On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:42:25PM +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 15 November 2011 15:34, Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:11:32PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If not, why not?
- Drowning in F16 bugs.
- being busy with getting things up again.
-
On 11/15/2011 04:56 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:07 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2011 02:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anaconda's custom partitioning did not allow me to partion the
partions as I had wanted to.
Have you reported this as a bug?
Not yet.
If not, why not?
-
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:51:26PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Having just finished up two new VMs based on F16, I can attest that yes
you can create custom partition schemes during the installation from the
GUI.
I don't know what you did, but was using a real disks.
That's irrelevant.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:11:32PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If not, why not?
- Drowning in F16 bugs.
- being busy with getting things up again.
- being busy with other tasks.
Would have taken less time to write that bug report than the many
replies in this thread.
+1 A bugzilla
On 11/14/2011 01:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I have to repeat: F16's anaconda's partitioning GUI does not allow you
to do so.
I've been using Fedora since FC6, and anaconda's always allowed you to
do a custom partitioning scheme. If it doesn't in F16, it's a serious
bug and you should
On 15 November 2011 15:34, Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:11:32PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If not, why not?
- Drowning in F16 bugs.
- being busy with getting things up again.
- being busy with other tasks.
Would have taken less time to write
On 11/14/2011 03:44 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/13/2011 09:29 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The first issue was anaconda lumping together the swap partitions of the
other linux installations, I have installed in parallel
That's not a problem because there's nothing left in swap when you
reboot
On 11/14/2011 09:01 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 11/14/2011 03:44 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/13/2011 09:29 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The first issue was anaconda lumping together the swap partitions of the
other linux installations, I have installed in parallel
That's not a problem because there's
On 11/14/2011 04:23 PM, Ralf b wrote:
This at least was what distros had used swap for for a long time and is
the reason for me to keep separate swaps for each installation.
May-be things have changed?
In the past, people absolutely needed swap because of low amount of RAM
but hibernate is
On 11/14/2011 12:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/14/2011 04:23 PM, Ralf b wrote:
This at least was what distros had used swap for for a long time and is
the reason for me to keep separate swaps for each installation.
May-be things have changed?
In the past, people absolutely needed swap
Thomas Cameron wrote:
Now, I absolutely understand the OP's and others' echoed concerns and
frustrations. I don't like bugs any more than the next guy. But I feel
like maybe there's some round hole/square peg going on here. Fedora,
almost by definition, will be bleeding edge and therefore,
On 11/14/2011 05:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In the past, people absolutely needed swap because of low amount of RAM
What to consider low amounts of RAM is relative and depends upon the
use case.
Sure. Everything can be phrased this way.
but hibernate is very rare these days
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/14/2011 06:47 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I don't agree that Fedora is going downhill -
I've used every version I think -
some upgrades have been easy and others have had major problems.
But I've never had an upgrade which I found unusable
Am 13.11.2011 15:30, schrieb Alan Cox:
LVM wasn't a big deal for those who knew better
disable it on install and your disk I/O improves, and
its become vaguely relevant with crypto.
yes, this should be only a option and never made as default
LVM is for most peopole not useful especially on
Am 13.11.2011 16:10, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
There are still ca. 300 packages that are not converted from SysV/LSB to it
by
their maintainers who resist or do not see a reason for the progress
despite
all threats.
This is more likely due to contributors being overstretched, than actual
Am 13.11.2011 19:28, schrieb Mark LaPierre:
For example, I like to have the newest software, but I don't want to be
the primary tester. I prefer to hang back a release or two
you CAN NOT hang back TWO releases
in the next months EOL for F14 ends and so you get no more security updates
On 11/14/2011 04:08 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
(Hey. I never wanted /home to be /dev/sdb3 but want it to be on /dev/sdb6.)
So use a custom partitioning scheme and set it that way.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:58 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
yes, this should be only a option and never made as default
LVM is for most peopole not useful especially on a notebook
where you have nothing to extend with a second disk and
remember that you have lost the game if you extend a LVM o
On 11/14/2011 08:05 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2011 04:08 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
(Hey. I never wanted /home to be /dev/sdb3 but want it to be on /dev/sdb6.)
So use a custom partitioning scheme and set it that way.
I have to repeat: F16's anaconda's partitioning GUI does not allow you
to
On 11/14/2011 01:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I have to repeat: F16's anaconda's partitioning GUI does not allow you
to do so.
I've been using Fedora since FC6, and anaconda's always allowed you to
do a custom partitioning scheme. If it doesn't in F16, it's a serious
bug and you should
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:59:38PM -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2011 01:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I have to repeat: F16's anaconda's partitioning GUI does not allow you
to do so.
I've been using Fedora since FC6, and anaconda's always allowed you to
do a custom partitioning scheme.
On 11/14/2011 11:07 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:59:38PM -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2011 01:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I have to repeat: F16's anaconda's partitioning GUI does not allow you
to do so.
I've been using Fedora since FC6,
I am using Fedora since
On 11/14/2011 02:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anaconda's custom partitioning did not allow me to partion the
partions as I had wanted to.
Have you reported this as a bug? If not, why not?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
Once upon a time, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us said:
On 11/14/2011 02:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anaconda's custom partitioning did not allow me to partion the
partions as I had wanted to.
Have you reported this as a bug? If not, why not?
Anaconda has never given you the ability to control
On 11/15/2011 12:07 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/14/2011 02:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anaconda's custom partitioning did not allow me to partion the
partions as I had wanted to.
Have you reported this as a bug?
Not yet.
If not, why not?
- Drowning in F16 bugs.
- being busy with getting
On 11/14/2011 03:23 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Anaconda has never given you the ability to control partition layout,
beyond the force to be a primary partition checkbox.
I never had any trouble with it when I was first partitioning my laptop
with multiple partitions for Fedora.
--
users mailing
On 11/15/2011 12:23 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Joe Zeffj...@zeff.us said:
On 11/14/2011 02:51 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anaconda's custom partitioning did not allow me to partion the
partions as I had wanted to.
Have you reported this as a bug? If not, why not?
Anaconda has
Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron at camerontech.com writes:
On 11/13/2011 01:15 AM, JB wrote:
Hi,
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
Erm, no. Each Fedora release has brought in numerous technical
improvements. Virtualization, clustering, directory services, more and
more
Red Hat as a company is poised to be a billion dollar company this year
(FY12). The FY 2006 earnings were $278.3 million.[1] That's a 4X
increase in just 6 years. That's *amazing* growth.
Yes, it is. But it is also a reflection of economic decline, financial crash,
IT crash that make free
Erm, no. Each Fedora release has brought in numerous technical
improvements. Virtualization, clustering, directory services, more and
more features and performance per release.
That's a politicians answer. It's completely ignoring the point raised.
It doesn't matter how many features a new
On 11/13/2011 08:00 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Look at things like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics, which
indicate that downloads and torrents are going up with each release, not
down.
Be careful that downloads are a lagging indicator of success. They go up
after you get it right not as,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 07:15:20 +,
JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
If you are referring to quality, I disagree that they are going downhill.
If you are referring to mindshare amoung people that use linux, that
seems likely to be true. Ubuntu
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:45:34 +,
JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Some from an independent Fedora devs, others from other distros by adoption of
those that are useful and not conflicting with its goals.
That is unlikely to happen. More likely the fork would just die.
Fedora is
On 11/13/2011 09:30 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
That's a politicians answer. It's completely ignoring the point raised.
With all due respect, the original poster appeared not to have much of a
point. Statements like
every Fedora release is going downhill ... Time for Fedora to decouple
from RH and
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Thomas Cameron
thomas.came...@camerontech.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 01:15 AM, JB wrote:
Hi,
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
Erm, no. Each Fedora release has brought in numerous technical
improvements. Virtualization, clustering, directory services,
On 11/13/2011 03:45 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 07:15:20 +,
JBjb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
If you are referring to quality, I disagree that they are going downhill.
Well, having spent most of this weekend with
Ralf Corsepius writes:
On 11/13/2011 03:45 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 07:15:20 +,
JBjb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
If you are referring to quality, I disagree that they are going downhill.
Well, having spent most of
On 11/13/2011 08:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Finally, yes, I have to agree, in comparison to F15 (which I consider
the worst Fedora ever) I sense some quality improvements.
Which is why I skipped it. My impression is that the teething troubles
with Gnome 3/Gnome Shell and the new systemd
On 11/13/2011 08:35 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
It depends on where you're standing. If you follow the well-trodden
path, of always doing a fresh install, not upgrading, and always taking
the default filesystem layout, and only importing /home from the
previous version, you'll be fine.
I've
Those are *not* just statistics on downloads.
I appreciate that - but popularity is a lagging indicator in general.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines:
夜神 岩男 supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp writes:
...
The IT market is massively overweight,
overvalued and engages in enormously wasteful development practices
right now. Open source development for the most common of software
system elements + a revenue stream based on hardware sales and
On 11/13/2011 05:35 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ralf Corsepius writes:
On 11/13/2011 03:45 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 07:15:20 +,
JBjb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
If you are referring to quality, I disagree that they
On 11/13/2011 09:14 PM, inode0 wrote:
You are both correct but you are looking at the result from different
perspectives. Many technical improvements do happen and they are
admired by those who *later* use them in an enterprise distribution.
At the same time many of those same improvements
On 11/13/2011 10:41 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Those are *not* just statistics on downloads.
I appreciate that - but popularity is a lagging indicator in general.
Whether popularity should even be a consideration depends on the goals
of the project however I should also note the statistics page
Joe == Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us writes:
Joe I've used preupgrade on both my desktop and laptop for the last
Joe several upgrades and all has gone well. Yes, I did have to
Joe expand /boot once and once I had to tell grub to start the
Joe upgrade at boot, but compared to the type of
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 09:14 PM, inode0 wrote:
You are both correct but you are looking at the result from different
perspectives. Many technical improvements do happen and they are
admired by those who *later* use them in an
Alan Cox alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk writes:
...
But clustering and directory services, like forcing LVM on hapless end
users are really irrelevant to most. LVM wasn't a big deal for those who
knew better - disable it on install and your disk I/O improves, ...
Be blessed :-)
You reminded me
On 11/13/2011 11:34 PM, inode0 wrote:
value to the Fedora desktop user are two very different things.
False dichotomy.
It is only false if you assume I meant the groups to be mutually
exclusive, which I did not mean since I am an example of a user in
both groups. We do however have a lot
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:34 PM, inode0 wrote:
value to the Fedora desktop user are two very different things.
False dichotomy.
It is only false if you assume I meant the groups to be mutually
exclusive, which I did not mean
On 11/13/2011 01:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:34 PM, inode0 wrote:
value to the Fedora desktop user are two very different things.
False dichotomy.
It is only false if you assume I meant the groups to be mutually
exclusive, which I did not mean since I am an example of a
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
How is a desktop user affected by new clustering technology? You aren't
making any sense to me now
I live in a larger ecosystem so of course I do care. But in this
context saying other
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
How is a desktop user affected by new clustering technology? You aren't
making any sense to me now
You really can't think
On 11/14/2011 12:16 AM, inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
How is a desktop user affected by new clustering technology? You aren't
making any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 11:16 AM, JB wrote:
? supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp writes:
...
The IT market is massively overweight,
overvalued and engages in enormously wasteful development practices
right now. Open source development for the most
Bruno Wolff III bruno at wolff.to writes:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:45:34 +,
JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com wrote:
Some from an independent Fedora devs, others from other distros by
adoption of
those that are useful and not conflicting with its goals.
That is unlikely to happen.
On 11/14/2011 01:04 AM, JB wrote:
Perhaps no fork would be required.
Even if it is required, it is a lot of work and I am not sure anyone
with just a opinion would be willing to sign up for it.
RH could release tight control of Fedora
for its own interest.
Be more specific. Describe in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 08:30 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Erm, no. Each Fedora release has brought in numerous technical
improvements. Virtualization, clustering, directory services, more and
more features and performance per release.
That's a politicians answer.
Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron at camerontech.com writes:
On 11/13/2011 11:16 AM, JB wrote:
? supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp writes:
...
The IT market is massively overweight,
overvalued and engages in enormously wasteful development practices
right now. Open source
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
How is a desktop user affected by new clustering technology? You aren't
making any sense to me now
Let's start over.
User
On 11/14/2011 02:12 AM, inode0 wrote:
User #1 is from the user base professed by the project to be its
target audience. User #2 is more from the enterprise consumer side of
Fedora's community. My suggestion was to be more open about the
importance of both of these user bases to help resolve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 02:42 PM, inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
How is a desktop user affected by new
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/2011 02:12 AM, inode0 wrote:
User #1 is from the user base professed by the project to be its
target audience. User #2 is more from the enterprise consumer side of
Fedora's community. My suggestion was to be
like maybe there's some round hole/square peg going on here. Fedora,
almost by definition, will be bleeding edge and therefore, somewhat
buggy. But, really, our version of buggy is *so* much better than I
deal with as regards most closed source commercial code, it's not even
funny.
This is
Rahul Sundaram metherid at gmail.com writes:
On 11/14/2011 01:04 AM, JB wrote:
Perhaps no fork would be required.
Even if it is required, it is a lot of work and I am not sure anyone
with just a opinion would be willing to sign up for it.
RH could release tight control of Fedora
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:58 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
With regard to composition of governing bodies, it is not that Fedora would
start from scratch.
Let's try again. You reply doesn't seem to show any understanding of
Fedora's current governance structure? Can you describe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 09:44 AM, inode0 wrote:
Red Hat as a company is poised to be a billion dollar company this year
(FY12). The FY 2006 earnings were $278.3 million.[1] That's a 4X
increase in just 6 years. That's *amazing* growth.
What does this have
Rahul Sundaram metherid at gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:58 AM, JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com wrote:
With regard to composition of governing bodies, it is not that Fedora would
start from scratch.
Let's try again. You reply doesn't seem to show any understanding of
Does Fedora 'need' saving? From who?
Or will it keep on innovating for years to come? I sincerely hope so!
Roger
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
We should probably refrain from feeding the troll.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOwFLYAAoJEF1Xw4ZWTEoJPH8QAKSmeG0Jfo3ZwwAAD8SGSA4y
rH3aR61QeEOEEJNF35RIr93YirR+vPR47Cx28SK81JfCBXIW3AyZR049xdDy28ML
On 11/14/2011 04:53 AM, JB wrote:
First you would release them for the benefit of Fedora.
Then you would subject them, if any, to selection and election process
according to status and election rules as described.
I have no idea what you are talking about but please describe the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 03:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
like maybe there's some round hole/square peg going on here. Fedora,
almost by definition, will be bleeding edge and therefore, somewhat
buggy. But, really, our version of buggy is *so* much better than I
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Thomas Cameron
thomas.came...@camerontech.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 02:42 PM, inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:57 PM, inode0 wrote:
They are affected by many of the changes. That is why.
On 11/14/2011 06:01 AM, inode0 wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
The special class of users that is apparently no longer called the
target audience but is none-the-less the people we are trying to
reach seems to fit User #1 to me.
I don't see it that way at all. Nothing in
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/2011 06:01 AM, inode0 wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
The special class of users that is apparently no longer called the
target audience but is none-the-less the people we are trying to
reach
On 11/14/2011 06:31 AM, inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/14/2011 06:01 AM, inode0 wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
The special class of users that is apparently no longer called the
target audience but is none-the-less the people we
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/2011 06:31 AM, inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/14/2011 06:01 AM, inode0 wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
The special class of users that is apparently
On 11/14/2011 07:04 AM, inode0 wrote:
If the target audience fits #2 as well as #1 then it fits everyone and
is meaningless isn't it?
That's a matter of perspective.
Most of what #2 talked about isn't even part
of the default offering so he would be very disappointed in us.
I don't see
Rahul Sundaram ha scritto / said the followingil giorno/on
14/11/2011 02:38:
On 11/14/2011 07:04 AM, inode0 wrote:
If the target audience fits #2 as well as #1 then it fits everyone and
is meaningless isn't it?
That's a matter of perspective.
Most of what #2 talked about isn't even
On 11/13/2011 09:29 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The first issue was anaconda lumping together the swap partitions of the
other linux installations, I have installed in parallel
That's not a problem because there's nothing left in swap when you
reboot that's going to be needed again when you come
On 11/13/2011 11:50 AM, Thomas Cameron wrote:
ISTR people were a lot more careful about buying hardware that Linux
would work on.
In part that's because it works with most hardware now.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:15 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
Time for Fedora to decouple from RH and become quality UNIX-like distro on
its own ?
I usually try to simply ignore obvious flame posts.
... But never the less, one question:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2011 01:15 AM, JB wrote:
Hi,
every Fedora release is going downhill ...
Erm, no. Each Fedora release has brought in numerous technical
improvements. Virtualization, clustering, directory services, more and
more features and performance
82 matches
Mail list logo
