On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22 March 2014 03:54, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm. Now I believe you were just about to cite a bugzilla ID describing the above behavior? > > No. Why should I? Total failure to install the OS leaves me unable to > use its bug-tracking tools, if any. Because you apparently expect it to work, and yet it doesn't work as expected (or otherwise)? > As I have said previously, I have /never/ successfully installed > Fedora on actual hardware since v1.0 shipped in, what was it, 2003? Ten years of failure installing Fedora. You should make your own t-shirt. In those ten years, you're still unfamiliar with the installer's bug reporting mechanism? In lieu of the fact you have a 0% install success rate installing Fedora on baremetal, aren't you suspicious? Curious? Have you inquired with anyone about how to get more information from the installer to possibly find out why you've had a decade of install failures, on just Fedora? Are you unfamiliar with the installer's rather substantial logging feature, always enabled, with easily recovered logs? Have you looked at them, or had anyone else look at them? What was the cause of the failure? > I have to tell you that in my experience of approaching a hundred > installers, it is about the least capable of any C21 OS I have ever > seen. I think it might beat eComStation but nothing else. One hundred installers, OK you beat me. You have Apple hardware, which I have, and I've done more successful Fedora installs on those three models in the past year alone than the number of installers you've used. Seems conspicuous. > CentOS, yes, although I've seen it fail too. Fedora, nope. You realize that CentOS and Fedora use the same installer, right? > >> And you have a bug for this? > > > No, what I have is material for a really bad product review. What you've presented here so far is merely conjecture. Material would be bugs, logs, maybe a detailed spec of the computer involved and video of the failed install process. You've cited no error messages, indicating the exact nature of the install failure. You haven't presented anywhere near enough information for someone to reproduce your results. I can hardly imagine a competent, ethical journalist nor his editor accepting such lack of evidence for a negative product review. Such a negative product review would be egregiously discourteous to the development team, and I think the project as a whole. I even think it would be unprofessional, and by that I mean a professional uses proper tools for the job. In the course of testing a product, a professional uses normally available debugging tools to better understand the nature of the failures experienced at least in some basic level to ensure the problem isn't user error or related to unsupported hardware, or myriad other explanations. >> This is understandably confusing if you're really familiar with storage stack creation. But most people aren't. > > I hope that I have demonstrated that I am not unfamiliar. Oh, you have demonstrated something, that much is certain. > > >> But I assure you that the vast majority of the world's installers would have poo poo'd you much sooner. > > And again, no, you're wrong. Sorry, but you are and I can, if you > wish, show you. By all means produce installer logs for your failures, ideally as attachments to bug reports. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
