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

Re: Persistent overlay?

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 17:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 13:22 +0300, John Babich wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram
> >> <sundaram fedoraproject org> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I suggested to Luke to use something better than "persistent overlay" to
> >>> describe the amount of space alloted for storing software changes and
> >>> settings in a Live USB.
> >>>
> >> How about "permanent storage"?
> > 
> > Tough call -- because the space is used for differences in the whole
> > file system, not just data storage.  So a 512 MB overlay doesn't mean
> > the user can store 512 MB of data, especially if they start changing the
> > package complement.
> Any other suggestions please?

I'm not sure whether changing this midstream is a great idea.  After
all, the "persistence" and "persistent overlay" were terms I described
repeatedly and consistently with every one of the dozen or more
interviews I gave for Fedora 9.  If we change this we risk making things
*more* confusing for users who are pursuing the links from the highly
digg'd stories such as from lifehacker.org.  From a strategy
perspective, one generally doesn't want to send a bunch of media
messages, and then change the terminology afterward.

Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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