Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 11:54, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
What I'm trying to say I said. I'm trying not to be the guy
who gives bad advice 5% of the time. He doesn't mind getting
people into trouble one time in 20 (his estimate).
But we are talking about fedora here. If you need a 100%
guarantee, you are in the wrong place. I suppose you can
ask for your money back.
I don't see the connection between "this is Fedora" and
"I don't mind giving bad advice about the OS 5% of the time".
I've encountered this "Oh, you're doing something wrong" attitude
before in this forum, when an install doesn't work.
And? You don't think having a box that re-writes your
boot sector when you don't want that is something wrong?
It doesn't re-write my boot sector without my permission.
But it won't boot WinXP without it.
And I don't think it is something that *I* did wrong.
Also, the proposed fix is "upgrade to FC4", which just
won't fix the problem.
The truth is that there are situations that the installer
doesn't handle, period. And instead of saying "Well, the
installer doesn't handle all situations, and this is one
we don't want to handle, and we're not going to document
it, nor document how to handle it", which is what is
happening, the people here state that it is "imaginary",
"invented", or that the user has "done something wrong".
How about either:
(1) fix the installer so it can handle this situation, or
(2) document that it exists, and how to fix it up.
Even if neither of these is the choice, how about at least
not telling people who encounter it that they doen't know
what they're talking about, that they are hallucinating,
or that they haven't used the installer correctly?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
