disk partitioning problem (ignore the first e-mail I did not mean to send that one)

[Mike McCarty]

Jeff Vian wrote:

[snip]
>>>All of us have different hardware. Some hardware is picky and has to be
>>>treated with kid gloves and babied.  Most is very standard and "just
>>>works".
>>
>>I think the use of the term FsCKED UP DISINFORMATION was extreme.
>>
> 
> I have never used that term,  Read my post again.
> FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) hardly has the meaning you are
> attributing to it (in most circles at least).  FUD has been around as an
> acronym for a LONG time with the meaning I use -- more than ten years
> IIRC.  I believe it was originally attributed to the way M$ spread doubt

Your experience goes back 10 years huh? Well, FUD is an old military
term going back to before World War II. Like FUBAR, it came in
perhaps "cleaned up" into the C community as foo and bar.

> about Linux many years ago, with the intent of keeping users on a system
> they already knew and were familiar with and discouraging competition.
> (Are you familiar with the anti-trust lawsuit.) It may have been
> bastardized to your meaning, but yours is not the original, and
> certainly not what I said.

Umm? I recall my dad using it when I was a kid. I'm 53 now.

> 
>>>If you read the archives here, very few have ever had the extreme
>>>problems you relate, although I do not doubt your word or experiences.
>>
>>Hmm. That contrasts with your use of the term DISINFORMATION.
>>
> 
> No, the FUD comes from telling people in an authoritative manner that
> YOUR experience is what ALL can expect.  In fact few will have the

I don't recall saying that.

> problem you related and your attitude and delivery spreads -- well Fear,
> Uncertainty, and Doubt.  Both about the software and about the
> prospective users ability to master it.

Hmm. The fact that I have a system which does it ought to give
some hope that it can be done. I didn't say it was horrible, I said
it is tricky.

[snip]

> You have to admit every manufacturer makes their product as unique as
> they can to lock the purchaser into their service. Your experience was
> engineered by the hardware manufacturer to do exactly what it did.
> 
> 
>>And even if the install works 99+% of the time, that is no comfort
>>for the one who gets bitten. A slow but sure step-by-step procedure
>>is much better, especially when dealing with someone who does not
>>know what a disc partition is. It's much easier to recover when one
>>has his feet under him, and is familiar with other boot techniques
>>from the outset, and knows exactly at what step things failed.
>>
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Yet if we are discouraged from even trying what is the point?

I can't think of one thing which I wrote which was intended to
discourage, or which should have discouraged, anyone who really
wanted to build a multi-boot system. I sketchily outlined a
step-by-step procedure which is guaranteed to work with XP.
Let it handle the multi-boot. It has a nice multi-boot procedure,
intended to work with other OSs. Why not use it?

> A better approach would be to give all the facts....  Your specific
> hardware provided your experience.... Others seem to have no problems.
> 

I didn't fail to provide "all the facts". I pointed out that
some systems can do what he wants, but not all, and also
outlined how to go about recovery if his wasn't one which
could do it.

"Discourage" indeed.

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.
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!