8.04-1 won't boot from degraded raid

[Michael Hipp]

Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>> "Just Work" in this context means different things to different
>>> people.  To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt
>>> my data. To others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what,
>>> so that I can get on with my life". Neither is a malfunction, so both
>>> options should be available, but spare me the "broken" and "not
>>> functional" babble.
>> In every single answer above you are focused on the fact that it does
>> fine for the use case where you don't want it to boot upon failure.
> 
> Except, of course, where I don't (as quoted above). I've never said my
> use case it the only correct one.  I'm just saying that there are use
> cases where the current behaviour is completely correct.
> 
>> As noted in the page [1] linked to by Dustin's blog, that's a valid
>> use case. (A bit hard for a guy like me to imagine. But valid
>> nevertheless.)
> 
> As I said: I value data integrity over uptime. I'm quite anal with my
> data.
> 
>> What you don't seem to grasp is that it utterly fails at the other use case
>> where the system needs to boot regardless. 
> 
> I'm completely aware that you want it to do something that it currently
> doesn't do. I'm merely pointing out that carrying on the way you do is
> not helping anything. Please try to be constructive.
> 
>> You seem to be declaring that use case as being one that's invalid
>> (evidently because *I*  prefer it as you offer no other.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "offer no other". I'm not going to lie and
> tell you that Ubuntu does something that it doesn't.
> 
>> It's broken because the second use case doesn't work. And evidently can't be 
>> made to work under any circumstances. 
> 
> I'm not going to continue this discussion. I tried to explain that the
> current state has validity. I tried to explain that other use cases are
> valid as well, and work has been done to support those. That's hardly
> saying that it can't be made to work under any circumstance. If it is,
> we're speaking a very different language, and that just further supports
> the pointlessness of continuing discussion.
> 
>> Tell me, once again, what word you use to describe a system where a
>> documented valid use case utterly fails? 
> 
> I'm not sure. "Not suitable for my needs", perhaps. Not necessarily
> "broken", that's for sure.   Let's take a completely different example:
> It's a completely valid use case to be able to control Ubuntu server
> using nothing but voice commands.  At the moment, that's not supported.
> That doesn't make Ubuntu server's user interface broken.
> 
> And no, I'm not saying that wanting to boot with a degraded raid array
> is as common a use case as wanting to use voice commands to control
> Ubuntu server. It's just an example.
> 
>> It is not functional. It is broken.
> 
> Not so. It's working. Simply not in the exact way you want it to. If we
> applied this terminology more globally, I'm convinced you'd find that
> *every* single piece of software in Ubuntu (or the entire world) is not
> functional, but broken.
> 
>> For that (seemingly, to me, more common) use case of wanting the
>> server to do what servers do and run.
> 
> I acknowledge the validity of your use case, just as I did in my
> previous e-mail.

I'm glad you're not going to continue the discussion since you bring nothing of 
value to it.

In every exchange I have with you on this list you continually present yourself 
as someone who is utterly unable or unwilling to view things from the user's 
perspective.

And your diving into this sophomoric non-analogy of everything under voice 
control is stupid. A feature that has never been there, exists in no other 
similar product, is hardly comparable to functionality that would be expected 
to be there by any reasonable person looking at the item. Tell me, has someone 
filed a bug report on a lack voice control?

 From now on, please focus your valuable time "helping" someone/anyone other 
than me.

That said, thanks to you I now realize I have 6.06 servers that are at risk and 
I was sure I had tested that functionality. And now it seems the answer will be 
to wait 2 years for another LTS release. I am beginning to have regrets.

Michael