| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> But I'm not talking about it for users like you and I. |
| 4 |
>> I've said over and over in this thread about regular users and you seem |
| 5 |
>> to be missing that part; it's the entirety of everything I'm saying |
| 6 |
>> here. I didn't say LVM shouldn't be available, I said that installers |
| 7 |
>> shouldn't put it up front and centre in the user's face claiming that |
| 8 |
>> it's awesome. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Your average user has no idea what volume management even is and are |
| 11 |
>> completely lost when it comes up. They just have no mental image of what |
| 12 |
>> it even could be and a tool that is not understood and not used is not |
| 13 |
>> worth installing. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> And yet most Ubuntu users who have no idea what volume management are |
| 16 |
> running just fine with it all the same, and at some point if they ever |
| 17 |
> need to move things around it will make life that much easier for |
| 18 |
> them. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The fact that they've had no issues running this as their default |
| 21 |
> configuration demonstrates that it isn't unsuitable for "regular |
| 22 |
> users." I'm well aware of the argument you're making. I simply |
| 23 |
> disagree with it, as apparently do the maintainers of Ubuntu and the |
| 24 |
> businessmen making money off of it. Decisions on a |
| 25 |
> commercially-backed distro generally don't come down to the whim of |
| 26 |
> one person, at least not if they actually cause problems. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> As far as symlinks go - they're a royal pain in the rear as they force |
| 29 |
> you to micromanage what ends up on which disk, and then when your |
| 30 |
> convoluted rat's nest of symlinks starts to become a problem it |
| 31 |
> becomes that much harder to fix it. Symlinks and mountpoints used to |
| 32 |
> be the only tool in the toolbox, and to this day half of your OS is in |
| 33 |
> /usr and half isn't as a result. :) |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Volume management is a best practice, and it is right for Ubuntu to |
| 36 |
> make it a default for those who don't understand the pros and |
| 37 |
> virtually non-existant cons. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The problem is, if the hard drives fills up, most won't know that they |
| 41 |
can use LVM to expand it by adding a new drive. Since they don't know |
| 42 |
what LVM is, they don't know about the option they have and won't use it |
| 43 |
since they don't know it exists. Using LVM isn't the complete answer. |
| 44 |
Knowing what it is and what it does is what completes the answer to the |
| 45 |
problem. If the user doesn't know what LVM is, then they will be in the |
| 46 |
same situation as they would be if it wasn't used at all. So, using LVM |
| 47 |
or not, they are no better off in reality. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Most people have no idea what goes on inside their computer. All they |
| 50 |
know is, clicking that Firefox/Chrome/Seamonkey/etc icon opens a web |
| 51 |
browser and makes Facebook/email/etc work. Sad but some of my own |
| 52 |
family/friends are like that. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Dale |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
:-) :-) |
Archives