On Thursday 16 March 2006 12:01, houghi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 05:36:41PM +0100, Marcel Hilzinger wrote: > > > For large drives, that is not a real problem. The problem comes with > > > smaller drives. I personally feel that 20GB is overkill. At this moment > > > I use 5GB on /. That would mean that 15GB or 10% of my current JD won't > > > be used. > > > > It's dynamic. So changing the upper limit to 20 GB does not mean, that a > > 30 GB drive will have a 20 GB / partition. > > I understand that it is dynamic. The devision is 1/3 2/3. This means that > on a 60GB drive you have 20GB / and 40GB /home. In my case where I have > installed the development stuff and the kernel source and some extra other > stuff, I am wasting an extra 10GB on a 60GB. Having 5GB unused is > something I could accept. 15GB is a real waste. > > It was clear from the beginning that it won't be ideal for everybody. So > unless there is a new way to calculate, especially for the smaller drives, > I am against it. > > There will indeed be people who install extra large software things. If you > compare it to how many people will waste that extra 10GB, I think it is a > fair tradeoff. > > houghi
Why does it have to be automated, really? A simple question to the user could briefly explain intent, why a different size may be used, what the recommended guesstimate is, and so on. Most users who don't care will simply click "ok" with the given pre-determined size, and anyone with any particular interest greater than "who the hell cares" will not only be informed of whats suggested, but offer them the chance to make it more "right" - for them atleast. Just a thought. Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
