Re: EUREKA!!!! - was [Re: Permissions for an entire PARTITION]
On Sat 29 Oct 2016 at 15:54:59 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:16:18 -0400
> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'll say that the wiki page gave no hint as to which of the three options to
> > install, or any hint that one might work better than another.
>
> The page is describing 'Producing an automated install of a Debian
> operating system from a USB stick', to quote it. For such an advanced
> task it can be safely assumed IMO that the person who's implementing the
> instruction is familiar with the basic concepts of a 'file system' or
> 'mounting'.
The question of providing guidance on which of the three tools to use is
an interesting one. As far as possible a wiki page like this one should
stick to facts and technical matters; venturing into the area of opinion
isn't the way to go, IMO. Do any of these tools have a distinct
technical advantage for the purpose of installing GRUB is the question
to ask and answer? If the answer is "no" don't they deserve equal
exposure?
The tools exist and all can be assumed to work. The choice of which one
to use is up to the user. For many users a couple of clicks on a desktop
will get the stick mounted; others might like the challenge of using a
new tool. A few might say - "Hey, interesting, never knew about that;
I'll give it a go". And then go on to use it in another context.
> It can be argued (again IMO) that the 3 tools proposed are not the best
> ones available for the task, or downright redundant due to availability
> of mount(8), but all three mentioned tools are in fact are links to [2].
> Broken ones (for me at least), but they are links to manpages for the
> mentioned tools. Surely a manpage can be viewed as a suitable source of
> hints you're referring to.
mount is a root-only tool; the others aren't. Need I say more?
The Debian manpages site is broken and awaiting relocation to a new
host.
> > Of course,
> > until this issue came up, no one may have expected one to work better than
> > another, so then someone reading that page could, quite appropriately, try one
> > and not the others, and assume that there was no more useful information on
> > the page.
>
> I agree that the page provides unnecessary choice in this regard, and
> for the sake of clarity of this topic [3] would be more appropriate.
Fair enough. But why not udisks2? After all, it will already be on many
machines.
> > Someone with a more experimental nature might have tried all three, but, like
> > I hope I implied, why would anyone expect that to make a difference?
>
> Different tools. Different programming languages to implement
> them. Different dependencies for said tools. Surely all of them should
> behave exact the same behavior (sarcasm implied).
Sarcasm noted :).
By its very nature a wiki page has prescriptive aspects to it but that
does not need to be extended to everything on it. Where there is more
than one way to do something there can surely be a case for mentioning
all of them. If choice confuses there is no answer to that apart from a
user tossing a coin.
When it comes to making an archive there would be at least one -user
member who would be profoundly put out if xorriso was not one of the
choices for the task. :)
--
Brian.
Reply to: