kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:04:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>> the array.
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>>> replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>>
>>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>>> issue.
>>
>> Wrong. Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>>
>
> They don't advertise it as "fit for n.nn size array purposes".
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2008 11:27:54 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>> the array.
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>>> replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>
>>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>>> issue.
>>
>> There is. A disk-image would also not fit.
>>
>> Arno
>
> Not from the manufacturer's standpoint. Whether the user
> and use makes it fit for some exact size is not what the
> manufacturer advertised.
On Jun 14, 5:57*am, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
> void.no.spam....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 1:04 pm, Grinder <grin...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> >> void.no.spam....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I have a 120 GB hard drive that my RAID controller encountered an
> >>> error with, so I am trying to wipe it and return it to the
> >>> manufacturer. *But when I use Copywipe to wipe it, Copywipe encounters
> >>> an error at 52%. *It asks me if I want to continue, and I enter Y, but
> >>> then Copywipe freezes the system. *So it looks like Copywipe will only
> >>> be able to wipe half the drive. *Any way I can get past that error and
> >>> wipe the rest of it? *Any other wiping software that can handle a bad
> >>> drive?
> >> Probably not, but you can try dban.
>
> > I am running DBAN now, and after 4 hours, it has already completed 3
> > passes. *After 4 hours, Copywipe had only completed 20% of the first
> > pass. *And DBAN has an error counter that says 0. *So that seems
> > strange.
>
> > I believe that DBAN will write all zeros for the last pass. *After it
> > is done, is there any way for me to verify that it actually wiped the
> > drive, and that the drive has all zeros?
>
> If each sector contained nothing but zeros, then you'd have a slightly
> easier time to verify the disk. For example, if the data was streamed
> into a checksumming tool, then the end result should be a grand total
> of zero. If some other programmatically created data pattern is used,
> then you'd have to write a tool to verify that the pattern is reproduced.
>
> If I was doing this verification project myself, and I couldn't find
> a tool to automatically verify what was written, I might head to
> Linux land. Writing programs to work on storage devices isn't that
> hard - it really depends on how rusty you are, as to how long it would
> take. And the program wouldn't necessarily have to be that long either.
> As a friend at work would quip - "yup, that needs a three line program".
>
> To give you a hint, at least in Windows land, there is a port of "dd".
> Apparently "dd" can be instructed to copy to "standard out", so if
> you piped the output into another Windows tool, like a checksum program,
> you might just be able to compute a checksum over the entire data
> stream. If the data on the sectors was supposed to be zero, then the
> results should be zero.
>
> http://www.chrysocome.net/dd
>
> On my Windows disk, I have a small collection of GNU tools, such as
> "coreutils", and in there, I have a copy of "sum.exe". Perhaps "dd"
> could be piped into a copy of "sum" from coreutils.
>
> Since "dd" is part of Linux as well, you could also use the same concept
> with a Linux LiveCD. (Knoppix and Ubuntu can be booted from their
> respective CDs, and you can keep a few small files on a removable
> storage device, while working with them. The LiveCDs don't have to
> be installed to a hard drive, to do useful work.)
>
> My suspicion is, that DBAN doesn't leave zeros on the disk for all of
> its erasing options. At least some of them will have used the
> Mersenne Twister, to make random data. (I tried to find a nice manual
> for DBAN, but all I found was text files of one sort and another.)
> Your first task, might be to find a sector editor and look at just
> a couple sectors, to see what kind of a mess you're dealing with.
> (I.e. Whether sectors are zeroed, or contain random data.)
>
> "dd" can also be used to write zeros to a drive. In fact, that is
> what I've used it for recently, as a means of erasing the "front part"
> of a disk drive. Using "/dev/zero" as a source of data, you can
> instruct dd to transfer "/dev/zero" to the hard drive, which will
> overwrite the drive with zeros. If you then streamed the data to
> standard output and piped it to a checksum or to a "word count" program
> such as "wc", then you can compute the checksum of all the data,
> and also verify the byte count available from the drive. So
> there are "toy" programs, and bits and pieces of solutions around.
>
> To use "dd" in Linux to write zeros, this is what you do.
>
> 1) Boot Knoppix CD into Linux desktop.
> 2) Open a terminal window. Type
>
> * * sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=512 count=10000
>
> That fills the first 10000 sectors with zeros. The command
> syntax assumes /dev/sda is the disk to be hammered. Any time
> I'm doing this kind of "surgery", only the disk to be hammered
> is connected to the computer. Then, I can't possible make
> a mistake with my selection of "/dev/sda" and hammer the
> wrong drive. (That is one thing that worries me about using
> the "dd" port in Windows - my boot drive would be a sitting
> duck if I made a mistake typing in the command. Not so with
> a Linux LiveCD, as the CD can't be erased.)
>
> After your erasure pass is complete, then you could use dd
> again, to read /dev/sda and pipe the output into checksum
> or wc, to compute a checksum and to verify the total number
> of bytes read, respectively. (A Linux/Unix guru can easily
> improve on the above suggestions. I don't use this stuff
> enough any more, to be good at it.)
Thanks for that info. DBAN appears to handle my drive better than
Copywipe did. At the end of the wipe, DBAN mentions that there were
non-fatal errors most likely due to bad sectors. So I had DBAN do a
pass of all zeros, and then I booted off the Knoppix CD. I did a "man
-k checksum", and the only commands relating to checksums are "sum"
and "cksum". So I tried "cksum /dev/hdc" and at some point it
returned "Input/output error". So maybe I won't be able to verify
that the disk contains all zeros. There is also a hexedit command,
and I opened /dev/hdc and it showed all zeros for several pages.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:46:05 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:04:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>>> the array.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a suitable
>>>>> replacement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>>>
>>>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>>>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>>>
>>
>> They don't advertise it as "fit for n.nn size array purposes".
>
>Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>
It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:46:05 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:04:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:20:46 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <e9ae54pvqb9i2v2ardh3ae63dbtvtfs4ni@4ax.com> kony
>>>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you are missing his point, that he is receiving an
>>>>>>> RMA replacement drive and has hopes that what he receives,
>>>>>>> which he has no control over, will be as large or larger in
>>>>>>> actual down-to-the-byte capacity as the remaining member of
>>>>>>> the array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it isn't, you contact the company and have them ship a
>>>>>> suitable replacement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heard of "fit-for-purpose"?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worth a try but unless the drive was advertised for
>>>>> particular raid array purposes, there is no lack of fitness
>>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They don't advertise it as "fit for n.nn size array purposes".
>>
>> Thats not what fit for purpose means.
>>
>
> It is what it means to the manufacturer,
Nope, and its the consumer law that matters anyway.
> who is the one deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>
>Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to avoid
>consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as fit
for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn
mower. Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want
to give you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they
obligated to give you a specific hose based on some
attribute they didn't advertise as being a feature? Not
necessarily.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>> deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>
>> Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to
>> avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as
> fit for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
> Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
> has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
> half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn mower.
> Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want
> to give you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they
> obligated to give you a specific hose based on some
> attribute they didn't advertise as being a feature? Not necessarily.
Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
In message <gupa649rqp5h21ocpot0uao4hof991p2jt@4ax.com> kony
<spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
><spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>>deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>
>>Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to avoid
>>consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>
>The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as fit
>for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
Unimportant. If the previous drive was suitable for the customer's
needs, the replacement must be suitable for the same installation.
>Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
>has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
>half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn
>mower. Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want
>to give you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they
>obligated to give you a specific hose based on some
>attribute they didn't advertise as being a feature?
If that feature was a deciding factor in your purchase, then in short,
yes.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:53:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>>> deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>
>>> Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to
>>> avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>
>> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as
>> fit for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>
>Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>
>> Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
>> has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
>> half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn mower.
>> Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want
>> to give you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they
>> obligated to give you a specific hose based on some
>> attribute they didn't advertise as being a feature? Not necessarily.
>
>Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>
Show us anywhere in the drive spec or manufacturer
advertisments, press releases, anywhere at all that states
the drive is fit for the purpose of RAIDing with another
drive of some exact capacity.
There is no fitness for purpose that is not a purpose they
didn't ever claim in the first place.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:52 -0600, DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>In message <gupa649rqp5h21ocpot0uao4hof991p2jt@4ax.com> kony
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
>><spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>>><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>>>deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>
>>>Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to avoid
>>>consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>>
>>The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as fit
>>for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>
>Unimportant. If the previous drive was suitable for the customer's
>needs, the replacement must be suitable for the same installation.
You mean you'd like it to be, but the replacement doesn't
have to be suitable in any way the manufacturer did not
advertise. Manufacturer advertises a guaranteed minimum
capacity as suitable for a RAID array, SPECIFYING RAID? If
so, ok.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:53:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>>>> deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to
>>>> avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>>
>>> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as
>>> fit for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws
>> require.
>>
>>> Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
>>> has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
>>> half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn mower.
>>> Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want
>>> to give you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they
>>> obligated to give you a specific hose based on some
>>> attribute they didn't advertise as being a feature? Not
>>> necessarily.
>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
> Show us anywhere in the drive spec or manufacturer
> advertisments, press releases, anywhere at all that states
> the drive is fit for the purpose of RAIDing with another
> drive of some exact capacity.
That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
> There is no fitness for purpose that is not a purpose they
> didn't ever claim in the first place.
That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a
clue about what the fit for purpose consumer laws are actually about.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:52 -0600, DevilsPGD
> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <gupa649rqp5h21ocpot0uao4hof991p2jt@4ax.com> kony
>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:14 -0600, DevilsPGD
>>> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <3fsn5410sf19dakdamoguug2qjnpcu4vt7@4ax.com> kony
>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the one
>>>>> deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. That is *exactly* why consumer protection laws exist, to
>>>> avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>>>
>>> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as fit
>>> for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>>
>> Unimportant. If the previous drive was suitable for the customer's
>> needs, the replacement must be suitable for the same installation.
>
> You mean you'd like it to be, but the replacement doesn't
> have to be suitable in any way the manufacturer did not
> advertise. Manufacturer advertises a guaranteed minimum
> capacity as suitable for a RAID array, SPECIFYING RAID? If
> so, ok.
That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:00:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
Oh? Then show us the consumer protection law that claims
fit for purpose means something other than advertised,
something other than a spec'd capability. They do not claim
it's purpose is "able to create RAID0 array with some exact
other size drive".
>
>> There is no fitness for purpose that is not a purpose they
>> didn't ever claim in the first place.
>
>That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
>
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a
>clue about what the fit for purpose consumer laws are actually about.
>
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>> DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote
>>>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the
>>>>>>> one deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>>>> Indeed. That is exactly why consumer protection laws exist,
>>>>>> to avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>>>>> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as
>>>>> fit for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>>>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>>>>> Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
>>>>> has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
>>>>> half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn mower.
>>>>> Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want to give
>>>>> you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they obligated to
>>>>> give you a specific hose based on some attribute they didn't
>>>>> advertise as being a feature? Not necessarily.
>>>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>>> Show us anywhere in the drive spec or manufacturer
>>> advertisments, press releases, anywhere at all that
>>> states the drive is fit for the purpose of RAIDing with
>>> another drive of some exact capacity.
>> That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
> Oh?
Fraid so.
> Then show us the consumer protection law that claims
> fit for purpose means something other than advertised,
> something other than a spec'd capability.
Read the fit for purpose section of any comsumer protection
law, it has NOTHING to do with advertising or specs.
> They do not claim it's purpose is "able to create
> RAID0 array with some exact other size drive".
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have
a clue what the fit for purpose consumer protection law is about.
>>> There is no fitness for purpose that is not a
>>> purpose they didn't ever claim in the first place.
>> That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a
>> clue about what the fit for purpose consumer laws are actually about.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote
>>>>>>> <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> It is what it means to the manufacturer, who is the
>>>>>>>> one deciding what they'll send as the replacement.
>>>>>>> Indeed. That is exactly why consumer protection laws exist,
>>>>>>> to avoid consumers being at the mercy of manufacturers.
>>>>>> The drive was never spec'd or advertised in any way as
>>>>>> fit for the exact, narrowly defined purpose discussed.
>>>>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>>>>>> Suppose you bought a garden hose and find it useful that it
>>>>>> has a white stripe on it, not entirely colored green so your
>>>>>> half blind neighbor wouldn't run over it with his lawn mower.
>>>>>> Suppose that hose fails under warranty and they want to give
>>>>>> you a non-striped green hose instead. Are they obligated to
>>>>>> give you a specific hose based on some attribute they didn't
>>>>>> advertise as being a feature? Not necessarily.
>>>>> Irrelevant to what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws require.
>>>> Show us anywhere in the drive spec or manufacturer
>>>> advertisments, press releases, anywhere at all that
>>>> states the drive is fit for the purpose of RAIDing with
>>>> another drive of some exact capacity.
>>> That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
>> Oh?
> Fraid so.
>> Then show us the consumer protection law that claims
>> fit for purpose means something other than advertised,
>> something other than a spec'd capability.
> Read the fit for purpose section of any comsumer protection
> law, it has NOTHING to do with advertising or specs.
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any
particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer
is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish
suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next
section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
>> They do not claim it's purpose is "able to create
>> RAID0 array with some exact other size drive".
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have
> a clue what the fit for purpose consumer protection law is about.
>>>> There is no fitness for purpose that is not a
>>>> purpose they didn't ever claim in the first place.
>>> That aint what the fit for purpose consumer protection laws are about.
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a
>>> clue about what the fit for purpose consumer laws are actually about.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:42:02 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Then show us the consumer protection law that claims
>>> fit for purpose means something other than advertised,
>>> something other than a spec'd capability.
>
>> Read the fit for purpose section of any comsumer protection
>> law, it has NOTHING to do with advertising or specs.
>
> Uniform Commercial Code
> § 2-315. Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.
>
> Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any
> particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer
> is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish
> suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next
> section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
>
When the drive was bought did the manufacturer "know of the
particular purpose" (RAID0 of some exact size other drive)?
The vast majority of the time the answer is no.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Then show us the consumer protection law that claims
>>>> fit for purpose means something other than advertised,
>>>> something other than a spec'd capability.
>>> Read the fit for purpose section of any comsumer protection
>>> law, it has NOTHING to do with advertising or specs.
Those are covered by an entirely different section, 2-313
etc which doesnt even mention fitness for purpose.
>> Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any
>> particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the
>> buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish
>> suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next
>> section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
> When the drive was bought did the manufacturer "know of the
> particular purpose" (RAID0 of some exact size other drive)?
No one said they did. I JUST rubbed YOUR stupid nose in the FACT
that your stupid claims about advertising and specs have NOTHING to
do with the fitness for purpose section of the consumer protection laws.
Re: Any way to wipe this drive? 
Linear Mode
