Also, to Wayne, who decided that because a process "works for him" it's infallible, and 100% safe for all, I've seen plenty of PM partitioning problems in my time, and it's the benchmark.
I didn't say it was infallible. I said it was designed to fail safe. qtparted resizes NTFS partitions with ntfsresize. Part of "man ntfsresize" says: KNOWN ISSUES No reliability problems are known or has been reported. If you need help please try the ntfsresize FAQ first (see below) and if you dont find your answer then send your question, comment or bug report to <linux-ntfs-dev(a)lists.sourceforge.net>. No subscription is needed but the mailing list is moderated and it can take some time to approve your post. There are some very rarely met limitations at present: filesystems having bad sectors, highly fragmented Master File Table (MFT), relocation of the first MFT extent and resizing in the middle of some metadata in some cases arent supported yet. These cases are detected and resizing is refused, restricted to a safe size or the closest safe size is displayed. --------- I like the words "no reliability problems are known" The fact that you've seen problems with OTHER software doesn't mean that THIS software is no good, does it? If you've had problems with qtparted then do share them so we know what to look out for.
So forgive me if I don't really want to see the WLUG put its balls on the block guaranteeing the safety of the user's data.
That's why you get them to sign a waiver. Why would you want to guarantee somebodys data? That's asking for trouble. An installfest should be all care and no responsibility. Check out this waiver: http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigunix/installfest/waiver.shtml Wayne
That's why you get them to sign a waiver. Why would you want to guarantee somebodys data? That's asking for trouble. An installfest should be all care and no responsibility. Check out this waiver:
Legal responsibility is all well and good, but it doesn't alleviate the problem of 'I tried Linux once, and it trashed all my files'; this is NOT a view of Linux we want to promote. It might be an idea to dump the any essential user's files (Memoirs, Half-finished novel, last 7 years tax reports, etc.. not their 17G pr0n collection) onto a samba share before trying a repartition. In the quite unlikely event that disaster strikes, I would be prepared to offer a free reinstall and recovery of Windows after the LUG if anything went wrong. Presumably they still have the CD's that the software came on, and if not I'd be suggesting Free alternatives :) BTW; for backing up Windows files I personally boot KNOPPIX, mount the filesystem(s) read-only and cp -a or tar onto a network share. I have no idea how well (badly) this preserves Windows concept of file permissions. I don't normally aim for a 'bootable' image because I'm usually backing up for a reinstall anyhow.
Of course the other side of the coin, waiver or not, is that by separating the resizing from the linux install, in whatever way, and irrespective of the tools used. if data is lost, its not linux that did it, but rather the resizing of the windows partition that was the issue. The resize get done, with best care but no Guarantees and with the risky bit taken care of ... they move on to the installfest and Linux. In the minds eye the 2 issues are separated and linux is not the risky bit. Maybe the layout of the tables could accommodate this for those whose machines are not ready/don't meet the prerequisites for the installfest. On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 07:56 AM, zcat wrote:
That's why you get them to sign a waiver. Why would you want to guarantee somebodys data? That's asking for trouble. An installfest should be all care and no responsibility. Check out this waiver:
Legal responsibility is all well and good, but it doesn't alleviate the problem of 'I tried Linux once, and it trashed all my files'; this is NOT a view of Linux we want to promote.
It might be an idea to dump the any essential user's files (Memoirs, Half-finished novel, last 7 years tax reports, etc.. not their 17G pr0n collection) onto a samba share before trying a repartition. In the quite unlikely event that disaster strikes, I would be prepared to offer a free reinstall and recovery of Windows after the LUG if anything went wrong. Presumably they still have the CD's that the software came on, and if not I'd be suggesting Free alternatives :)
BTW; for backing up Windows files I personally boot KNOPPIX, mount the filesystem(s) read-only and cp -a or tar onto a network share. I have no idea how well (badly) this preserves Windows concept of file permissions. I don't normally aim for a 'bootable' image because I'm usually backing up for a reinstall anyhow.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Gavin Denby wrote:
Of course the other side of the coin, waiver or not, is that by separating the resizing from the linux install, in whatever way, and irrespective of the tools used. if data is lost, its not linux that did it, but rather the resizing of the windows partition that was the issue.
I would be happiest obviously if everyone had a few gig 'unallocated' space, and the issue never arose. If anyone turns up thinking that '4G used, 55G unused' on their windows partition is the same as unallocated, it's a pity to turn them away. Another issue that crossed my mind. Partition Managers (OnTrack, etc) and weird allocations. If we see these, the safest option is to make a boot floppy for Linux. GRUB and Lilo handle them very badly. Hopefully everyone who turns up will have a reasonably sane original 98 or XP install rather than a windows95usingOnTrackupgradedtowindoes98upgradedtoXP nightmare and it won't be a problem, but it's worth being aware of.
Gavin Denby wrote:
Of course the other side of the coin, waiver or not, is that by separating the resizing from the linux install, in whatever way, and irrespective of the tools used. if data is lost, its not linux that did it, but rather the resizing of the windows partition that was the issue.
It's also worth pointing out that (particularly after the Witty worm) any computer user who doesn't have backups of their important data is an IDIOT. This applies to Linux users too. No OS is 100% secure or immune from hardware failure.
It's also worth pointing out that (particularly after the Witty worm) any computer user who doesn't have backups of their important data is an IDIOT.
This applies to Linux users too. No OS is 100% secure or immune from hardware failure.
Or immune to software bugs. RedHat 9's support for the Adaptect AIC-79xx series of SCSI adapters in particular. We were afraid we had lost our file servers (MD driven) RAID array after an accidental upgrade of the running Kernel on the server because it was spewing errors (and I mean hundreds, it couldn't mount the disks properly). But fortunately for us with a replacement of the SCSI driver for from the official Adaptec maintainer everything went back to normal. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
You could use MSBACKUP to back up and it will save permissions etc.. At 07:56 17/04/2004, you wrote:
That's why you get them to sign a waiver. Why would you want to guarantee somebodys data? That's asking for trouble. An installfest should be all care and no responsibility. Check out this waiver:
Legal responsibility is all well and good, but it doesn't alleviate the problem of 'I tried Linux once, and it trashed all my files'; this is NOT a view of Linux we want to promote.
It might be an idea to dump the any essential user's files (Memoirs, Half-finished novel, last 7 years tax reports, etc.. not their 17G pr0n collection) onto a samba share before trying a repartition. In the quite unlikely event that disaster strikes, I would be prepared to offer a free reinstall and recovery of Windows after the LUG if anything went wrong. Presumably they still have the CD's that the software came on, and if not I'd be suggesting Free alternatives :)
BTW; for backing up Windows files I personally boot KNOPPIX, mount the filesystem(s) read-only and cp -a or tar onto a network share. I have no idea how well (badly) this preserves Windows concept of file permissions. I don't normally aim for a 'bootable' image because I'm usually backing up for a reinstall anyhow.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
DrWho? wrote:
You could use MSBACKUP to back up and it will save permissions etc..
The last "near-major disaster" that I had involved using a free, but not Free windows tool, under windows, to back up a client's data. It was only after repartitioning the drive that I noticed the archive it had taken several hours to generate looked 'kinda small', fortunately I hadn't done anything else yet and I was able to recover the filesystem. I immediately booted knoppix and backed it up properly. Yes, I should have checked the backups first. But when I run a 'tar' and it takes two hours, I can trust that it's actually putting all the files into the archive.
To get around all this backup hazzle it is also possible to get them to sign a piece of paper, before install, This piece of paper could contain general information on where to get help on the Internet to learn to use Linux. This way it should not be perceived to badly. In the (remote) possibility of loosing data during repartitioning this waver covers the LUG legally. Personally I have been repartitioning systems for a while and I have not found any issues either with OSS tools or with PM. This is why I think it is a remote possibility and should be treated as such. IMHO it is one of those issues that could make the whole install a LONG LONG process, just because of this legal issue of dataloss. Finding a technical solution might make the whole install fest a logistical nightmare. The legal solution might solve this. Andreas
So forgive me if I don't really want to see the WLUG put its balls on the block guaranteeing the safety of the user's data.
That's why you get them to sign a waiver. Why would you want to guarantee somebodys data? That's asking for trouble. An installfest should be all care and no responsibility. Check out this waiver:
Now *that* is a good idea. Others have made the point that it won't stop people thinking ill of Linux should something go awry, but I believe it is a great idea to a) make people aware of the risks, and b) absolve the LUG of any legal responsibility. Daniel? Thoughts? -- Greig McGill
Someone was talking about using ghost to backup user hard disks before trying to install Linux at the install-fest. I think Daniel retorted that you would need lots of licenses. Has anyone bothered to contact the people who make ghost about using this as an opportunity to sell/advertise their product? Ghost was made by NZ'ers (now owned by Symantec). You could ask for permission to use ghost during the install fest. The worst they could say was "no". At best they could say is, "Yeah sure. And here have a few copies to hand out as spot prizes." Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
participants (7)
-
Andreas Girardet -
DrWho? -
Gavin Denby -
Greig McGill -
Oliver Jones -
Wayne Rooney -
zcat