Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
On Thu 23 Mar 2017 at 20:15:34 (-0400), Catherine Gramze wrote:
> It was you who started maligning me, accusing me of making false claims (but not being able to present one) and generally harassing me for disagreeing with you. I have only responded politely, explaining my opinion and why I hold it, while you and others used various improbable scenarios to tell me it would make it impossible for Debian experts to install the way they want to. Because having to have a functioning network card for a netinst is apparently too great an imposition, depriving an expert of his inalienable right to set up a box with a base system only, not ever connected to the Internet at any time, for - what, exactly? What is the use case for this box that precludes both a temporary Internet connection or using a different installation method?
It's not really polite to call this "expert" (only in the sense
described by the Advanced options in the installer) rabid, and what
I do with the installer ridiculous.
I don't wish to accept arbitrary impositions on what I can do with
free software. That's the rationale behind its existence: freedom.
Nor do I wish to be told what I ought to be spending my money on,
just to conform with your, ahem, suggestions.
You appear unable to accept that other people may have use cases
that make no sense to you, calling them "improbable scenarios".
This use case probably didn't make a lot of sense to some people
at that time:
> I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
> professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
...
> It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
> will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
BTW I have to include the funniest bit:
> Simply, I'd say that porting is impossible.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: