On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 13:05 +0100, Benny Lofgren wrote: > On 2012-03-08 17.21, daniel holtzman wrote: > > The installation routine has been thoughtfully designed and does exactly > > as intended. OpenBSD caters to the craftsman, not the casual user. If a > > user is not committed to a high level of responsibility (and freedom), > > install-time is a great time for a wake-up call. I doubt Leonardo will > > make this same mistake again. He has learned, as we all have, to look at > > tools from an enhanced perspective. > > Oh, spare us the robotic rants! (And what's with the top posting?) > > I'll give you another knee-jerk rant: "OpenBSD is, among other things, > known for its excellent, complete and accurate documentation." Now, while > that was indeed another example of the automatic rants we all know and > love, this one comes with an appendix that I actually used my own brain > to come up with: > > The wording of user interaction steps in the installer is as much a > documentation matter as the FAQ, the man pages and the source code. > > What Raimo suggests here is, in my opinion, an *improvement* to the > install procedure, one that even improves on an earlier suggestion > in this thread that also was an improvement. > > Just because something is already good and its user base overall are > happy campers doesn't mean that it can't be made even better. > > Also, just because the OP had the audacity to be irreverent and a bit > lacking in the grovelling department when commenting on his OpenBSD > "user experience", it doesn't mean there isn't a point to be taken in > there somewhere. > > I've seen countless times on this list someone being bashed to a pulp > by the groupies, only for some of the "real devs" to later on acknowledge > that there was actually a problem. Keeping your finger firmly off the > trigger until it's actually time to fire is good advice not only for > soldiers...
So you state that the fact that "if one chooses to use the whole disk, the whole disk is used" needs further documentation? Hell no! There is no improvement in making 100% clear statement twice as long just because of one user who failed to read that statement. More precisely, it is clear direct damage, as it makes the "text/information" ratio twice as high with no increase in the "information" part. Actually, we already have a two decade-long history of gradual improvement of Linux in exactly this regard that many of us (or me at least) owe our transition *from* Linux to OpenBSD.
