like /dev/sda and then converts their installation to use partitions instead?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 16/07/2013 07:01, Richard Vickery a écrit :
On Jul 15, 2013 9:56 PM, "Richard Vickery" <richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com mailto:richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 2013 8:33 PM, "lee" <lee@yun.yagibdah.de
mailto:lee@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:
Richard Vickery <richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com
mailto:richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com> writes:
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that the installer did not.
Well ok, in that case you may be better off running fdisk /before/ installing so that you can install the system onto the partitions you want right away. The installer --- since it comes as part of a live system --- gives you everything you need for that.
The question is whether you can get it to use the partitions you created. That was difficult enough even without RAID or LVM.
In case I want to install more distributions or a fallback Fedora, I need to tell their installers again where to install what. A universal partitioning tool could save me that.
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) --
There is no real difference between pre-installation and disk / cfdisk,
and all post-partitions are as usable as pre-install work.
Why question it? If you are interested in what I see as unnecesary
partitions, just do it.
You are asking the wrong person. I quit worrying about pre-partitioning
a 15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore. The installer gives the user all that person requires.
If you really care, please email Adam Williamson for a more complete
explanation.
Go watch some YouTube videos on partitioning in Linux?
I don't go partitioning my hard drive anymore, and the installer created 2 for me.
The installer thinks for you and you're happy...
When you reinstall, you recreate your data. You have just a few data? You don't have soft any which are not in the distro?
Packagers think for you and you are happy and shout: "long live to Bill Gates!"
Lucky man! - -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire MAP5 --- UMR CNRS 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:56 -0700, Richard Vickery wrote:
On Jul 15, 2013 8:33 PM, "lee" lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Richard Vickery richard.vickeryrv@gmail.com writes:
the installation program gives you everything you need to have an operational system; after you have it installed:
fdisk
is the command to create your much needed / loved partitions that
the
installer did not.
Well ok, in that case you may be better off running fdisk /before/ installing so that you can install the system onto the partitions
you
want right away. The installer --- since it comes as part of a live system --- gives you everything you need for that.
The question is whether you can get it to use the partitions you created. That was difficult enough even without RAID or LVM.
In case I want to install more distributions or a fallback Fedora, I need to tell their installers again where to install what. A
universal
partitioning tool could save me that.
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) --
There is no real difference between pre-installation and disk / cfdisk, and all post-partitions are as usable as pre-install work.
Why question it? If you are interested in what I see as unnecesary partitions, just do it.
You are asking the wrong person. I quit worrying about pre-partitioning a 15 years ago because there is no reason to do it anymore. The installer gives the user all that person requires.
If you really care, please email Adam Williamson for a more complete explanation.
Go watch some YouTube videos on partitioning in Linux?
The installer does not know GPT without LVM, so you need Gparted.
C. Sava