I think the people arguing that the LiveCD *IS* the install cd think this because, at least since Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper), to get a console-only install you had to download the "Alternate" install cd
"Use a Live CD." Don't have one. "You mean you didn't burn that along with the install CD?" Didn't say to. "You mean you didn't try the install on a spare box first?" You're fucking kidding me, right? (This was before they combined them, geniuses.)
See the bold disclaimer? I specifically pointed out that this was before they combined the two.
Now, let's count the number of people who went ahead with the the insightful bit of knowledge that the two CDs are the same, shall we?
1 2 3 4 5 (Note: this is one of the idiots from today. Ooh! It's the girl-Linux-user!) Just a minute or so of browsing through, I'm sure there's more.
So, got a better excuse?
It's like, the gene that makes you want to switch to Linux also makes you not read posts.
In fairness, of course, number 4 claimed that the install CD *that I really was using* still counts as a Live CD, just without prettiness. The problem with that argument, is, of course, that I did try to follow someone's advice about how to fix the problem by running the OS off the CD, and that didn't work either.
Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it hasn't had extensive testing.
Oh, I'm sure it was, just not enough to justify HIGHLY RECOMMENDING that it be installed over an MBR.
I just find it highly ironic that you spew what you do about people not reading what you are typing, have the signature you have, and just can't seem to read their responses all the way through for content before you lash back out.
Example?
Be careful -- it's painful when you find the error is on your end.
That might be interesting for slashdotters, but some people want computers that actually work without fangling with external media drives and magic keyboard buttons. I like to press the power button and have it load Ubuntu or $DISTRO without this nonsense.
*tears of mirth*
Yeah, I don't want to have to fangle with all that messy hitting-F8, then selecting a drive. That's gosh, just so COMPLICATED! I'd much rather risk locking myself out of all operating systems and hardware so that I can go find an extra computer to beg for help until I can access my own files. YES!! SO LIBERATING! It's so user-friendly to suppress my frustration so I can nicely ask some snobs what arcane command I have to enter so that I can get back into my original OS!
Because the last thing I'd want to have to do is hit F8 at startup. Every interface designer knows that is just not cool.
Also, you're not really solving the problem, you've just offloaded it to the CD disk. If the bootloader is screwed up, it will be screwed up on your CD as well so you gain nothing.
Um, yeah, except that I'd be able to load Windows still, as if nothing had happened before. Then -- and I'm going out on a limb here -- I'd be able to access the high-speed internet connection and CD burner. Then, if someone ever told me I had to burn a new CD to fix the problem, I'd be able to do it.
But if the bootloader did fail, well, no one would suggest burning a CD... right?
Er...what? Your question was "What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time? Instead of simply deciding that the software wasn't for you, did you decide to bacome an anti-Ubuntu evangelist? Do you want attention? Revenge?"
I answered that question. No "herculean effort to avoid" it.
You're apparently just as wise as the rest of the Ubuntu users:
"I tried re-installing already, several times." "Ooh! Try re-installing!" "I don't have a burner." "But... er... how could you have burned it the first time?" "At the time I tried the switch, the install CD was different from the Live CD." "omg moron don't you know that they merged them?" "Answer my question." [Answers question.] "In an effort to avoid answering my questions, you've answered my question. Bastard." [storms off]
Seeing a giant flame-war every time a story that has something peripherally to do with Ubuntu is getting old. What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time?
Hold on -- I don't bring it up every time. I need about a three-month karma-whoring period between any two stories in which I'm going to criticize Ubuntu so I can build a sufficient buffer in between. Just thought I'd point that out. Draw your own conclusions. (Draw further conclusions from the fact that I'm invariably modded up to 4 or 5 on my initial post on such matters, and not for "funny" either, only to be hammered right back down, possibly with a few intervening cycles.)
What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time? Instead of simply deciding that the software wasn't for you, did you decide to bacome an anti-Ubuntu evangelist? Do you want attention? Revenge?
Answer:
If Ubuntu's that bad, people will stop using it. It really is that simple.
Well, the problem is that that claim is wrong. It would be more accurate to say, "If Ubuntu's that bad, it will not gain additional users." Because people who use it are completely ignorant of why it's not catching on. I can understand why people would treat Linux as a programmer's OS and expect it to maintain small marketshare. I can understand why Linux users would make a serious effort to make it usable by a broader audience, and wonder why it doesn't catch on. I cannot understand why people would make such a pitiful effort to make it usable, and stay in serious wonder as to why it has not caught on.
The answer is right in front of you all: the design is a mess! Whose idea was it to bet everything on Grub, even though that would transform "You can't install this OS" into "And you can't get into your original either, SUCKER!" ? And remember, that's just the part I can see *before* looking at the code.
And what had to happen to put me in my predicament? First, Grub had to be strongly recommended with not explanation of any possible risks. THEN Grub had to fail. THEN, it had to freeze my computer. THEN the directory for the menu.1st file had to be missing (hehe, remember, "Hey, just copy/paste your menu.1st file into the forum!" ?). THEN certain commands had to fail. If any one of those had not happened, the install would have gone fine, or at least not lock me out.
I can guarantee you that if someone ever did make Linux user-friendly, they would be reviled as "destroying the community". (cf. Deaf people who oppose cochlear implants.) People don't use Linux because the Linux users don't want them to use Linux. Oh, they're charming to those who "make the switch", but only after you've established that you're "one of them", i.e., geeky enough not to "bring down" the community.
So I am telling you now, and I will continue to tell you, why Linux isn't being adopted: because no one wants to do what's necessary for that to happen. You can accept that, or you can change that, but please, don't complain about the choices of 90% of the market. Light a match before you gripe about the darkness.
"Most people have more than one hard drive"? Since when?
Well, replace "most people" with "Most people who install Linux on a desktop".
I've never bought a computer and had it come with two hard drives.
As differentiated from all the computers that come with Linux pre-installed.
Most people do not open their computer and add hard drives
Right, and most people, to their better judgment, don't install Linux. Within the set of Linux users, it's a different story.
. If you are good enough with computers to know how to install multiple hard drives, you should be good enough to know how boot loaders work,
How do you get that? I've installed installed new hard drives, several times, without even having to hear the term "boot loader".
Look, the deal is, if you don't install GRUB *somewhere* it can't load and therefore cannot boot your Linux kernel.
Even so, that *somewhere* (as my point all along) doesn't have to be over the MBR on the main HD. One can load Linux by telling the computer to boot from a different HD, or even from a CD drive! Either of which would have been a no-brainer decision to offer from a software design perspective, but of course, the user interface design people were pulled off that effort to work on cutesier names for the Ubuntu versions so as to appeal to people of your persuasion. I just don't think that was a good choice, is all.
-Having only one hard drive and installing Linux on one partition of it: normal. -Test-installing Linux on a separate, disposable box to hedge against the realistic probability of being locked out: normal. -Installing Linux on a non-main hard drive to hedge against the realistic probabilty of being locked out: WTF how are we supposed to accomodate weirdos like you????
Most people have more than one hard drive, and I don't think it was some kind of abnormal case they couldn't anticipate.
In any case, the problem is more that it doesn't explain the risks of the HIGHLY RECOMMENDED Grub install. There's no footnote that warns against the risk. In fact, it says (or implies, I can't remember) that the "safest" option is just to wipe the Windows MBR. Huh?
And telling them that wouldn't have helped with my problem at the time, only with future installs -- the Windows MBR was already gone, and even then, it would only mean that I'm "only" locked out of Linux.
The easiest fix would be to accomodate whatever was causing Grub error 25. That was diagnosed early on, and I received no answer.
Yes, but the bag doesn't have your mass. If it did, you would have to fall back more. And before you say, "but my feet have a good grip on the ground", remember that you also have to worry about the rotation. The friction applies horizontally at your feet. The stronger that force is, the stronger the moment that tilts you backward.
Wow, you took that "The LiveCD was the right solution all along bit" and ran with it, eh? I mean, you seriously beat that horse well into its afterlife.
If the first reply had been to format all drives, and I eventually had to resort to doing that, would that have been "the right solution all along"?
No, that's a last-ditch solution you don't want to try first.
If finding someone I knew with a high-speed connection and CD burner were easy, I would have done that from the beginning. It wasn't. My brother's a 90+ minute drive away. A Live CD was not the right solution all along, simply because it should have been possible to fix from the install CD. Well, except replace "was" with "should have been".
Are you going to go to all the people in the previous story I linked, who insisted that "LiveCD = install CD", and correct them? Or are you going to join the chorus of people who think I'm supposed to know in advance which STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS I should take and which I should ignore, even when they contradict each other?
Which is it: is the install CD a LiveCD, or isn't it?
Do you recall the exact some post where he also said "Since you're reading this, you have a computer at your fingertips"? He was pretty clearly implying that you should have access to CD burning technology regardless of the state of your own computer.
Of course -- there exist CD burners in the world, irrespective of what happend to my computer. But what does his point about *my* access to *a* computer mean? He was implying that because I have access to a computer, I *must* have access to a CD burner. That's ridiculous as well.
Summary: "I feel a profound sense of entitlement to the efforts of a community of volunteers, because I'm special."
No, "Summary: you make the same points over there, so see my reply over there." But since you want me to reply here, I will.
Apparently, you missed the point in all that. I didn't feel entitled to help. I just had very minimal expections of what would happen, such as "that it not lock me out of my computer". I didn't even feel entitled to a response, whatever ridiculous assumption you might have been making to stroke your ego. But I thought that people wouldn't respond unless they read the post. And then I thought if people responded without reading my posts, I wouldn't be lectured on how important it is to include certain information in my posts, so that people wouldn't make responses that assume it wasn't given. Wrong, on both counts.
I wonder, how frustrated would *you* be if you did someone a favor and in return, an unforseeable, drastic event occurred? Like, say, you lost your legs trying to fix someone's fireplace, and someone told you, "Oh, it's easy to fix your legs, just walk over to the hospital on..." I'm sure you'd be calm and collected too.
Maybe it is poor software design, but that's not even the point. The first suggestion fixed your problem, but somehow it's their fault.
Yes, that is the point, and it is "their fault". If a Live CD is necessary for ths most rudimentary troubleshooting on software that has virtually no testing, the website should recommend you download this when you install. That solution goes far out of my way and it should not have been necessary, since all troubleshooting should have been either possible via the install CD, or it should be listed in the "required downloads". (Of course, you *might* want to have a word with the 30 people who claim that the install CD *is* the Live CD, but logical consitency is apparently not a requirement for Ubuntu advocacy.)
Kinda odd that a flaky, unnecessary bootloader's installation to the MBR is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, and in fact, SO HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you don't need to know any of the potential risks of doing so (even if it will necessitate software you weren't told to download), but the Live CD, which is necessary to fix any problem... isn't.
There's no "maybe". That is poor software design, period. Software design isn't just about hammering out as many lines of code as you can; it involves thinking about the end user. But apparently, the user interface designers were pulled off to work on the far-more-important project of thinking up cutesy names for each version, for heaven forbid we be taken seriously, right?
Apparently, some people want me to sugar-coat this: "Oh, golly gee sir, it sure would be nice if you adhered to minimal standards of software design, because that might get more people to use it."
You can have a programmer's OS and know why people won't use it; or, you can make a minimal effort to make it usable and wonder why people don't. What I object to is those that want to have it both ways.
I think you're referring to the fact that a broken bootloader makes it hard to boot as "poor software design."
Your assumption is in error.
I'm referring to the fact that a flaky bootloader is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, and there's no warning whatsoever about what will happen if it fails, when I already have the viable, low-risk option of having Linux boot by telling the BIOS to boot from a CD or a different hard drive when I want to go into it.
Yes, failing to consider ways to bolster a critical path, is poor software design, regardless of the brokenness of the HIGHLY RECOMMENDED bootloader.
I also don't see why it has to freeze on an error and refuse further input, but I'm going to err in Grub's favor and assume that it must, since I don't know much about it, even though most people casually assumed I could give it further input.
Unfortunately, you didn't follow the suggestions that could have helped. You also assumed that you knew the solution to the problem,
Um, GRUB spit out the message "Error 25". I was just following up on that.
Go ahead, I want to hear it again: "You shouldn't have followed the instructions, you idiot."
You absolutely don't need proprietary software to install GNU/Linux. You, quite unfortunately, didn't download the desktop CD. I'm not sure why,
Because the website didn't say to. It wasn't recommended, let alone HIGHLY RECOMMENDED like Grub -- which was a mistake to listen to the recommendation of. Plus, I could do everything necessary from the command line through the install CD interface, it's just that when I did do this, and it failed, and I posted the error message for that, no one did anything.
I don't suspect it was [sarcasm]
Good. Now, can we ditch the lectures about me not taking responsibility?
So which hard drive was it? Did you even bother checking?
Right over your head...
The same HD that Windows was originally installed on, and yes.
And if you're so clear on every possible cause of the problem, why were you unable to fix it yourself?
Because I didn't know how edit the bootloader. That's exactly the question I was trying to ask once I figured out what the problem was, and the question all the people there went miles out of their way to avoid answering. Go fig.
I don't recall them saying it had to be the computer with the problem [that you used to burn the CD].
Do you recall all the people (including but not limited to the Berkeley guy) who insisted that as a logical consequence of having burned the install CD, I must be able to burn a Live CD?
Sure, this didn't make it easy for you, but I'm willing to bet that with just a little effort you could have found another computer with a burner and a high speed connection.
Oh, of course... that's how I eventually resorted to fixing it. It's still poor software design, and depressing that no one admits it.
Instead you yelled at and insulted members of a community volunteering to help you with a problem for even suggesting that you take the most straightforward method of fixing the computer, because you "shouldn't have to".
Let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say you have a toolshed that contains a blowtorch. Let's say someone recommends a "highly-reliable, Free" lock you can use for the toolshed. Then you use the lock and it melts the door shut so that no key in the world can get you in. Then you ask him what to do about this unforseeable failure of the lock. He says, "don't be silly -- you said you have a blowtorch. Just use that to carve your way back in!"
That's what happened here: not only did they recommend a solution I couldn't do, they recommended a solution I couldn't do specifically because I listened to them in the first place, and which, if possible, would have rendered the problem moot.
Do you now consider my anger at the suggestion justifiable?
GRUB does not explicitly need to know what version of Windows you are using.
Then its location does not depend on which version of Windows I'm using.
BTW, did you ever stop to consider that the cause of your problem was that you chose to install GRUB on the wrong drive? Maybe you missed the part in the installation instructions where it told you to choose the appropriate drive to install GRUB onto, instead of just randomly guessing as you appear to have done.
Um, no. I installed it in the place where it was HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, the main HD. If I had not done so, it would not have tried to run at startup.
Since GRUB was apparently having difficulty in stage 1.5 (where it tries to read from the disk), it's possible that it was looking for the bootloader in the wrong place (since you had three hard drives, a fact which you failed to mention until halfway through). The location of the bootloader would be affected by the Windows version. Depending on whether you're running Windows 95/98/Me or Windows NT/2000/XP, the bootloaders that are installed are completely different.
So GRUB needs to know which version of Windows it's using? Then why didn't the installation screens ask for this when it installed Grub?
Some did, others asked for actual pertinent information or for reasonable -- even if difficult given your situation -- action to assist them in diagnosing your problem for free. You refused them all regardless, saying "I shouldn't have to".
No, if you actually read the thread (*crossing fingers*), I did follow many of their suggestions, specifcally, the ones tailored to the troubleshooting I had already done. None followed up after that.
Is it too much to ask that people read my posts? Are you going to defend the community as a whole, when so many of them didn't bother to read what I had posted?
I have to follow their suggestions? Fine, as long as someone can go on record saying "You need proprietary software to run Ubuntu."
The only things I felt entitled to were:
1) having my posts read 2) non-miserable software design 3) people following up when I try their suggestions 4) people recommending solutions that are possible given my predicament. 5) that attempting to install Ubuntu would, at worst, not work, NOT that it would lock me out of all OSes.
None of those is unreasonable, and all were violated. And you do have to admit there's something fishy about, "Try this operating system, it's the greatest... you have problems? HAHAHA, on your own now, sucker!"
Every day you continue to deny that you had anything to do with that is another day you deny yourself some basic growth as a human being.
Now you're just being unfair. I admitted, right from the get-"go", that this was my fault. Did you read the "It's my fault, really. I never should have..." bit? That wasn't sarcasm.
I openly admit I *never* should have trusted Ubuntu with my home computer. I mean, how can you take the level of software design that produced GIMP and trust your computer with it? That, I have always admitted, was my mistake, and my alone.
But we have to distinguish different levels of responsibility. If I hire a convicted felon to work in child care, and he abuses the children, it is no contradiction to say, "The felon was responsible for abusing the children" *and* "I was irresponsible by not properly screening child care workers." (Spare me the lecture about poor software design not being equivalent to child abuse. It's an ANALOGY.) I absolutely should not have believed the crap on the Ubuntu page. When push comes to shove, you really do need proprietary software to safely run Ubuntu. The crap about it being Free-as-in-speech? Yeah, I shouldn't have believe it. I get that. I learned from the experience: don't be so gullible.
But still, none of that takes away from the poor design that went into Ubuntu.
Are you recommending that ubuntu should not use a bootloader? How in the world is it supposted to boot? I know you can make an active partition and boot that way, but grub seems many times better too me.
I'm recommending that at a minimum it explain that the smallest of errors with the bootloader will lock you out of all operating systems until you can solve the problem working only through the install CD. That DEFINITELY would have influenced my decision.
Even if you only have one HD, you can still have Linux only load when booting off of a CD drive, and then whenever you want Linux to boot, hit F-whatever at startup and tell it to boot that way. A little more cumbersome, but definitely less risky than editing the MBR. Of course I was stupid enough to hedge my bets by putting Linux on a separate HD, so I could have reduced the risk by having Linux only load when that HD was being booted from. (Though as I found out when posting to that forum, apparently you're supposed to test-install every distro on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, disposable box.) And so on.
3) File that must be fixed can't be accessed from the install CD. What kind of file can't be accessed from the install CD? AFAIK, anything on your machine should be accessible and editable from the install CD -- provided you give it the correct commands.
4) Commands to diagnose the problem won't run. I don't know what you used so I can't help here.
Check the ubuntuforum thread. Easy to find -- five people have linked it by now. They told me where to go and what command to run. I did that and reported the results. See for yourself.
So, to clarify, you consider "not reading to the end of a short post" not to contradict your claim that the forum members were patient? And ditto for the other two examples?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean by patient. I mean, "patience" should cover "reading to the end of a short post", right? It should extend to "not throwing up your arms and just telling someone to go with the proprietary solution on an OS that touts its Free-as-in-speech-ness", right? It should extend to listening to an explanation why "having burned a CD before on a now-disabled computer" does not imply that I am able to burn one now, right?
I'm just trying to find this "patience" you alluded to. Please help me out here.
Alright, then I'll give you the floor: explain to me why the solution to Grub error 25 at stage 1.5 on a dual boot Windows/Ubuntu install, could hinge on which version of Windows it is.
It is not a strawman to say that a) you had a car with a very loud (BY YOUR LENIENT STANDARDS) diesel engine, b) you drive your car knowing this, c) people have advised you to slow down.
If you really can't yet figure out why you're a jerk and why people view you as a jerk, there's not much more I can do.
Sure, as long as your conception of "patience" does not extend to "reading all the way to the part of my post where I say I tried re-installing", "reading my explanation of why having burned an install CD on a now-disabled box does not imply I can burn more CDs", and "resorting to proprietary solutions for a supposedly Free-as-in-ESR operating system".
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, let's test that assumption.
Here is my original post. Check out this line:
See the bold disclaimer? I specifically pointed out that this was before they combined the two.
Now, let's count the number of people who went ahead with the the insightful bit of knowledge that the two CDs are the same, shall we?
1
2
3
4
5 (Note: this is one of the idiots from today. Ooh! It's the girl-Linux-user!)
Just a minute or so of browsing through, I'm sure there's more.
So, got a better excuse?
It's like, the gene that makes you want to switch to Linux also makes you not read posts.
In fairness, of course, number 4 claimed that the install CD *that I really was using* still counts as a Live CD, just without prettiness. The problem with that argument, is, of course, that I did try to follow someone's advice about how to fix the problem by running the OS off the CD, and that didn't work either.
Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it hasn't had extensive testing.
Oh, I'm sure it was, just not enough to justify HIGHLY RECOMMENDING that it be installed over an MBR.
I just find it highly ironic that you spew what you do about people not reading what you are typing, have the signature you have, and just can't seem to read their responses all the way through for content before you lash back out.
Example?
Be careful -- it's painful when you find the error is on your end.
LOL! I'm sorry, that was just funny.
... right?
That might be interesting for slashdotters, but some people want computers that actually work without fangling with external media drives and magic keyboard buttons. I like to press the power button and have it load Ubuntu or $DISTRO without this nonsense.
*tears of mirth*
Yeah, I don't want to have to fangle with all that messy hitting-F8, then selecting a drive. That's gosh, just so COMPLICATED! I'd much rather risk locking myself out of all operating systems and hardware so that I can go find an extra computer to beg for help until I can access my own files. YES!! SO LIBERATING! It's so user-friendly to suppress my frustration so I can nicely ask some snobs what arcane command I have to enter so that I can get back into my original OS!
Because the last thing I'd want to have to do is hit F8 at startup. Every interface designer knows that is just not cool.
Also, you're not really solving the problem, you've just offloaded it to the CD disk. If the bootloader is screwed up, it will be screwed up on your CD as well so you gain nothing.
Um, yeah, except that I'd be able to load Windows still, as if nothing had happened before. Then -- and I'm going out on a limb here -- I'd be able to access the high-speed internet connection and CD burner. Then, if someone ever told me I had to burn a new CD to fix the problem, I'd be able to do it.
But if the bootloader did fail, well, no one would suggest burning a CD
Thanks for the laugh.
Er...what? Your question was "What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time? Instead of simply deciding that the software wasn't for you, did you decide to bacome an anti-Ubuntu evangelist? Do you want attention? Revenge?"
... er ... how could you have burned it the first time?"
I answered that question. No "herculean effort to avoid" it.
You're apparently just as wise as the rest of the Ubuntu users:
"I tried re-installing already, several times." "Ooh! Try re-installing!"
"I don't have a burner." "But
"At the time I tried the switch, the install CD was different from the Live CD." "omg moron don't you know that they merged them?"
"Answer my question." [Answers question.] "In an effort to avoid answering my questions, you've answered my question. Bastard." [storms off]
Join the club, pal.
Wow, why so many unusually-intelligent AC responding?
I'm sorry I didn't say this before, but, the answer to all of that is:
Microsoft isn't desperate to build up inertia; Windows already has inertia.
Ergo, it's not as necessary for them to go out of their way to do all of this.
If I were designing an underdog OS that I wanted to compete on par with Windows, I'd act like it. Make sense?
Seeing a giant flame-war every time a story that has something peripherally to do with Ubuntu is getting old. What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time?
Hold on -- I don't bring it up every time. I need about a three-month karma-whoring period between any two stories in which I'm going to criticize Ubuntu so I can build a sufficient buffer in between. Just thought I'd point that out. Draw your own conclusions. (Draw further conclusions from the fact that I'm invariably modded up to 4 or 5 on my initial post on such matters, and not for "funny" either, only to be hammered right back down, possibly with a few intervening cycles.)
What do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up every time? Instead of simply deciding that the software wasn't for you, did you decide to bacome an anti-Ubuntu evangelist? Do you want attention? Revenge?
Answer:
If Ubuntu's that bad, people will stop using it. It really is that simple.
Well, the problem is that that claim is wrong. It would be more accurate to say, "If Ubuntu's that bad, it will not gain additional users." Because people who use it are completely ignorant of why it's not catching on. I can understand why people would treat Linux as a programmer's OS and expect it to maintain small marketshare. I can understand why Linux users would make a serious effort to make it usable by a broader audience, and wonder why it doesn't catch on. I cannot understand why people would make such a pitiful effort to make it usable, and stay in serious wonder as to why it has not caught on.
The answer is right in front of you all: the design is a mess! Whose idea was it to bet everything on Grub, even though that would transform "You can't install this OS" into "And you can't get into your original either, SUCKER!" ? And remember, that's just the part I can see *before* looking at the code.
And what had to happen to put me in my predicament? First, Grub had to be strongly recommended with not explanation of any possible risks. THEN Grub had to fail. THEN, it had to freeze my computer. THEN the directory for the menu.1st file had to be missing (hehe, remember, "Hey, just copy/paste your menu.1st file into the forum!" ?). THEN certain commands had to fail. If any one of those had not happened, the install would have gone fine, or at least not lock me out.
I can guarantee you that if someone ever did make Linux user-friendly, they would be reviled as "destroying the community". (cf. Deaf people who oppose cochlear implants.) People don't use Linux because the Linux users don't want them to use Linux. Oh, they're charming to those who "make the switch", but only after you've established that you're "one of them", i.e., geeky enough not to "bring down" the community.
So I am telling you now, and I will continue to tell you, why Linux isn't being adopted: because no one wants to do what's necessary for that to happen. You can accept that, or you can change that, but please, don't complain about the choices of 90% of the market. Light a match before you gripe about the darkness.
"Most people have more than one hard drive"? Since when?
Well, replace "most people" with "Most people who install Linux on a desktop".
I've never bought a computer and had it come with two hard drives.
As differentiated from all the computers that come with Linux pre-installed.
Most people do not open their computer and add hard drives
Right, and most people, to their better judgment, don't install Linux. Within the set of Linux users, it's a different story.
. If you are good enough with computers to know how to install multiple hard drives, you should be good enough to know how boot loaders work,
How do you get that? I've installed installed new hard drives, several times, without even having to hear the term "boot loader".
Look, the deal is, if you don't install GRUB *somewhere* it can't load and therefore cannot boot your Linux kernel.
Even so, that *somewhere* (as my point all along) doesn't have to be over the MBR on the main HD. One can load Linux by telling the computer to boot from a different HD, or even from a CD drive! Either of which would have been a no-brainer decision to offer from a software design perspective, but of course, the user interface design people were pulled off that effort to work on cutesier names for the Ubuntu versions so as to appeal to people of your persuasion. I just don't think that was a good choice, is all.
So, to summarize what I've learned:
-Having only one hard drive and installing Linux on one partition of it: normal.
-Test-installing Linux on a separate, disposable box to hedge against the realistic probability of being locked out: normal.
-Installing Linux on a non-main hard drive to hedge against the realistic probabilty of being locked out: WTF how are we supposed to accomodate weirdos like you????
Most people have more than one hard drive, and I don't think it was some kind of abnormal case they couldn't anticipate.
In any case, the problem is more that it doesn't explain the risks of the HIGHLY RECOMMENDED Grub install. There's no footnote that warns against the risk. In fact, it says (or implies, I can't remember) that the "safest" option is just to wipe the Windows MBR. Huh?
And telling them that wouldn't have helped with my problem at the time, only with future installs -- the Windows MBR was already gone, and even then, it would only mean that I'm "only" locked out of Linux.
The easiest fix would be to accomodate whatever was causing Grub error 25. That was diagnosed early on, and I received no answer.
Yes, but the bag doesn't have your mass. If it did, you would have to fall back more. And before you say, "but my feet have a good grip on the ground", remember that you also have to worry about the rotation. The friction applies horizontally at your feet. The stronger that force is, the stronger the moment that tilts you backward.
Wow, you took that "The LiveCD was the right solution all along bit" and ran with it, eh? I mean, you seriously beat that horse well into its afterlife.
..." I'm sure you'd be calm and collected too.
If the first reply had been to format all drives, and I eventually had to resort to doing that, would that have been "the right solution all along"?
No, that's a last-ditch solution you don't want to try first.
If finding someone I knew with a high-speed connection and CD burner were easy, I would have done that from the beginning. It wasn't. My brother's a 90+ minute drive away. A Live CD was not the right solution all along, simply because it should have been possible to fix from the install CD. Well, except replace "was" with "should have been".
Are you going to go to all the people in the previous story I linked, who insisted that "LiveCD = install CD", and correct them? Or are you going to join the chorus of people who think I'm supposed to know in advance which STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS I should take and which I should ignore, even when they contradict each other?
Which is it: is the install CD a LiveCD, or isn't it?
Do you recall the exact some post where he also said "Since you're reading this, you have a computer at your fingertips"? He was pretty clearly implying that you should have access to CD burning technology regardless of the state of your own computer.
Of course -- there exist CD burners in the world, irrespective of what happend to my computer. But what does his point about *my* access to *a* computer mean? He was implying that because I have access to a computer, I *must* have access to a CD burner. That's ridiculous as well.
Summary: "I feel a profound sense of entitlement to the efforts of a community of volunteers, because I'm special."
No, "Summary: you make the same points over there, so see my reply over there." But since you want me to reply here, I will.
Apparently, you missed the point in all that. I didn't feel entitled to help. I just had very minimal expections of what would happen, such as "that it not lock me out of my computer". I didn't even feel entitled to a response, whatever ridiculous assumption you might have been making to stroke your ego. But I thought that people wouldn't respond unless they read the post. And then I thought if people responded without reading my posts, I wouldn't be lectured on how important it is to include certain information in my posts, so that people wouldn't make responses that assume it wasn't given. Wrong, on both counts.
I wonder, how frustrated would *you* be if you did someone a favor and in return, an unforseeable, drastic event occurred? Like, say, you lost your legs trying to fix someone's fireplace, and someone told you, "Oh, it's easy to fix your legs, just walk over to the hospital on
Maybe it is poor software design, but that's not even the point. The first suggestion fixed your problem, but somehow it's their fault.
... isn't.
Yes, that is the point, and it is "their fault". If a Live CD is necessary for ths most rudimentary troubleshooting on software that has virtually no testing, the website should recommend you download this when you install. That solution goes far out of my way and it should not have been necessary, since all troubleshooting should have been either possible via the install CD, or it should be listed in the "required downloads". (Of course, you *might* want to have a word with the 30 people who claim that the install CD *is* the Live CD, but logical consitency is apparently not a requirement for Ubuntu advocacy.)
Kinda odd that a flaky, unnecessary bootloader's installation to the MBR is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, and in fact, SO HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you don't need to know any of the potential risks of doing so (even if it will necessitate software you weren't told to download), but the Live CD, which is necessary to fix any problem
There's no "maybe". That is poor software design, period. Software design isn't just about hammering out as many lines of code as you can; it involves thinking about the end user. But apparently, the user interface designers were pulled off to work on the far-more-important project of thinking up cutesy names for each version, for heaven forbid we be taken seriously, right?
Apparently, some people want me to sugar-coat this: "Oh, golly gee sir, it sure would be nice if you adhered to minimal standards of software design, because that might get more people to use it."
You can have a programmer's OS and know why people won't use it; or, you can make a minimal effort to make it usable and wonder why people don't. What I object to is those that want to have it both ways.
I think you're referring to the fact that a broken bootloader makes it hard to boot as "poor software design."
Your assumption is in error.
I'm referring to the fact that a flaky bootloader is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, and there's no warning whatsoever about what will happen if it fails, when I already have the viable, low-risk option of having Linux boot by telling the BIOS to boot from a CD or a different hard drive when I want to go into it.
Yes, failing to consider ways to bolster a critical path, is poor software design, regardless of the brokenness of the HIGHLY RECOMMENDED bootloader.
I also don't see why it has to freeze on an error and refuse further input, but I'm going to err in Grub's favor and assume that it must, since I don't know much about it, even though most people casually assumed I could give it further input.
Oh, but I thought the install CD *was* the live CD -- you know, like thirty people in the story I linked, claimed?
And if their specific Live CD is necessary for troubleshooting or fixing stuff like this, why isn't the Live CD HIGHLY RECOMMENDED like Grub?
Think about it.
Unfortunately, you didn't follow the suggestions that could have helped. You also assumed that you knew the solution to the problem,
Um, GRUB spit out the message "Error 25". I was just following up on that.
Go ahead, I want to hear it again: "You shouldn't have followed the instructions, you idiot."
You absolutely don't need proprietary software to install GNU/Linux. You, quite unfortunately, didn't download the desktop CD. I'm not sure why,
Because the website didn't say to. It wasn't recommended, let alone HIGHLY RECOMMENDED like Grub -- which was a mistake to listen to the recommendation of. Plus, I could do everything necessary from the command line through the install CD interface, it's just that when I did do this, and it failed, and I posted the error message for that, no one did anything.
I don't suspect it was [sarcasm]
Good. Now, can we ditch the lectures about me not taking responsibility?
So which hard drive was it? Did you even bother checking?
Right over your head...
The same HD that Windows was originally installed on, and yes.
And if you're so clear on every possible cause of the problem, why were you unable to fix it yourself?
Because I didn't know how edit the bootloader. That's exactly the question I was trying to ask once I figured out what the problem was, and the question all the people there went miles out of their way to avoid answering. Go fig.
Wherever Ubuntu HIGHLY RECOMMENDS it install Grub.
:-)
Which, by the way, doesn't depend on which version of Windows you're using.
I don't recall them saying it had to be the computer with the problem [that you used to burn the CD].
... that's how I eventually resorted to fixing it. It's still poor software design, and depressing that no one admits it.
Do you recall all the people (including but not limited to the Berkeley guy) who insisted that as a logical consequence of having burned the install CD, I must be able to burn a Live CD?
Sure, this didn't make it easy for you, but I'm willing to bet that with just a little effort you could have found another computer with a burner and a high speed connection.
Oh, of course
Instead you yelled at and insulted members of a community volunteering to help you with a problem for even suggesting that you take the most straightforward method of fixing the computer, because you "shouldn't have to".
Let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say you have a toolshed that contains a blowtorch. Let's say someone recommends a "highly-reliable, Free" lock you can use for the toolshed. Then you use the lock and it melts the door shut so that no key in the world can get you in. Then you ask him what to do about this unforseeable failure of the lock. He says, "don't be silly -- you said you have a blowtorch. Just use that to carve your way back in!"
That's what happened here: not only did they recommend a solution I couldn't do, they recommended a solution I couldn't do specifically because I listened to them in the first place, and which, if possible, would have rendered the problem moot.
Do you now consider my anger at the suggestion justifiable?
See my other reply to you for the rest.
GRUB does not explicitly need to know what version of Windows you are using.
Then its location does not depend on which version of Windows I'm using.
BTW, did you ever stop to consider that the cause of your problem was that you chose to install GRUB on the wrong drive? Maybe you missed the part in the installation instructions where it told you to choose the appropriate drive to install GRUB onto, instead of just randomly guessing as you appear to have done.
Um, no. I installed it in the place where it was HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, the main HD. If I had not done so, it would not have tried to run at startup.
Since GRUB was apparently having difficulty in stage 1.5 (where it tries to read from the disk), it's possible that it was looking for the bootloader in the wrong place (since you had three hard drives, a fact which you failed to mention until halfway through). The location of the bootloader would be affected by the Windows version. Depending on whether you're running Windows 95/98/Me or Windows NT/2000/XP, the bootloaders that are installed are completely different.
So GRUB needs to know which version of Windows it's using? Then why didn't the installation screens ask for this when it installed Grub?
Some did, others asked for actual pertinent information or for reasonable -- even if difficult given your situation -- action to assist them in diagnosing your problem for free. You refused them all regardless, saying "I shouldn't have to".
... you have problems? HAHAHA, on your own now, sucker!"
..." bit? That wasn't sarcasm.
No, if you actually read the thread (*crossing fingers*), I did follow many of their suggestions, specifcally, the ones tailored to the troubleshooting I had already done. None followed up after that.
Is it too much to ask that people read my posts? Are you going to defend the community as a whole, when so many of them didn't bother to read what I had posted?
I have to follow their suggestions? Fine, as long as someone can go on record saying "You need proprietary software to run Ubuntu."
The only things I felt entitled to were:
1) having my posts read
2) non-miserable software design
3) people following up when I try their suggestions
4) people recommending solutions that are possible given my predicament.
5) that attempting to install Ubuntu would, at worst, not work, NOT that it would lock me out of all OSes.
None of those is unreasonable, and all were violated. And you do have to admit there's something fishy about, "Try this operating system, it's the greatest
Every day you continue to deny that you had anything to do with that is another day you deny yourself some basic growth as a human being.
Now you're just being unfair. I admitted, right from the get-"go", that this was my fault. Did you read the "It's my fault, really. I never should have
I openly admit I *never* should have trusted Ubuntu with my home computer. I mean, how can you take the level of software design that produced GIMP and trust your computer with it? That, I have always admitted, was my mistake, and my alone.
But we have to distinguish different levels of responsibility. If I hire a convicted felon to work in child care, and he abuses the children, it is no contradiction to say, "The felon was responsible for abusing the children" *and* "I was irresponsible by not properly screening child care workers." (Spare me the lecture about poor software design not being equivalent to child abuse. It's an ANALOGY.) I absolutely should not have believed the crap on the Ubuntu page. When push comes to shove, you really do need proprietary software to safely run Ubuntu. The crap about it being Free-as-in-speech? Yeah, I shouldn't have believe it. I get that. I learned from the experience: don't be so gullible.
But still, none of that takes away from the poor design that went into Ubuntu.
Are you recommending that ubuntu should not use a bootloader? How in the world is it supposted to boot? I know you can make an active partition and boot that way, but grub seems many times better too me.
I'm recommending that at a minimum it explain that the smallest of errors with the bootloader will lock you out of all operating systems until you can solve the problem working only through the install CD. That DEFINITELY would have influenced my decision.
Even if you only have one HD, you can still have Linux only load when booting off of a CD drive, and then whenever you want Linux to boot, hit F-whatever at startup and tell it to boot that way. A little more cumbersome, but definitely less risky than editing the MBR. Of course I was stupid enough to hedge my bets by putting Linux on a separate HD, so I could have reduced the risk by having Linux only load when that HD was being booted from. (Though as I found out when posting to that forum, apparently you're supposed to test-install every distro on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, disposable box.) And so on.
3) File that must be fixed can't be accessed from the install CD.
What kind of file can't be accessed from the install CD? AFAIK, anything on your machine should be accessible and editable from the install CD -- provided you give it the correct commands.
4) Commands to diagnose the problem won't run.
I don't know what you used so I can't help here.
Check the ubuntuforum thread. Easy to find -- five people have linked it by now. They told me where to go and what command to run. I did that and reported the results. See for yourself.
So, to clarify, you consider "not reading to the end of a short post" not to contradict your claim that the forum members were patient? And ditto for the other two examples?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean by patient. I mean, "patience" should cover "reading to the end of a short post", right? It should extend to "not throwing up your arms and just telling someone to go with the proprietary solution on an OS that touts its Free-as-in-speech-ness", right? It should extend to listening to an explanation why "having burned a CD before on a now-disabled computer" does not imply that I am able to burn one now, right?
I'm just trying to find this "patience" you alluded to. Please help me out here.
Alright, then I'll give you the floor: explain to me why the solution to Grub error 25 at stage 1.5 on a dual boot Windows/Ubuntu install, could hinge on which version of Windows it is.
It is not a strawman to say that a) you had a car with a very loud (BY YOUR LENIENT STANDARDS) diesel engine, b) you drive your car knowing this, c) people have advised you to slow down.
If you really can't yet figure out why you're a jerk and why people view you as a jerk, there's not much more I can do.
Sure, as long as your conception of "patience" does not extend to "reading all the way to the part of my post where I say I tried re-installing", "reading my explanation of why having burned an install CD on a now-disabled box does not imply I can burn more CDs", and "resorting to proprietary solutions for a supposedly Free-as-in-ESR operating system".