Re: Using rescuecd !?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



William Case wrote:
Hi all;

Let me start by saying I am NOT in immediate need of using the rescuecd.
But, I have been on other occasions.  I have been unable to find a
manual or guide on using rescuecd.  I have found HOWTO's that give me
the exact button pushes or command line instructions to use and managed
to fix the problem at the time.

I have not, however, found a text that explains what I am doing or why.

I have a list of about 20 questions that could be answered and explained
so that I would feel confident in using the rescuecd rather than feeling
like I am making it up as I go along.

There are two small issues that I would like to test here to see if
there is agreement:

1) Could the word 'sysimage' for root's home file system be changed to
something else more meaningful?  To me, when I first had to use
rescuecd, 'sysimage' was one extra bit of jargon I had to learn to
translate when I was already in an agitated state because my system was
dead.

This is used for consistency with the installer. To the installer, what's in that directory is the image of what will eventually be the installed system.

2) Could the prompt be set up to show me more information than sh-3.2#?
It would make it easier for a new user to keep track of whether they
were working in [rescuecd/sh-3.2]# file system or the [CASE/sh-3.2]#
file system (CASE is the name of my host machine), if the prompt was
more explicit.

This is the base, unconfigured prompt, as used in single-user mode, the second virtual terminal of the installer, and as a user when logging in with no home directory mounted. It indicates that no user configuration could be read from disk.

Remember when someone, particularly a new user, is in rescuecd for the
first couple of times, they are usually in an emotional state
characterized by frustration, fluster and fear that they have just blown
their entire system.  Adding a burden of unnecessary,
incomprehensibility is just a disservice.

This isn't unnecessary incomprehensibility, it's failsafe simplicity.

Any ideas?  Can these changes be considered a bug?

The existing behavior is simple, functioning as designed, widely documented, and familiar to a lot of people. There's nothing inherently wrong with rescue mode *for what it was designed to do*. The problem is that rescue mode wasn't designed for a new user. We really need a user-friendly recovery console, but it should be an application that works on top of the existing rescue mode that the experts already know, not a replacement for it.

	-- Chris

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux