[ On Sunday, December 5, 2004 at 07:25:42 (-0800), Gerald Richter wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: sysinst problems
>
> Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > I think the point though is that "sysinst" is just a tool-using tool
> > itself and _nothing_ it does can ever prevent anyone, expert or
> > otherwise, from using the underlying tools in some different way for
> > whatever reason.  Indeed "sysinst" even has a feature to allow it to
> > write out in shell-script form the very commands that can be used to
> > duplicate its every action based on the current session's user input.
> 
> That's all and good and mostly useless.

Huh?  Why do you think so?  At worst the scripting feature can be used
as a learning tool so that even a non-expert can quickly get a starting
base upon which to learn how to do a non-standard install.


> > > sysinst doesn't believe in having an expert knob.
> > 
> > Nor should it, ever.
> 
> Every installer should always.

Not, "sysinst", specifically, should not.

You're making the assumption that there's only one installer -- perhaps
because you haven't fully embraced the software tools philosophy
inherent in all unix-like systems.

Overall "sysinst" does one job in one relatively _standardized_ way and
it does it well (enough), and it does it using other more basic tools.

That's the very essence of a good, elegant, software tool.


> Who says I wanna do the whole thing by hand? I just wanna twist enough 
> of the knob so that it can get around a problem and then let it do it's 
> thing.

Who says so indeed -- that's just the way of the world.  If you want to
go against the grain (or jump out of the groove, to use the metaphor I
was using before), then you have to be prepared to do what it takes.  :-)

Mavericks don't get to be mavericks by resting on their laurels.


> Why should I manually do everything when there is this elegant 
> program that will do it for me, except for while it's barfing on this 
> problem that it won't let me help it with because it doesn't have an 
> expert knob??

Why indeed?   Why don't you write your own version with your own rules
and philosophy and just be happy?  Perhaps your version will become more
commonly used by others if you publish it.  :-)

(FYI I have made my own significant changes to sysinst, though I
certainly didn't turn off any sanity checks -- in fact I seem to
remember adding even more.)


> I would beg to differ on that. Yes, its important, but so are a lot of 
> other things. What is ultimately harmed if we have an expert knob that 
> allows us to ignore the fact that the sysadmin who obviously should have 
> as much rights to the system as the kernel (remember, the sysadmin is 
> trusting the kernel to handle the second to second tasks in his 
> computer) feels like setting up something that _looks_ bizarre, but 
> _might_ work given circumstances outside our programs range of 
> comprehension?

Look, this "sysinst" vs. "overlapping parititons" issue is really,
REALLY, simple and your blue-sky dreamy philosophical position that
everything needs an "expert knob" to turn off whatever sanity checks
just doesn't have any place in this specific and very simple scenario.

In any case you already have access to all the possible knobs you could
ever want to twist in any way you desire -- they're in the underlying
tools that sysinst uses or in even more fundamental low-level data
manipulation tools like "hexedit" or whatever.  Either use them or don't
complain.  "sysinst" is not your problem.

"sysinst" really does not need an infinite number of monkeys adding an
infinite number of knobs to it, no matter how expert those monkeys
really are.

If you want so much rope, well then twist it up for yourself.


> Unfortunately you are arguing for _EXACTLY_ that level of hand holding 
> in sysinst.

Indeed I am.  These kinds of "non-expert" tools obviously have their
place.  "sysinst" is a tool that has pre-determined expertise built into
it.  If some other self-proclaimed expert has different ideas about how
it should work, or who wants to break the rules other experts have
implemented just because he or she can, then that other person can write
their own new tool that does exactly what they want and leave the
"sysinst" as it is with the common rules it needs.

>  That's a problem.

What really irks me the most is that those of you who are arguing for
"the expert knows best so shut up and do it" kinds of knobs are
currently here in this thread basing your argument on a problem that
_nobody_ has yet been able to justify with anything other than very
poor and _very_ lame excuses.  Nobody has managed to even suggest a
valid reason for generating overlapping paritions with "sysinst" and yet
some of you cry foul just because you think your perceived freedoms are
being taken away from you.  Well they're not -- you're free to modify
the source or use other tools or do it by hand.  Get over it!

If we were talking about other policy kinds of things instead of
low-level sanity checks, such as whether "sysinst" should default to
offering a separate /usr partition or not, then maybe your desire for a
new knob to twist would hold some merit.  However this idea that sysinst
should have some knob to turn off its low-level partitioning sanity
checks is just so completely bogus and outright baseless as to be
laughable!



> I know what sysinst does, I could do it on 
> my  own, but why should I have to??? It's a perfectly good tool at doing 
> what it does, save for it does occasionally need an expert knob to help 
> it around a problem, or something bizarre that I happen to be doing but 
> would like it's assistance with so I can go to lunch while it does things.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE!  Look at what you're asking for!  You're
asking for some way to turn off sanity checks that _almost_ everyone,
expert and non-expert alike, agrees are fundamental to the creation of a
sane, safe, maintainable, and secure configuration.

Meanwhile the excuse you're now falling back on is that you're just too
damn lazy to type at most three or four _very_ simple commands in order
to work around these sanity checks.  If you know what you're doing then
quit being so damn lazy and just do it!  Anyone with half a clue about
how sysinst really does work knows that they can hit <CTRL-C> at any
time, re-run disklabel and muck things up to their heart's content, and
then restart sysinst and tell it to "upgrade" instead of "install", or
let it run to completion and run "disklabel" before rebooting, or any
number of other possible combinations.

You should feel lucky that you don't have to hexedit your overlapping
partitions into the binary label yourself, but you also shouldn't
complain if you had to.  After all you have the source and if you're
expert enough then you can comment out any and all sanity checks that
you wish -- and why don't you delete all those pesky cycle-wasting error
checks while you're at it since you know how your hardware and your
software is working and you'll know when something fails without having
all those annoying hand-holding reminders!

-- 
						Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098                  VE3TCP            RoboHack <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>          Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>