Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Maybe it begins with the installer messing together all the disks in >> some weird way rather than to treat them separately and just let you >> partition them the way you want to. IIRC, there wasn`t even a way to >> tell it which partition to put where. > > It is possible although the UI isn't obvious. You click on the mount > point in question, and then there is this 3rd or 4th button under the > mount points section that looks like a wrench and screwdriver (?) that > you click. And that brings up a dialog where you choose which drive > that mount point's underlying partition appears on. Clicking on unknown icons like that is a scary thing to do when you can expect that it potentially deletes your data. I`m not a fan of icons. I`m not that visually orientated that I would remember them or that I could somehow guess from a, often tiny and difficult to figure out picture, what something might be supposed to do. Anyway, messing the disks together contradicts what the user is doing. You don`t create partitions in thin air but on particular disks or volumes. >>> It isn't going to get better complaining about it on this list. Do you >>> have bugzilla IDs, and if so post them. If not, then how do you expect >>> the behavior to get any better? Magic? >> >> The makers of the installer can always look into this list and see what >> ppl say about the installer and learn from that. > > No they will not do this, and it's inappropriate to even suggest > it. That you don't get that simply means you're ignorant of how the > process works. Apparently they don`t do it, and that may very well be where some of the impression that the makers of the distribution are far away from the users and don`t care what they think comes from. Why would it be inappropriate to suggest that they take a look? Would you rather copy all relevant posts from this mailing list into a bug report? This discussion is about Fedora.next, which seems to be some sort of effort to figure out what Fedora needs to or should do in the future. When suggestions towards that are considered inappropriate, why are we having this discussion? > >> Bug reports are not >> suited for this, and complaining that ppl don`t make enough of them >> doesn`t get you anywhere. > > Filing a bug report is the process. That's it. It works this way for > everything: gnome, kde, and even commercial projects do it this > way. They do not have developers hanging out in user forums > ever. Sometimes QA people hang out in user forums. And Fedora cannot do any better because? >> Or, since you keep insisting on bug reports, why don`t you go ahead and >> put together a list of URLs to the list archive pointing to posts about >> the installer to compile a combined bug report? > > Why don't you go ahead and send me 4-5 bitcoins and I'll think about it? What are bitcoins? > This is how I know your problem isn't really serious, because it's so > unimportant to you, you won't lift a finger to contribute to any > improvement. Why should I help you since you won't even help yourself? Sure, that`s why I`m taking part in this discussion. But as you wish. I`m done with this discussion, it`s obviously pointless. -- Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) -- 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
