This is my final (summary) post to this thread, unless someone has something new to add. It's gone on long enough, IMHO. I absolutely believe that asking users to partition up the disks makes a traditional unix install harder than, e.g., a windows install. The benefits of partitioning can only be realized if the partitioner has a firm picture of what he wants the system to do. A beginner doesn't have that knowledge, and it's futile for us to try to guess at it. (Will he suddenly decide to start a web server to hand out mp3's of his band? Will he install every package at the beginning before he realizes he doesn't want them all and does a major uninstall? Maybe he wants to start with a minimal system and then install everything else once the basics are working.) Asking that beginner to partition drops a lot on him right up front: what is a partition? why might he want one? how are they accessed? (unix partitions ain't dos partitions; I still remember wonder what the equivalent to a: was when I say my first linux box) can he change them around later (or is this as momentous and terrifying decision as it seems?) For someone who knows how all of that works, it's no big deal. But that knowledgable person will look for and find the partitioning option under the advanced menu. Regardless of the default, the advanced user can get what he wants. But the beginner is better served by easily getting his system to the point where he can run basic apps and feel like he's accomplished something. (Getting stuck at the partitioning menu does *not* inspire confidence.) I've watched people installing linux, I've watched them get confused. This can really be a problem for a first-time or casual user. In defense of partitioning I'm hearing arguments of fragmentation, protection of certain areas of free space, protection from fs corruption in crashes, etc. But these are really not significan issues 99% of the time. I can say this from experience: I've been running a single-partition system at home for a while now. (Well, mostly: I've got a seperate /boot and some extra space that didn't fit into my raid group.) There's so much free space on most end-user hard disks today that fragmentation is very unlikely. Coralling off critical areas is a good idea when you're protecting the system against users, but is impossible and futile when the only user has root privilage and lacks experience. The fs corruption issue isn't statistically all that likely, IMHO isn't that relevant on the casual user's system anyway. (Both because the data isn't going to be worth much and because losing part of the system is as good as losing the whole system for someone without the skills to put things back together.) What I'd like to see is a default installation routine which a windos user can run to get a simple, working system without much trouble. Not a system that's optimum for every need, but one that can drop in as a windows replacement. I want the install process to be a positive experience which leaves the user eager for more. I don't want to see an install process that confuses and frustrates the user with questions and options that don't mean anything to him. As an experienced user, I'm never going to use that default installation--I'll go for the custom install that puts things where I want them. But why burden the new user with the options I want to micromanage my system? Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpTzpHvcS4P_.pgp
Description: PGP signature