Using rescuecd !?

[Chris Snook]

William Case wrote:
> Hi all;
> 
> Let me start by saying I am NOT in immediate need of using the rescuecd.
> But, I have been on other occasions.  I have been unable to find a
> manual or guide on using rescuecd.  I have found HOWTO's that give me
> the exact button pushes or command line instructions to use and managed
> to fix the problem at the time.
> 
> I have not, however, found a text that explains what I am doing or why.
> 
> I have a list of about 20 questions that could be answered and explained
> so that I would feel confident in using the rescuecd rather than feeling
> like I am making it up as I go along.
> 
> There are two small issues that I would like to test here to see if
> there is agreement:
> 
> 1) Could the word 'sysimage' for root's home file system be changed to
> something else more meaningful?  To me, when I first had to use
> rescuecd, 'sysimage' was one extra bit of jargon I had to learn to
> translate when I was already in an agitated state because my system was
> dead.

This is used for consistency with the installer.  To the installer, what's in 
that directory is the image of what will eventually be the installed system.

> 2) Could the prompt be set up to show me more information than sh-3.2#?
> It would make it easier for a new user to keep track of whether they
> were working in [rescuecd/sh-3.2]# file system or the [CASE/sh-3.2]#
> file system (CASE is the name of my host machine), if the prompt was
> more explicit.

This is the base, unconfigured prompt, as used in single-user mode, the second 
virtual terminal of the installer, and as a user when logging in with no home 
directory mounted.  It indicates that no user configuration could be read from disk.

> Remember when someone, particularly a new user, is in rescuecd for the
> first couple of times, they are usually in an emotional state
> characterized by frustration, fluster and fear that they have just blown
> their entire system.  Adding a burden of unnecessary,
> incomprehensibility is just a disservice.

This isn't unnecessary incomprehensibility, it's failsafe simplicity.

> Any ideas?  Can these changes be considered a bug?

The existing behavior is simple, functioning as designed, widely documented, and 
familiar to a lot of people.  There's nothing inherently wrong with rescue mode 
*for what it was designed to do*.  The problem is that rescue mode wasn't 
designed for a new user.  We really need a user-friendly recovery console, but 
it should be an application that works on top of the existing rescue mode that 
the experts already know, not a replacement for it.

	-- Chris