[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Draft proposal for using full anaconda as the default Fedora download



Hi David,

Thanks for all the feedback so quickly! I added a lot of your points and
corrections to the wiki version of the proposals.

I have some more questions for you below:

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 21:43 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
> > 2. Very fast install time (due to use of dd?)
> 
> Internally it just uses the os.read() and os.write() Python functions.
> 8MB at a time.

Do you know why today's install DVD ends up being slower (45 min vs
10-20 min) the Desktop Live Media for the meat of the install? Are they
both using the same read/write functions, and it's just the DVD has a
bigger payload today than the desktop spin?

> > 6. Dangerous option for long-term use because persistence is still not
> > reliable and depending on the brand of USB key it may just die
> > unpredictably.
> 
> The other big limitation people point out is the forced filesystem
> selection.  Or is that still a problem?

I don't see it being an issue for novice users, who we try to optimize
for in the default install selection. 

> > 5. Constrained / curated package set, no burden on the user to configure
> > too much up front
> >
> > It would be possible to make the full installer behave this way too via
> > comps groups juggling.
> 
> This really becomes a matter of solidifying what we call the "Fedora" tree
> vs. the Everything tree.

Is this an okay thing to do or is it going to be a pandora's box? 

> > 1. Live environment is confusing to novice users who don't understand
> > what's going on. 
> >
> > The full install environment is clearly its own world and there is no
> > confusion regarding the state of the system when it is fully running,
> > nor is there any temptation to start working on documents that you would
> > then lose if you weren't sure what was really going on.
> 
> IMHO, I think it's easier to provide instructions to a complete novice for
> a limited environment (regular installer) vs. a live system.  There are
> far to many things a user can click on under the live image.

I absolutely agree 100%

> > 4. Having to download both the ISO and a client to put the image on a
> > USB stick afterwards is a lot to download and hard to figure out for
> > novice users.
> >
> > This would still be an issue, but there are other solutions to this
> > (e.g., offer the liveusb-creator as the default download.
> > LiveUSB-creator can download ISOs for you!)
> 
> anaconda could also be used for this functionality, though it would
> require some better instructions and messaging for users.  But as you
> state above, you can use the regular installer to install to a USB
> flashdrive.  We provide a bootable self-contained system on a CD/DVD image
> and it does the rest.  The LiveUSB-creator requires another system already
> installed and up and running, which some people may not have.

What do you mean here? Anaconda could be used to install to a USB stick,
but how are you running anaconda right? What are you running it off of?
Is it correct to assume you need two usb sticks, one with bootable
anaconda and one with the installed Fedora?

~m


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]