My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
105 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Mo Libden
08 P<P0QQP0 2012, 14:22 P>Q "Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" <[hidden email]>:

> 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)?

may be the install script may be changed so that it does
dd if=/dev/sdXc of=/tmp/sdXc.mbr count=1

so that after chosing the "whole disk" option and breaking
the install script, you still have an option to get your partition
table back.

it needs to be documented of course...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Kevin Chadwick-2
In reply to this post by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:50:15 +0100
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:

> Furthermore, the more chatty installer is, the less amount of
> newcomers would be reading the messages.

I had a thought last night, how worrying that my mind jumped to OpenBSD
in front of the TV. It occurred to me that it wasn't too long ago that
the installer switched from asking to partition first or had less
questions at the beginning and flicking through those quickly may
explain why the op hit enter so readily and why this hasn't come
up before when the first question was a more important one. Then again
I have doubts it will ever come up again too.

What was the reason for the re-order?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Nick Holland
On 03/08/12 06:48, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:50:15 +0100
> Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, the more chatty installer is, the less amount of
>> newcomers would be reading the messages.
>
> I had a thought last night, how worrying that my mind jumped to OpenBSD
> in front of the TV. It occurred to me that it wasn't too long ago that
> the installer switched from asking to partition first or had less
> questions at the beginning and flicking through those quickly may
> explain why the op hit enter so readily and why this hasn't come
> up before when the first question was a more important one. Then again
> I have doubts it will ever come up again too.
>
> What was the reason for the re-order?

It was reworked so that in the most common, simplest installs, you could
just hit ENTER for almost everything quickly and up-front, then walk
away and let the install take place (keep in mind, while many users love
their five-minute-install amd64 systems, a lot of developers use
machines where a full install may take a long time.  We like to be able
to walk away and come back to a finished install, not find out its been
waiting for us to answer another question).

The developers were very proud of and happy with this.  This "Hit Enter
a bunch of times to do the install" is a highly desired property by
those who do a lot of installs.  There have been many internal
discussions about adding questions about real options, which have been
vetoed because ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT DESIRED.  Again, real
operational changes are vetoed.  "Are you sure?" questions just don't
have a chance.  Sorry (but not very.  I love it).

(the new installer was also smaller, which is also a desirable trait, as
that means more devices can be added to (or more accurately, fewer
removed from) the install kernels)

Nick.

S-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

S-3
In reply to this post by Leonardo Sabino dos Santos
whether
Use (W)hole disk or (E)dit the MBR? [whole]
or
Use (W)hole disk, use the (O)penBSD area, or (E)dit the MBR? [OpenBSD]

I would like empty in Square brackets[ ], user should input w/o/e here, only Enter should do nothing but repeat last line.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Russell Garrison
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
It really is amazing how much the install is genuinely loved on
OpenBSD. I think there are other distributions out there where the
installer is liked or even praised, but I would describe my feelings
and what I see here as love. It is always a pleasure when I have the
chance to show someone the install process for the first time or hear
their accounts of success or failure. I started out with OpenBSD
around 2.3 and the funny thing is that I am most impressed by how the
installer disk setup is improved since those days. At least I don't
have to start off the discussion about how c is the whole disk, etc.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Raimo Niskanen-7
In reply to this post by Mo Libden
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:43:46PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote:
> 08 P<P0QQP0 2012, 14:22 P>Q "Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" <[hidden email]>:
> > 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

daniel holtzman
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.

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" <[hidden email]>:
>>> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
On Mar 08 07:20:56, Nick Holland wrote:

> On 03/08/12 06:48, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:50:15 +0100
> > Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> >
> >> Furthermore, the more chatty installer is, the less amount of
> >> newcomers would be reading the messages.
> >
> > I had a thought last night, how worrying that my mind jumped to OpenBSD
> > in front of the TV. It occurred to me that it wasn't too long ago that
> > the installer switched from asking to partition first or had less
> > questions at the beginning and flicking through those quickly may
> > explain why the op hit enter so readily and why this hasn't come
> > up before when the first question was a more important one. Then again
> > I have doubts it will ever come up again too.
> >
> > What was the reason for the re-order?
>
> It was reworked so that in the most common, simplest installs, you could
> just hit ENTER for almost everything quickly and up-front, then walk
> away and let the install take place (keep in mind, while many users love
> their five-minute-install amd64 systems, a lot of developers use
> machines where a full install may take a long time.  We like to be able
> to walk away and come back to a finished install, not find out its been
> waiting for us to answer another question).

I remember this being the first selling point for me
back when I did my first install. The OS installs I did before
(various linuxes) took considerably more time (not mentioning
a certain non-open-sourced OS, whose install took hours),
and you HAD TO BE THERE ALL THE TIME AND STARE AT THE SCREEN,
just to press an occasional OK every now and then.

The feature of giving it all my input and walking away
was the very first sign that this is what I want.

        Jan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Barry Grumbine-2
In reply to this post by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Though OpenBSD installer is not the main feature of OpenBSD for me (it
> is only used to install OS anyway), I wouldn't like it to change in any
> way now, as I just can't think of a way to make it better.
>

Sorry, hate to beat a dead horse...  There is one use case where I
would like to see the installer enhanced:

I have a laptop with OpenBSD installed.
I want to install to a flash/USB drive, or SD card, or eSATA drive...
I start the laptop with boot > bsd.rd
Select (I)nstall
Eventually get to the question:

Available disks are: sd0 sd1 sd2
Which one is the root disk? (or 'done') [sd0]

At this point I usually say "oh crap", hit ^c, and go read the dmesg
or `disklabel sd1` to make sure I pick the right disk.

It would be nice if the installer would tell me a little something
about the available disks so I could pick the right one:

sd0: 238418MB, 512 bytes/sector, 488281250 sectors
sd1: 1907MB, 512 bytes/sector, 3905536 sectors
sd2: 3751MB, 512 bytes/sector, 7683072 sectors
Available disks are: sd0 sd1 sd2
Which one is the root disk? (or 'done') [sd0]


--- install.sub.orig    Thu Mar  8 16:28:52 2012
+++ install.sub Thu Mar  8 16:30:24 2012
@@ -2134,6 +2134,9 @@

 # Get ROOTDISK, ROOTDEV and SWAPDEV.
 while :; do
+       for _dk in $(get_dkdevs | sed s,^$,none, ); do
+               dmesg |grep "$_dk:" |sed -n '$p'
+       done
        ask_which "disk" "is the root disk" '$(get_dkdevs | sed s,^$,none, )'
        [[ $resp == done ]] && exit
        [[ $resp != none ]] && break

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Kenneth R Westerback
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:40:47PM -0700, Barry Grumbine wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Though OpenBSD installer is not the main feature of OpenBSD for me (it
> > is only used to install OS anyway), I wouldn't like it to change in any
> > way now, as I just can't think of a way to make it better.
> >
>
> Sorry, hate to beat a dead horse...  There is one use case where I
> would like to see the installer enhanced:
>
> I have a laptop with OpenBSD installed.
> I want to install to a flash/USB drive, or SD card, or eSATA drive...
> I start the laptop with boot > bsd.rd
> Select (I)nstall
> Eventually get to the question:
>
> Available disks are: sd0 sd1 sd2
> Which one is the root disk? (or 'done') [sd0]
>
> At this point I usually say "oh crap", hit ^c, and go read the dmesg
> or `disklabel sd1` to make sure I pick the right disk.

Why not 'oh crap, hit "!", check the disks, exit, and then answer the
question'? No need to restart when a shell is a "!" away. Exiting the
shell reprints the last question.

I don't think the size will let everyone identify the disks. Many of my
setups have multiple disks with the same size.

.... Ken

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

richo-2
In reply to this post by Leonardo Sabino dos Santos
On 07/03/12 15:27 +0100, Leonardo Sabino dos Santos wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Russell Garrison
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I am absolutely intrigued by this story despite my better judgement.
>> You were able to cook your own full OpenBSD installer on a USB stick
>> with GRUB instead of downloading an ISO or using PXE, but you failed
>> disk setup in the installer? It really would be interesting to see if
>> you can read just http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html , particularly
>> 4.5.3 and then come back to us with anything other than a mea culpa.
>
>I admit to pressing Enter at some of the questions without reading
>carefully. It simply never crossed my mind that the default action for
>the installer is to erase the whole disk without chance for review. I
>still think that's a disaster waiting to happen.

You made a stupid assumption. It bit you.

I don't see the problem here, you're in the midst of installing an operating
system, it wants to make big changes to your system. Pay attention.

--
richo || Today's excuse:

microelectronic Riemannian curved-space fault in write-only file system
http://blog.psych0tik.net

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Ted Unangst-6
In reply to this post by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:40:47PM -0700, Barry Grumbine wrote:

>> Available disks are: sd0 sd1 sd2
>> Which one is the root disk? (or 'done') [sd0]
>>
>> At this point I usually say "oh crap", hit ^c, and go read the dmesg
>> or `disklabel sd1` to make sure I pick the right disk.
>
> Why not 'oh crap, hit "!", check the disks, exit, and then answer the
> question'? No need to restart when a shell is a "!" away. Exiting the
> shell reprints the last question.

I think the installer should present enough possible that escaping to
shell and restarting is the option of last resort, not standard
procedure.

> I don't think the size will let everyone identify the disks. Many of my
> setups have multiple disks with the same size.

It would have helped me a few times.  Even if it doesn't, the proposed
change isn't adding questions or interfering with existing users, so
I'd call it an improvement.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
In reply to this post by Barry Grumbine-2
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:40 -0700, Barry Grumbine wrote:
> Available disks are: sd0 sd1 sd2
> Which one is the root disk? (or 'done') [sd0]
>
> At this point I usually say "oh crap", hit ^c, and go read the dmesg
> or `disklabel sd1` to make sure I pick the right disk.

That's interesting, as for me bsd.rd only creates sd0, so I have to find
the right sdN in dmesg and then "cd /dev; sh MAKEDEV sdN" if I want to
install OS there...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Anonymous Remailer (austria)
> That's interesting, as for me bsd.rd only creates sd0, so I have to find
> the right sdN in dmesg and then "cd /dev; sh MAKEDEV sdN" if I want to
> install OS there...

as somebody else said the easiest thing is to use whatever fdisk you prefer
and make an OpenBSD partition before starting the OBSD installer. The OBSD
installer usually finds that and you go right to disklabel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by Leonardo Sabino dos Santos
* Leonardo Sabino dos Santos <[hidden email]> [2012-03-07 19:44]:
> That being said, I think Dave understands the problem very well. That
> is probably the most dangerous point in the installation. It's
> dangerous even for experienced users (anyone can get distracted and
> screw up), but much more so for those who come from a different
> background, and the reason for that is that it's unexpected.

Let's put it that way: I have done hundreds, if not thousands, of
OpenBSD installs and I have never run into this "problem". And it's
not just me, we're having this for a couple of years and I don't
remember this coming up ever before. Which pretty much indicates that
this is just not a problem in practice.

> Maybe the OpenBSD philosophy is just not for me.

Maybe you just need to be a bit more open-minded and stop assuming
OpenBSD is just another Linux.

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services. Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed
Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Benny Lofgren
In reply to this post by daniel holtzman
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" <[hidden email]>:
>>>> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 13:05 +0100, Benny Lofgren wrote:

> 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...

So you state that the fact that "if one chooses to use the whole disk,
the whole disk is used" needs further documentation?

Hell no! There is no improvement in making 100% clear statement twice as
long just because of one user who failed to read that statement. More
precisely, it is clear direct damage, as it makes the "text/information"
ratio twice as high with no increase in the "information" part.

Actually, we already have a two decade-long history of gradual
improvement of Linux in exactly this regard that many of us (or me at
least) owe our transition *from* Linux to OpenBSD.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Lars Hansson-5
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So you state that the fact that "if one chooses to use the whole disk,
> the whole disk is used" needs further documentation?

Well, since this is the one of the few (only?) destructive actions the
installer takes
I can certainly see why being really clear could be considered an improvement.
That said, I have never had this problem myself but maybe that's because I
only very rarely install on multi-boot systems. I don't need this
particular feature
but it won't bother me if it is implemented either.

> Hell no! There is no improvement in making 100% clear statement twice as
> long just because of one user who failed to read that statement. More
> precisely, it is clear direct damage, as it makes the "text/information"
> ratio twice as high with no increase in the "information" part.

I can remember when people said similar things about the installer in the
early 2000's.
Funny how it has been improved since then with all kinds of stuff, like not
having to manually calculate the slice sizes and deal with LBA/CHS etc.

Cheers,
Lars

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Eric Furman-3
In reply to this post by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 01:33 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 13:05 +0100, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> > 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...
>
> So you state that the fact that "if one chooses to use the whole disk,
> the whole disk is used" needs further documentation?
>
> Hell no! There is no improvement in making 100% clear statement twice as
> long just because of one user who failed to read that statement. More
> precisely, it is clear direct damage, as it makes the "text/information"
> ratio twice as high with no increase in the "information" part.
>
> Actually, we already have a two decade-long history of gradual
> improvement of Linux in exactly this regard that many of us (or me at
> least) owe our transition *from* Linux to OpenBSD.

Please remove all references to dual-booting from the FAQ.
Thank you.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My OpenBSD 5.0 installation experience (long rant)

Eric Furman-3
In reply to this post by Lars Hansson-5
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 08:47 PM, Lars Hansson wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > So you state that the fact that "if one chooses to use the whole disk,
> > the whole disk is used" needs further documentation?
>
> Well, since this is the one of the few (only?) destructive actions the
> installer takes
> I can certainly see why being really clear could be considered an
> improvement.
> That said, I have never had this problem myself but maybe that's because
> I
> only very rarely install on multi-boot systems. I don't need this
> particular feature
> but it won't bother me if it is implemented either.
>
> > Hell no! There is no improvement in making 100% clear statement twice as
> > long just because of one user who failed to read that statement. More
> > precisely, it is clear direct damage, as it makes the "text/information"
> > ratio twice as high with no increase in the "information" part.
>
> I can remember when people said similar things about the installer in the
> early 2000's.
> Funny how it has been improved since then with all kinds of stuff, like
> not
> having to manually calculate the slice sizes and deal with LBA/CHS etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Lars
>
>

Please remove all references to multibooting from the FAQ.
Thank you.

123456