1 |
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: |
2 |
> Elaine C. Sharpe wrote: |
3 |
>> In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> Yep, I read about others having problems and loosing data. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Dale |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> :-) :-) |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>> You can read about others having problems and losing data with pretty |
13 |
>> much every bit of software ever coded. *Lots* of people are not particularly |
14 |
>> competent and write horroe stories or bad reviews without bothering to |
15 |
>> mention the errors they made which actually caused the problem. |
16 |
>> I see evidence of that on this very list daily. So IMO your method is |
17 |
>> a bit suspect. :) |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The opposite can be said too. I seem to recall hal working for a lot of |
22 |
> people but for me, it was a miserable failure and forced me into a hard |
23 |
> reset. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
So, if your method doesn't really work very well but you invert it and |
27 |
see that then it doesn't work well either that validates the original choice? |
28 |
:) |
29 |
|
30 |
> Just because something works for most people, doesn't mean it will for |
31 |
> everyone either. If you lose data, it doesn't matter. LVM just adds |
32 |
> one more layer of something to go wrong. Me, I don't need the extra |
33 |
> risk of having a system that doesn't boot and a loss of data. I'm sure |
34 |
> there are a lot of people that see it the way I do too. They just don't |
35 |
> need the extra risk. |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
Using the least number of layers of abstraction you can get away with is |
39 |
a perfectly valid criteria. What I was pointing out was that informal |
40 |
polls of users with a sad story to tell is not a very effective way to |
41 |
conduct research. People say all kinds of things that just aren't true. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
...she kept arranging and rearranging the rabbit and kind of waving to it. I decided, "this is the person I want to sit next to". |