Hi All,
As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD because they had some questions. Below are the questions they've come up with thus far.
1) How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?
This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space" bullet. Specifically, the theme part IIRC.
2) What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
3) FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the release schedule section still be included?
This is in reference to the "The working group will also be responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs of the other working groups into consideration and the resources available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.
We might consider just changing this to:
"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora Infrastructure."
4) What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the existing Fedora policies/rules?
This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says: "Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora project followed. "
FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to all decisions all WGs make. It might be simpler to just remove this line.
Lastly, we now know that the 3rd party repository item has been, at best, severely limited in what is considered permissible. There were comments on the ticket pertaining to this, but it was under discussion by the Board so FESCo did not have a specific question for the PRD in this regard. I would anticipate FESCo will push back on the existing text under the 3rd party section. Perhaps we should reword this before taking it back to FESCo?
josh
----- Original Message -----
Hi All,
- FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the
release schedule section still be included?
This is in reference to the "The working group will also be responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs of the other working groups into consideration and the resources available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.
We might consider just changing this to:
"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora Infrastructure."
For in-sync schedules, this would be definitely better solution.
Otherwise, we have pretty nice setup how to deal with schedules. It would need more decentralization aka using git as much as possible, publishing is already handled as group (that time to make easier transition for new schedule wrangler). And for example websites are able to automatically pick up important milestones, fedocal integration etc.
So I'd say even with out of sync schedules, some kind of centralized storage and process would be nice to have, even more people will be involved and I'll (or any future schedule wrangler) be ready to help.
- What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the
existing Fedora policies/rules?
This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says: "Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora project followed. "
FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to all decisions all WGs make. It might be simpler to just remove this line.
One process is Change process - other thing PGM is (was) running in the Fedora.old releases. The updated version was already created with SIGs in mind (FESCo limited it a bit). Should be easy to adjust to fit WGs but still FESCo wants some control as it was discussed on the meeting.
This is a bit out of scope of Workstation WG only but I'd like to hear opinions from all WGs, how they feel about it, what they would like to see etc.
Jaroslav
josh
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Boyer" jwboyer@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:46:01 PM Subject: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
Hi All,
As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD because they had some questions. Below are the questions they've come up with thus far.
- How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?
This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space" bullet. Specifically, the theme part IIRC.
The Fedora design team is an integral part of the Fedora and part of the Emerging Platform Team inside Red Hat and plays a key part in ongoing development. Currently they are for instance in charge of coming up with a branding strategy for the 3 products. There is no plan to develop a Fedora specific theme currently, but the Fedora design theme will be pulled in to help for instance develop new icons in order to for instance be able to provide an integrated accessibility experience with high-contrast icon theme across the major toolkits supported by the workstation.
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
- FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the
release schedule section still be included?
This is in reference to the "The working group will also be responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs of the other working groups into consideration and the resources available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.
We might consider just changing this to:
"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora Infrastructure."
Sounds fine.
- What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the
existing Fedora policies/rules?
This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says: "Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora project followed. "
FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to all decisions all WGs make. It might be simpler to just remove this line.
Lastly, we now know that the 3rd party repository item has been, at best, severely limited in what is considered permissible. There were comments on the ticket pertaining to this, but it was under discussion by the Board so FESCo did not have a specific question for the PRD in this regard. I would anticipate FESCo will push back on the existing text under the 3rd party section. Perhaps we should reword this before taking it back to FESCo?
Sure.
Christian
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
1) If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
2) I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
It might be worth keeping the DVD somewhere but I wouldn't keep it as a visible way to install the workstation product.
My two cents :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for
Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as
many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the
installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
An option however would be to provide a single USB image that provides both the live image and the install-only image, selectable at GRUB (defaulting to booting into the live image).
It might be worth keeping the DVD somewhere but I wouldn't keep it as a visible way to install the workstation product.
My two cents :-)
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for
Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as
many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the
installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
How relevant to Workstation is that? I can see Server wanting to deal with iSCSI and all kinds of other weird storage technology, but for Workstation I'm not sure that's the case.
Also, in terms of delivering a stable and "best of class" _product_, I'm not sure allowing people to tweak their install to have 32 partitions with f2fs as / and /home as btrfs with subvolumes is all that great. I'm not saying those things shouldn't be possible, but I am wondering if the Workstation deliverable is really the place to have those.
An option however would be to provide a single USB image that provides both the live image and the install-only image, selectable at GRUB (defaulting to booting into the live image).
Possibly.
It might be worth keeping the DVD somewhere but I wouldn't keep it as a visible way to install the workstation product.
I really dislike the DVD overall. Particularly when it comes to a product setup. Unless the DVD becomes "install Workstation, or Server, or Cloud" (or some combination thereof), then I see no point in continuing it as it is today.
josh
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for
Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as
many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the
installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
How relevant to Workstation is that?
It isn't because the Live Install no longer does the "dd image to disk" thing but just creates partitons, mounts and copies the data. So there is no limit to storage configuration I know of.
Stephen anything specific that does not work for you using live?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:31 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism
for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to
go as many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only
the installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
How relevant to Workstation is that?
It isn't because the Live Install no longer does the "dd image to disk" thing but just creates partitons, mounts and copies the data. So there is no limit to storage configuration I know of.
Hmm, I must have missed that we're no longer doing that. So the "install from live image" now has full access to the anaconda storage manager? If that's the case, I withdraw my concerns.
Stephen anything specific that does not work for you using live?
Truthfully, I haven't installed from live media since around F16. I always install with the net iso.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:31 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
> 2) What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism > for Workstation? > > This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation > product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to
go as many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only
the installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
How relevant to Workstation is that?
It isn't because the Live Install no longer does the "dd image to disk" thing but just creates partitons, mounts and copies the data. So there is no limit to storage configuration I know of.
Hmm, I must have missed that we're no longer doing that. So the "install from live image" now has full access to the anaconda storage manager? If that's the case, I withdraw my concerns.
Yes I don't know of anything that's missing but I have not compared both and checked every single option.
Stephen anything specific that does not work for you using live?
Truthfully, I haven't installed from live media since around F16. I always install with the net iso.
OK.
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:16 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 01/29/2014 08:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for
Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as
many laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the
installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
I'd be very wary of doing this. The big problem with the live install option is that it's highly limited in the storage configurations it can use. There will certainly be users out there who will want to install Fedora Workstation on systems with complicated storage setups. The live media probably won't work for them.
Someone else brought up that there doesn't seem to be issues with storage any more with the latest installer. But even if that was the case, the sort of users with non standard storage setups (anything other than ATA/SATA and external USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt storage) are kind of out of scope.
An option however would be to provide a single USB image that provides both the live image and the install-only image, selectable at GRUB (defaulting to booting into the live image).
Having an installer for power users accessible somehow sounds like a reasonable approach, my main concern is the "I never used Linux and I want to install Fedora, now what" story for the majority of users we are trying to target.
I think it'd be worth considering this media streamlining in cloud and server as well.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:14:05PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
I think it'd be worth considering this media streamlining in cloud and server as well.
Cloud isn't going to produce any media at all. (Just images ready to run in IaaS environments.)
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 09:48 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:14:05PM +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
I think it'd be worth considering this media streamlining in cloud and server as well.
Cloud isn't going to produce any media at all. (Just images ready to run in IaaS environments.)
That means it was considered after all ;-)
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org
----- Original Message -----
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as many
laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
+1 - current situation with live tooling is mess, for users, for QA, for developers.
- I would remove the DVD install-only option. Focusing only the
installable Live media. The reason for this suggestion is that it would remove the amount of media we have to test and release and that it will reduce that confusing choice for users (if you're new it's hard to figure out which option is best or whether it matters at all).
DVD is less than option even now - by default, live gnome spin is shown to users, they have to look for DVD. Also we stopped producing DVD install media (in EMEA region). So for Workstation, there would be minimal impact.
It might be worth keeping the DVD somewhere but I wouldn't keep it as a visible way to install the workstation product.
As I said above - it's already done this way. DVD could stay as an software repository option, not a product.
Jaroslav
My two cents :-)
-- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Jan 29, 2014 6:09 AM, "Alberto Ruiz" aruiz@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for
Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery
methods of
Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where
a USB sticks
is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as many
laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
....
-- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz
Wrt documentation, we have http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/20/html/Burning_ISO_images_to_dis... more or less actively maintained. Suggestions for improvement would be welcome.
There's a wiki page with comparable content that some prefer to reference; I'm continually tempted to purge such things and replace them with a redirect, but that's a different story...
--Pete
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 11:33 -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
There's a wiki page with comparable content that some prefer to reference; I'm continually tempted to purge such things and replace them with a redirect, but that's a different story...
I don't like the duplication either, but tbh since it's nice and easy to edit the wiki, that tends to be more accurate and up to date than the installation guide at any given time :/ often I find myself throwing in updates to the USB instructions at the hairy end of a release cycle, and it's much easier to edit a wiki to do that than jump through the hoops to edit the installation guide.
On Jan 29, 2014 11:56 AM, "Adam Williamson" awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 11:33 -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
There's a wiki page with comparable content that some prefer to reference; I'm continually tempted to purge such things and replace them with a redirect, but that's a different story...
I don't like the duplication either, but tbh since it's nice and easy to edit the wiki, that tends to be more accurate and up to date than the installation guide at any given time :/ often I find myself throwing in updates to the USB instructions at the hairy end of a release cycle, and it's much easier to edit a wiki to do that than jump through the hoops to edit the installation guide. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net
--
"readme-burning-isos" is more targeted than the Installation Guide, but yeah, the same hoops. After that, it is more or a circuitous problem; wiki gets more attention because it is more up to date...
This page and others are on my watchlist for this reason and I generally at least attempt to sync over your edits. There's duplication, and then there's a situation where someone works on a problem, you discover the work doing QA, I find out about the work by stumbling onto a wiki edit or list discussion, then update the Guide. I pipe up whenever someone brings up "improved documentation" because it isn't clear *what* is being referred to - wiki, manpage, blog post, whatever - and bugs against guides or some other form of direct contact with the docs team are a very rare result.
--Pete
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 14:08 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 04:59 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
Two notes in this regard:
- If we are going the USB way (which I think is the way to go as many
laptops are removing CD/DVD and we also save some trees in the meantime), we should look at ways to improve the USB creation experience and documetnation wrt to the current state. I would make it a priority to focus on making it specially easy for Windows and Mac OS X users.
I actually did some work on this last cycle. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB should be both fairly up to date and fairly comprehensive. I think we got the installation guide brought somewhat up to date as well.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:36:45AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I actually did some work on this last cycle. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB should be both fairly up to date and fairly comprehensive. I think we got the installation guide brought somewhat up to date as well.
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs, and I'm pretty sure unetbootin doesn't either (does it even handle uefi properly now?).
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:36:45AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I actually did some work on this last cycle. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB should be both fairly up to date and fairly comprehensive. I think we got the installation guide brought somewhat up to date as well.
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs,
Huh, I thought we had a Mac section. I can probably add one that just describes how to use some kind of Mac dd-alike.
and I'm pretty sure unetbootin doesn't either (does it even handle uefi properly now?).
Who knows. I've just added an explicit note to the unetbootin warning that says it may work in some cases but not others, e.g. may work for BIOS but not UEFI.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs,
Huh, I thought we had a Mac section. I can probably add one that just describes how to use some kind of Mac dd-alike.
No, I mean our default recommended install method should handle the Mac case. Right now we're recommending that users produce sticks that will then not interopreate correctly.
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 19:25 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs,
Huh, I thought we had a Mac section. I can probably add one that just describes how to use some kind of Mac dd-alike.
No, I mean our default recommended install method should handle the Mac case. Right now we're recommending that users produce sticks that will then not interopreate correctly.
Yup, gotcha. Sounds like we just had a nice IRC chat where we all agreed on a good long-term direction, here.
In the short term I'm going to spend a couple hours fiddling with luc and the Wiki instructions; I'll try and twiddle it to make sure we provide good instructions for Mac folks ('use a dd-alike', basically).
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 11:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 19:25 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs,
Huh, I thought we had a Mac section. I can probably add one that just describes how to use some kind of Mac dd-alike.
No, I mean our default recommended install method should handle the Mac case. Right now we're recommending that users produce sticks that will then not interopreate correctly.
Yup, gotcha. Sounds like we just had a nice IRC chat where we all agreed on a good long-term direction, here.
In the short term I'm going to spend a couple hours fiddling with luc and the Wiki instructions; I'll try and twiddle it to make sure we provide good instructions for Mac folks ('use a dd-alike', basically).
So it turned into more of an all-day mission, but we made a couple of minor improvements to luc, and I extensively updated the USB instructions (again):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB&a...
I wrote up easy 'direct write' methods for Windows and GNOME (I'll look at adding a generic 'Linux' one for other desktops tomorrow if I can find a widely-available GUI tool), made the page consistently promote 'direct write' methods as the most reliable and recommended unless you actually need non-destructive writes and data persistence and stuff, and just generally cleaned up a lot of of stuff. Let me know if you see anything wrong.
Actually atm looking at the Fedora website we are recommending people burn a DVD, the instructions for creating a USB stick you will only see if you press 'next'. (http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/20/html/Installation_Guide/sn-mak...)
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Garrett" mjg59@srcf.ucam.org To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:25:02 PM Subject: Re: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Mm. That doesn't deal with Macs,
Huh, I thought we had a Mac section. I can probably add one that just describes how to use some kind of Mac dd-alike.
No, I mean our default recommended install method should handle the Mac case. Right now we're recommending that users produce sticks that will then not interopreate correctly.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
josh
On 29 January 2014 13:36, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc.
It won't help much in the "choose your desktop" use-case, but for the bandwidth poor, inserting a DVD either on the Live image or on the new running system is automatically used as a priority package source in F21. I think it's useful as a package-dump, but not so much as an install medium for the desktop use case.
Richard.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 January 2014 13:36, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc.
It won't help much in the "choose your desktop" use-case, but for the bandwidth poor, inserting a DVD either on the Live image or on the new running system is automatically used as a priority package source in F21. I think it's useful as a package-dump, but not so much as an install medium for the desktop use case.
Yeah, package-dump is a great way to look at it if it is going to stick around, and I agree it will be helpful in that specific case.
josh
----- Original Message -----
On 29 January 2014 13:36, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc.
It won't help much in the "choose your desktop" use-case, but for the bandwidth poor, inserting a DVD either on the Live image or on the new running system is automatically used as a priority package source in F21. I think it's useful as a package-dump, but not so much as an install medium for the desktop use case.
For this reasons, we were shipping most of DVDs to the countries with limited internet access but there's no demand for it anymore...
Jaroslav
Richard.
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 13:43 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 29 January 2014 13:36, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc.
It won't help much in the "choose your desktop" use-case, but for the bandwidth poor, inserting a DVD either on the Live image or on the new running system is automatically used as a priority package source in F21. I think it's useful as a package-dump, but not so much as an install medium for the desktop use case.
This is why I think it's worth keeping it somewhere, but I don't think it should have the same amount of QA focus than the live media.
I don't think it should be too relevant on the website either.
Richard.
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 13:43 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 29 January 2014 13:36, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc.
It won't help much in the "choose your desktop" use-case, but for the bandwidth poor, inserting a DVD either on the Live image or on the new running system is automatically used as a priority package source in F21. I think it's useful as a package-dump, but not so much as an install medium for the desktop use case.
I know you worked on that after I mentioned it, Richard, so I felt kinda bad that right after you got it fixed, all these discussions about dropping the DVD showed up :( Apologies if it turns out that I caused you to waste the work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
Well, this doesn't necessitate a *DVD* option. It might be grounds for differently-sized USB options though. (I.e. a 2GB max image for live media, an 8GB max image for choose-your-own-adventure).
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:44 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 01/29/2014 08:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
Well, this doesn't necessitate a *DVD* option. It might be grounds for differently-sized USB options though. (I.e. a 2GB max image for live media, an 8GB max image for choose-your-own-adventure).
For the « choose your own adventure », there's also the multi-live image, which includes many (all?) of the desktops available in Fedora, iirc both in 32 and 64 bits.
That probably deserves the same fate as the DVD. (although many ambassadors seem to be quite fond of this image)
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:44 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 01/29/2014 08:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
Well, this doesn't necessitate a *DVD* option. It might be grounds for differently-sized USB options though. (I.e. a 2GB max image for live media, an 8GB max image for choose-your-own-adventure).
For the « choose your own adventure », there's also the multi-live image, which includes many (all?) of the desktops available in Fedora, iirc both in 32 and 64 bits.
That probably deserves the same fate as the DVD. (although many ambassadors seem to be quite fond of this image)
I don't really see much connection between the multi-live image and the DVD install images. The multi-live was never intended for end users to download and serves a great purpose where Fedora is demonstrated and handed out at events. Those using it can and do use it in several forms, DVDs pressed for distribution, installed directly on the hard drive of a demo system, and for use with USB/SD devices.
Why do you think it deserves any fate? Maybe I am not seeing how its existence would adversely impact the new Workstation product. Assuming there are still multiple versions of live spins this image is nothing more than a simple aggregation of the most popular live media.
John
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
Well, this doesn't necessitate a *DVD* option. It might be grounds for differently-sized USB options though. (I.e. a 2GB max image for live media, an 8GB max image for choose-your-own-adventure).
Sure. I don't think that's something Workstation is going to focus on though.
josh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 08:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:59:55AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is something that keeps getting churned out because it always has been afaik. Every time we try to kill it, people bring up having a single thing to do non-network installs from for bandwidth limited areas, or having multiple DEs to chose from, etc. It's basically the "choose your own adventure" Fedora option and people still want that.
Well, this doesn't necessitate a *DVD* option. It might be grounds for differently-sized USB options though. (I.e. a 2GB max image for live media, an 8GB max image for choose-your-own-adventure).
Sure. I don't think that's something Workstation is going to focus on though.
Yeah, I agree.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
You don't need to use liveusb-creator. Right-click on the ISO and select "Disk Image Writer". No need for the command-line.
----- Original Message -----
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09:12AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
You don't need to use liveusb-creator. Right-click on the ISO and select "Disk Image Writer". No need for the command-line.
Really? When I do that, I get "No disc available" in a dropdown and "Please replace the disc with a supported CD or DVD".
Also, liveusb-creator is actually a GUI tool.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09:12AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
You don't need to use liveusb-creator. Right-click on the ISO and select "Disk Image Writer". No need for the command-line.
Really? When I do that, I get "No disc available" in a dropdown and "Please replace the disc with a supported CD or DVD".
You picked the wrong entry. This is the CD burner. The other one should be in the "Open with" menu (need to have gnome-disk-utility installed).
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:20:29AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09:12AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
You don't need to use liveusb-creator. Right-click on the ISO and select "Disk Image Writer". No need for the command-line.
Really? When I do that, I get "No disc available" in a dropdown and "Please replace the disc with a supported CD or DVD".
That's further than I got. When I select 'Disk Image Writer', it segfaults: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057383
luke
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download, although I guess we want instructions for Windows/Mac users too. I assume there are freeware tools out there for Windows/Mac we can point people too? Also when I tried using the liveusb-creator I did discover that it fails horribly if the filesystem on the USB stick is not vfat. So I will look assigning someone to work on it to somehow deal with that case, either through offering to replace the existing filesystem or at least failing gracefully.
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:04:57 PM Subject: Re: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On 29 January 2014 15:11, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download
Well, someone needs to fix the screenshot before we can feature it more prominently :)
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f21/status.html#liveusb-cre...
Richard.
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 15:18 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 29 January 2014 15:11, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download
Well, someone needs to fix the screenshot before we can feature it more prominently :)
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f21/status.html#liveusb-cre...
I was actually just about to do this =) and update the instructions a bit.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:08AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download, although I guess we want instructions for Windows/Mac users too. I assume there are freeware tools out there for Windows/Mac we can point people too? Also when I tried using the liveusb-creator I did discover that it fails horribly if the filesystem on
liveusb-creator also works for Windows, although I haven't tried it. I expect that it wouldn't be too hard to port to OS X too.
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:11 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download, although I guess we want instructions for Windows/Mac users too. I assume there are freeware tools out there for Windows/Mac we can point people too? Also when I tried using the liveusb-creator I did discover that it fails horribly if the filesystem on the USB stick is not vfat. So I will look assigning someone to work on it to somehow deal with that case, either through offering to replace the existing filesystem or at least failing gracefully.
What I usually end up doing is using UNetbootin when trying to come up with an image from Mac or Windows.
In Mac we could offer a .dmg file with UNetbootin and the image included in it so that when the .dmg is mounted you could just ask people to drag the image in UNetbootin for it to just prompt you for the USB media.
One thing I should note is that my recent experience trying to get Fedora on a Mac has been somewhat painful. The USB media didn't boot on EFI mode so GRUB would not detect the system as an EFI one and it would create the wrong boot environment. If we could get this right in one of the upcoming releases it would make a huge difference for Mac users.
On Windows we could achieve the same thing with a .zip file and a README file I guess.
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:04:57 PM Subject: Re: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 17:21 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
What I usually end up doing is using UNetbootin when trying to come up with an image from Mac or Windows.
This...
One thing I should note is that my recent experience trying to get Fedora on a Mac has been somewhat painful. The USB media didn't boot on EFI mode
...is likely causing this. Writing bootable USB media is not a trivial operation, and unetbootin is trying to get it write for a *lot* of media in a *lot* of cases, and sometimes it gets it wrong. I suspect if you write your stick with a dd-alike for Mac, it will work. We do have multiple people testing UEFI-native Mac installation each cycle.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:08AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download, although I guess we want instructions for Windows/Mac users too. I assume there are freeware tools out there for Windows/Mac we can point people too?
As the author and sole developer of said tool, the thought of making it the default download causes me a little bit of anxiety. Here are some things to keep in mind:
• It's almost always out of sync with the livecd-iso-to-disk script, which is more actively maintained.
• It'll pull in PyQt4 & friends
• Mac support is possible, but has yet to be implemented. https://github.com/lmacken/liveusb-creator/issues/6
• It currently cannot create GPT partition tables on it's own
• It was created as, and continues to be, a weekend side-project of mine and has never seen the day-to-day maintenance that a 'default' tool deserves.
Also when I tried using the liveusb-creator I did discover that it fails horribly if the filesystem on the USB stick is not vfat. So I will look assigning someone to work on it to somehow deal with that case, either through offering to replace the existing filesystem or at least failing gracefully.
It should work with both vfat and ext filesystems, so that is a bug if it did not.
luke
Hi Luke, Thanks for listing the issues and challenges here, but hopefully we can work with you to resolve them if we decide we would want to offer something like it as our primary option for providing people with an install media. I don't think it depending on PyQt4 should be an issue in itself unless these bindings use a weird license or something like that.
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke Macken" lmacken@redhat.com To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:22:16 PM Subject: Re: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:08AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download, although I guess we want instructions for Windows/Mac users too. I assume there are freeware tools out there for Windows/Mac we can point people too?
As the author and sole developer of said tool, the thought of making it the default download causes me a little bit of anxiety. Here are some things to keep in mind:
• It's almost always out of sync with the livecd-iso-to-disk script, which is more actively maintained.
• It'll pull in PyQt4 & friends
• Mac support is possible, but has yet to be implemented. https://github.com/lmacken/liveusb-creator/issues/6
• It currently cannot create GPT partition tables on it's own
• It was created as, and continues to be, a weekend side-project of mine and has never seen the day-to-day maintenance that a 'default' tool deserves.
Also when I tried using the liveusb-creator I did discover that it fails horribly if the filesystem on the USB stick is not vfat. So I will look assigning someone to work on it to somehow deal with that case, either through offering to replace the existing filesystem or at least failing gracefully.
It should work with both vfat and ext filesystems, so that is a bug if it did not.
luke
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 04:36 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Hi Luke, Thanks for listing the issues and challenges here, but hopefully we can work with you to resolve them if we decide we would want to offer something like it as our primary option for providing people with an install media. I don't think it depending on PyQt4 should be an issue in itself unless these bindings use a weird license or something like that.
It looks pretty out of place run from a stock Fedora. KDE folks have styling set up so that GTK+ apps look OK running in KDE, I think, but the converse doesn't seem to be true - Qt apps running on GNOME look rather wonky, completely different shade of grey for the background, different fonts, really obviously different toolkit theme...
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:08AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
Yeah, liveusb-creator is pretty nice and I agree it should probably be the default download
Last time I checked, it didn't really handle the Mac boot partition properly. It's also pretty difficult to fix that in a way that'll work on Windows. If we're going to push it as the default then it probably needs a fairly significant rewrite to bring it up to feature parity with just writing the ISO directly.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Um, I was referring more to the fact that the Desktop team focuses on the composition of the Desktop spin than they do on anything that gets laid down by the DVD installer. How you write a spin to whatever media is somewhat orthogonal.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
Sure, however you want to distribute things is fine.
josh
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 10:04 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 08:36:34AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I know this is kind of an aside comment, but I now wonder why we didn't do that years ago.
The Desktop spin essentially did quite a while ago. The DVD is
It doesn't feel that way to me -- to get to a USB stick, I download an ISO which could be burned directly to a DVD, and then I have to go get liveusb-creator, and run that. liveusb-creator is reasonably slick, but it makes USB media feel like a secondary concern.
Since liveusb-creator can do the media download itself, maybe we should make _that_ the primary download?
liveusb-creator was indifferently maintained for a long time. Luke found some time to make it not suck again in the last cycle, because he's awesome, but he's also very busy - I'd want to see someone commit to liveusb-creator as one of their primary responsibilities (i.e. high on their priority list when push comes to shove) before we bet the farm on it. For instance, it couldn't write a UEFI bootable stick until F19 or F20.
On 01/29/2014 09:59 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
The Fedora design team is an integral part of the Fedora and part of the Emerging Platform Team inside Red Hat and plays a key part in ongoing development. Currently they are for instance in charge of coming up with a branding strategy for the 3 products.
Good to know that this has been revealed in anycase we do not need re-branding of 10 year project based on the proposal of the WG's and the NEXT as is.
When I mentioned why we need to re-brand as part of proposal on the serverWG I also mentioned *why* we needed to do so but Máirín jumped on the mentioning of "branding" and started yelling re-brand through the community way way way ahead of time.
I have yet to see any significant part of the community backing up WG's and the next proposals and re-branding fedora requires community wide discussion.
JBG
The 3 products is a different thing than the current 'Fedora' bundle and thus having people with the right skills and background think about the branding is not a bad thing. How that new branding ends up is a different story and I am sure there will be community discussion, but just because you personally think we should pretend nothing is changing with the introduction of the 3 products doesn't mean the rest of the world should stop.
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:42:46 PM Subject: Re: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
On 01/29/2014 09:59 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
The Fedora design team is an integral part of the Fedora and part of the Emerging Platform Team inside Red Hat and plays a key part in ongoing development. Currently they are for instance in charge of coming up with a branding strategy for the 3 products.
Good to know that this has been revealed in anycase we do not need re-branding of 10 year project based on the proposal of the WG's and the NEXT as is.
When I mentioned why we need to re-brand as part of proposal on the serverWG I also mentioned *why* we needed to do so but Máirín jumped on the mentioning of "branding" and started yelling re-brand through the community way way way ahead of time.
I have yet to see any significant part of the community backing up WG's and the next proposals and re-branding fedora requires community wide discussion.
JBG
desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Boyer" jwboyer@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:46:01 PM Subject: FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
Hi All,
As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD because they had some questions. Below are the questions they've come up with thus far.
- How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?
This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space" bullet. Specifically, the theme part IIRC.
The Fedora design team is an integral part of the Fedora and part of the Emerging Platform Team inside Red Hat and plays a key part in ongoing development. Currently they are for instance in charge of coming up with a branding strategy for the 3 products. There is no plan to develop a Fedora specific theme currently, but the Fedora design theme will be pulled in to help for instance develop new icons in order to for instance be able to provide an integrated accessibility experience with high-contrast icon theme across the major toolkits supported by the workstation.
- What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO, live USB image, something else?
There is no plan to change this from what has been the primary delivery methods of Fedora so far. That said I think the emphasis will need to change where a USB sticks is the primary medium and DVDs the secondary.
- FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the
release schedule section still be included?
This is in reference to the "The working group will also be responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs of the other working groups into consideration and the resources available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.
We might consider just changing this to:
"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora Infrastructure."
Sounds fine.
- What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the
existing Fedora policies/rules?
This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says: "Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora project followed. "
FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to all decisions all WGs make. It might be simpler to just remove this line.
Lastly, we now know that the 3rd party repository item has been, at best, severely limited in what is considered permissible. There were comments on the ticket pertaining to this, but it was under discussion by the Board so FESCo did not have a specific question for the PRD in this regard. I would anticipate FESCo will push back on the existing text under the 3rd party section. Perhaps we should reword this before taking it back to FESCo?
Sure.
I've made a few edits to the PRD to address these specific questions. The individual diffs can be seen in the wiki history. I modified the 3rd party repo section to simply read:
"Fedora Workstation will work to ensure that 3rd party software has a stable underlying OS with a known set of APIs/services that ISVs and other developers can rely on for their software. Fedora will not include any non-free software by default or host any non-free software in our repositories. "
I'll make sure FESCo is aware of the edits. If anyone has objections to the changes I've made, please speak up soon.
josh
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 12:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD because they had some questions. Below are the questions they've come up with thus far.
- How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?
This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space" bullet. Specifically, the theme part IIRC.
Here is my take on 'standardization vs theme':
The standardization that I want to see here is that there should be an expectation that applications work well with a small number of themes: - the desktop theme - its dark variant (if relevant for the app) - the high-contrast theme used for accessibility To get there, we need to make sure that there are high-quality qt implementations of these themes.
I also want to improve the robustness of the current theme setup. Applications should be able to rely on the presence of symbolic icons. Currently, if you happen to 'lose' the gnome-icon-theme-symbolic package, things just look broken. I guess you can consider that standardization on the icon naming spec + symbolic variants.
Lastly, we are working towards replacing the motif-y default theme in GTK+ with Adwaita. But that is more relevant for the Windows and OS X ports of GTK+ than for the Fedora desktop.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Alberto Ruiz -
Bastien Nocera -
Christian Schaller -
drago01 -
inode0 -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Josh Boyer -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Luke Macken -
Mathieu Bridon -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Pete Travis -
Richard Hughes -
Stephen Gallagher