Poll: Customized Fedora

[Jeff Vian]

Adam T. Gautier wrote:

>
>> I think it's a bad idea. 
>
> Great, this is the discussion I want...
>
>> It sounds like what you're doing is giving folks the
>> ability to select "Choose packages" in the Fedora installer before 
>> actually
>> installing the operating system.
>>  
>>
> Well technically that is how Anaconda works, using a tiny linux image 
> to load Anaconda but other than that it just collects information for 
> configuration and  installs packages.  Anyway, a user would choose 
> packages that are available to installation.  The installation would 
> happen the same way it does now.  Eventually, a customized Anaconda 
> installer would probably be available that would allow customization 
> of the install process.
>
> Also, I am not thinking that the any joe schmo would use this 
> service.  It would really be for IT managers, developers, and 
> technical hobbiest.  They would choose the packages they wanted 
> available to be installed.  Instead of using the one size fits all 
> Fedora install, which also has the contraint of only using packages 
> allowed by RedHat, no third party packages.

HUH?

Where do you get the 'one size fits all' theory.  Fedora has many 
different configurations (minimal, server, workstation) and NONE are 
limited to exactly one size since all can be further configured by 
selecting what to install/exclude.

Any OS distro only allows the packages on the distro disk to be 
installed *when first installed*.  But the linux distros do not limit or 
restrict in any way what software can be installed after the system is 
up and running.  There are certainly many 3rd party packages included in 
the distribution as well as available after the fact. Mysql, postgres, 
OOo and many others are examples of those included.  You cannot say that 
about the other OS.

With any linux distribution available there is a limited amount that can 
be included out ot the box, and then the add-ons are limitless.

>>
>>
> I agree, Red Hat, Mandrake, and Suse already have thriving businesses 
> based on the support model.  I expect users to get their support packs 
> and package upgrades etc from them.  I just think there is a group of 
> people that want to define their own distribution parameters: look and 
> feel, packages, configuration, etc... If these systems are based on 
> say Fedora why can't they get support from these mailing lists.  Would 
> it not be the same as installing fedora and editing a file in /etc?
>
>> This process is not conduive to, nor indeed feasable, via a "public 
>> one size
>> fits all" webpage service.
>>
> Why not?
>
>>  If you have something else in mind, like a
>> "pre-customize Fedora Core with your own logos" or something, that's 
>> another
>> thing entirely.  You could just release your own version of 
>> fedora-logos.
>>
>>  
>>
> Creating custom RPMs is one way to go... But people use technology to 
> implement solutions not to install software.  I am just trying to 
> provide another distribution of complete solution sets not just 
> installable software.  Sure I could create a custom RPM of postfix to 
> implement a specific part of a solution, I could also create a 
> pre-configured distribution that I know will have the correct packages 
> for the solution.  Just seems like another way to go...
>
Your idea is likely feasible, but will require a LOT of attention to 
detail and refining.  RedHat, among others, had an internet install 
process with previous releases by using just a boot disk to start the 
install.  It is still possible to do that, and it appears your 
suggestion is to use a similar method for the OS install with the added 
ability to do the same for additional non-distribution software.

The problem will pop up when it becomes (and it is) *mandatory* that the 
binary being installed this way be 1) Compatible with the installed OS 
(kernel, distribution, libraries, etc) and 2) Able to work OTB for the 
user installing it from your site/service.  If not they will expect you 
to provide support to _make it work_ since it is your distribution.

Your idea will only work on Linux with _custom_ .rpm or .deb packages 
that support the users hardware/OS configuration. A source package with 
the compile/install occuring on the users mahcine is not likely to work 
with this type of install.  Otherwise the current method of letting the 
user decide what he wants/needs and take steps to make it work is best.

If we limit the users choice then we go back to the rigid path of 
following what a *vendor* wants us to be able to do.