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

Re: Do we need split media CDs for F12?



On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating j2solutions net> wrote:


On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:30, King InuYasha <ngompa13 gmail com> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Bradley Baetz <bbaetz gmail com> wrote:
On 14/06/09 04:53, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:

----- "Frank Murphy"<frankly3d gmail com>  wrote:

Just curious.

But if a user has bandwidth problems, how is\are mutiple CD's going
to help, or is it purely on hardware grounds, no dvd-rom.


Does no one remember what happened last time the CD ball was dropped?
Lets not repeat history just for fun. We have been down this road
before, it was ugly and only lasted one release. Torrent tracker
numbers BTW do not always tell the truth. In many cases in these less
fortunate areas one person will download the ISO images, then make
CDs for any one in the surrounding villages. Sneakernet is alive and
well. I asked about this topic a few minutes ago in the
#fedora-social IRC channel because we seemed to have a pretty diverse
mix of people chatting. There was a resounding response that the CDs
need to be kept.

What about a script that takes the DVD image and produces CD .isos? That saves on mirror space, but still allows people who want/need CDs to make them. Although it would require (temporarily) 2-3 times the disk space for that process, I guess.

Bradley


A script that takes the DVD image to produce the CD versions would basically require extracting the whole DVD image and then generating new ISOs from that tree. Maybe mirrors could do it if you want to save space on the main server or whatever.

Also, maybe we should support PXE/network booting the Live version from mirrors or whatever with the advent of netbooks and other computers without an optical drive. While doing it via USB is preferable, it is not always possible. For example I have a laptop with a completely damaged drive bay where the CD drive is and it does not support booting from USB devices. Being able to boot the Live distro from a network would be a great alternative.

Why the live and not the normal install via pxe?

--
Jes


It's more useful, and its smaller. Being able to use the live version through a network would make it easier for remote or thin client setup, where you don't want the state of the OS to change in any form of permanence. For example, loading the live image without persistence to older machines and when client users are done and shutdown the machine, nothing is saved. No viruses, documents, personal information, etc. Additionally, diagnosing issues with machines using PXE live would be much nicer than using DOS disks or the Windows recovery console, which is practically useless. Or even diagnosing issues with installed versions of Linux or BSD. 

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