Re: Adding a prompt on the installer before overwriting the partition table

Just tried the installer to see what the deafult option was. It was the OpenBSD partition and can't remember what the deafult option is without a OpenBSD partition. If that defaults to Whole you would have a better point. (thinking of the keyboard buffer when impaciant) Otherwise pressing W(hole) is a yes.

I always do a install instead of upgrades. I can make the same mistake with disklabel on a machine which has a different layout from my most used layout. I can really understand your opinion. But when your using OpenBSD it is expected that you are know what your dealing with. It is not a "populair" OS which hold your hand.

This year is I use it for 20 years and the installer is just simple and straight forward. One of the reasons I find OBSD more easy to use then other OSes.

________________________________
Van: owner-misc@openbsd.org <owner-misc@openbsd.org> namens Parodper <parodper@gmail.com>
Verzonden: maandag 28 juni 2021 18:21
Aan: misc@openbsd.org <misc@openbsd.org>
CC: deraadt@openbsd.org <deraadt@openbsd.org>
Onderwerp: Re: Adding a prompt on the installer before overwriting the partition table

O 28/06/21 ás 16:53, Theo de Raadt escribiu:
> Parodper <parodper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think there should be a prompt in the installer before
>> overwriting the partition tables. The current behavior is, when
>> selecting the whole disk, to overwrite the partition table
>> directly.
>
> Isn't it kind of obvious that selecting the whole disk requires
> overwriting the partition table?

That assumes that people don't make mistakes, like I did. Having the
default option be «delete everything **without asking**» seems to me as
good place to make mistakes. At least the edit option requires more than
just one key press to delete your data

> The installer has acted this way for more than 20 years. It is well
> documented. Haven't heard a complaint in a decade. Did you read the
> installation docs?

There have been multiple complains:

https://marc.info/?t=147203742200002&r=1&w=2
https://marc.info/?t=133112352000002&r=1&w=2
https://marc.info/?t=94379097400001&r=1&w=2

I decided to start a new thread because those old threads usually end
with a «diff please» or centering too much on how the first user wrote
the mail.

> I doubt other major operating system installers ask you again if you
> are sure you want this hidden but obvious step, so why should our
> installer?

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how other OS do it, but the
Debian installer puts the template into the partitioning program, and
the program asks no matter the option chosen. I would have suggested
something like that, but I preferred to start with something more simple.

> Meanwhile, your change probably breaks including auto and templated
> installs -- because a newly introduced question which isn't answered
> will receive \n, and without y\n it fails.

That is a good complain. I have no experience with automated installs,
so I don't know how they do it. But if the defaults have to be explicit
then, instead of changing the fdisk option, I propose changing the
default to the «(E)dit» option.

On the other hand, if you don't want to change the installer interface
in any way there is nothing more to discuss.

> Furthermore I think the whole concept of installing multiple
> operating systems on one disk and multiple-booting is increasingly
> complex to the point of being a waste of time.

Multiple partitions are not only used for having multiple operating
systems. I usually have a data partition on my machines.

> Major operating systems don't make it trivial.

Depending on your definition of «trivial», yes they do.

> Why should the smaller systems be held to the standard of making it
> easy?

I am not suggesting that OpenBSD should change the install process for a
tablet-based interface. It is a small change for which I have suggested
a diff.

> Sorry to break the news, but as a rule the most fragile
> configurations of any software are the ones unused by the developers.
> This is definitely one. None of us use multiboot.

True, but this is only tangentially related to multiboot.