Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-04-01 00:00, Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/31/2014 09:01 PM, Robin Laing wrote: I use a basic /home on the root drive with each users directory mounted to their username mount point. So each user has their own partition? Do you also use LVM so that you can create/resize or remove them as need

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 2014-03-31 22:42, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Robin Laing wrote: When a feature that is used is broken, even to the point an application crashes, and the fix requires the new version, then it is in issue in the usability of Fedora. This has been my biggest

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 2 April 2014 12:01, Vikram Goyal wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:40:36PM +, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> As I have said previously, I have /never/ successfully installed >> Fedora on actual hardware since v1.0 shipped in, what was it, 2003? I >> have installed Haiku, Aros, FreeBSD, PC BSD,

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, ?"Why?")

On 2 April 2014 11:16, Vikram Goyal wrote: > I am using fedora or rather redhat based distribution since there was > Redhat 5 ( probably in middle ninteies or something ) > > As far as I can tell the disk partitioning scheme under F1/20 definetly > needs some kind of rework to make it unambigious

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:40:36PM +, Liam Proven wrote: > > As I have said previously, I have /never/ successfully installed > Fedora on actual hardware since v1.0 shipped in, what was it, 2003? I > have installed Haiku, Aros, FreeBSD, PC BSD, dozens of Linux distros, > Windows 2 through 8, S

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

I am using fedora or rather redhat based distribution since there was Redhat 5 ( probably in middle ninteies or something ) As far as I can tell the disk partitioning scheme under F1/20 definetly needs some kind of rework to make it unambigious to users. The developers must understand one thing f

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 04/01/2014 12:10 AM, Robin Laing wrote: On 2014-03-28 14:23, Max wrote: On 03/25/2014 02:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: Chris Murphy writes: Partitioning took me about three hours with the installer of F19, with a very simple setup and not even data

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 22:01 -0600, Robin Laing wrote: > On 2014-03-28 10:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > Paul Cartwright wrote: > >> On 03/26/2014 01:32 AM, Robin Laing wrote: > > I`m not an expert with Fedoras installers in any way. This is > simply my > "user experience". Maybe

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 03/31/2014 09:01 PM, Robin Laing wrote: I use a basic /home on the root drive with each users directory mounted to their username mount point. So each user has their own partition? Do you also use LVM so that you can create/resize or remove them as needed? That's an interesting idea. --

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Hi On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Robin Laing wrote: > When a feature that is used is broken, even to the point an application > crashes, and the fix requires the new version, then it is in issue in the > usability of Fedora. This has been my biggest complaint over the years. I > am findin

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-03-28 14:23, Max wrote: On 03/25/2014 02:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: Chris Murphy writes: Partitioning took me about three hours with the installer of F19, with a very simple setup and not even data to preserve and neither RAID, nor encryption

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-03-28 10:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: Paul Cartwright wrote: On 03/26/2014 01:32 AM, Robin Laing wrote: I`m not an expert with Fedoras installers in any way. This is simply my "user experience". Maybe the "user experience" the installer provides should be different. It is hidden. I do

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 2014-03-28 03:20, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Robin Laing wrote: On 2014-03-26 03:12, Suvayu Ali wrote: It is Fedora policy to not do that: I know this and I don't like it when there is a b

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 03/25/2014 02:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: Chris Murphy writes: Partitioning took me about three hours with the installer of F19, with a very simple setup and not even data to preserve and neither RAID, nor encryption, and it was only possible after

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Tom Horsley wrote: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:40:36 + Liam Proven wrote: Meantime, for further Fedora eval, it's going in a VirtualBox. Sad, but that's all it seems able to handle. Actually, that's the key to installing on disk in a sensibly created partition layout: Install in a virtual mach

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Liam Proven wrote: Secondly, I can confirm this finding. I was completely unable to install F20 using the current installer program. My system has 2 drives - a 1TB HD and a 120GB SSD. The SSD holds Ubuntu and Win7; the 1TB drive holds /home,

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, “Why?”)

Tim wrote: Allegedly, on or about 21 March 2014, Powell, Michael sent: The system name or hostname is important to networking; so, I can see why it's under networking, but I believe your frustration is more related to the lack of guidance and quality than anything else. Well, actually, for a l

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Paul Cartwright wrote: On 03/26/2014 01:32 AM, Robin Laing wrote: I`m not an expert with Fedoras installers in any way. This is simply my "user experience". Maybe the "user experience" the installer provides should be different. It is hidden. I do use it. If you were trying the live dis

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Powell, Michael wrote: It doesn`t give you choices. It leaves you in the dark about that it is somehow possible to use an non-gui installer and to do a minimal install. It leaves you in the dark about what exactly happens when you do the partitioning and with trying to figure out how get the pa

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: Chris Murphy writes: What I ought to do is not QA Manual Partitioning anymore and just let the people who actually think they need or want it do all the testing and bug reporting for it and let it become whatever it becomes.

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 03/28/2014 09:47 AM, Bill Davidsen issued this missive: Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/25/2014 12:10 PM, Powell, Michael wrote: I disagree; if a user is presented with the following filesystem choices, btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, reiser4, reiserFS, and ZFS, and each is presented equally with a sing

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/25/2014 12:10 PM, Powell, Michael wrote: I disagree; if a user is presented with the following filesystem choices, btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, reiser4, reiserFS, and ZFS, and each is presented equally with a single paragraph describing its benefits, unless the user has pr

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Hi On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Robin Laing wrote: > On 2014-03-26 03:12, Suvayu Ali wrote: > >> >> It is Fedora policy to not do that: >> >> >> > > I know this and I don't like it when there is a broken package in use on > Fedor

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 2014-03-26 03:12, Suvayu Ali wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14:44AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote: I would really like to see Fedora move to a constant flux where applications are developed and then pushed out as updates which are actually upgrades. It is Fedora policy to not do that:

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 2014-03-26 00:13, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/26/2014 06:45 AM, Robin Laing wrote: On 2014-03-24 08:25, Liam Proven wrote: On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee wrote: Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partit

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, “Why?”)

Tom Horsley wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:13:28 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: Saying something "sucks" isn't very helpful. Not only is it needlessly negative, it is intangible. Name a real problem and we can talk about it. Every single aspect of it is a real problem. In the dictionary they have

Re: no default mta [was Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, “Why?”)]

Rick Stevens wrote: On 03/21/2014 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller issued this missive: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: If you do need to use sendmail, and your ISP is blocking Port 25, it's not that hard to configure things to use a smarthost. As an example, I have my own (v

RE: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Powell, Michael wrote: [note >>>] A non-gui installation is not something that the majority of users will choose so it's not apparent, but if you want that method, here you go: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/20/html/Installation_Guide/ ch-guimode-x86.html#idm21916

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Roger wrote: > If I were a developer thinking about improvement, speed, constant > changes in architecture and incessant increasingly aggressive system > attacks, which you and I are so sheltered from, I would not give a whit > about what users think. There are others who handle that part of the >

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Chris Murphy writes: > On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: >> Maybe it begins with the installer messing together all the disks in >> some weird way rather than to treat them separately and just let you >> partition them the way you want to. IIRC, there wasn`t even a way to >> tell it which

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 03/26/2014 01:32 AM, Robin Laing wrote: >> >> I`m not an expert with Fedoras installers in any way. This is simply my >> "user experience". Maybe the "user experience" the installer provides >> should be different. >> > > It is hidden. I do use it. > > If you were trying the live disk, then I

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14:44AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote: > I would really like to see Fedora move to a constant flux where > applications are developed and then pushed out as updates which are > actually upgrades. Get to a point of not having a F19 or F20 but > just Fedora. You move from 19 t

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14:44AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote: > > I would really like to see Fedora move to a constant flux where applications > are developed and then pushed out as updates which are actually upgrades. It is Fedora policy to not do that:

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/26/2014 06:45 AM, Robin Laing wrote: On 2014-03-24 08:25, Liam Proven wrote: On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee wrote: Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partitions that can be read-only on the SSDs and u

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 2014-03-25 05:29, lee wrote: Tim writes: I reckon it's the case for most OSs that /most/ users don't really care much about what they're using, nor how it works. The large number of clueless people using computers would seem to be evidence of that. The number of clueless people is also l

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 2014-03-23 10:19, Tom Horsley wrote: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:35:20 +0100 lee wrote: One of the weaknesses of Fedora, in my view, is the apparent lack of interest in what users actually want or need. +1 The distro that actually seems to care (at the moment) about users is Linux Mint (thoug

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, “Why?”)

On 2014-03-22 10:38, lee wrote: Matthew Miller writes: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:19:05PM +0100, lee wrote: And on top of that, what is the Fedora-way of replacing gnome --- which I find totally useless --- with fvwm, which perfectly does what I want? It sounds like you want to do a minim

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 2014-03-24 08:25, Liam Proven wrote: On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee wrote: Installing on a laptop requires encrypted partitions. They can be stolen too easily. I have never ever used this and never expect or plan to. I suggest that your blanket statement is too sweeping. http://xkcd.com/5

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-03-25 13:26, Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/25/2014 12:10 PM, Powell, Michael wrote: I disagree; if a user is presented with the following filesystem choices, btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, reiser4, reiserFS, and ZFS, and each is presented equally with a single paragraph describing its benefits, u

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-03-25 02:22, lee wrote: "Powell, Michael" writes: It doesn`t give you choices. It leaves you in the dark about that it is somehow possible to use an non-gui installer and to do a minimal install. It leaves you in the dark about what exactly happens when you do the partitioning and wi

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 2014-03-23 13:49, Powell, Michael wrote: Then they need to turn around at once! Leaving users in the dark about what`s going on makes things more difficult for them. Taking away choices limits the use of the software to the point where it eventually becomes unusable. Good design, clarity, g

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 03/25/2014 07:09 PM, Roger wrote: > And on it goes! > Fedora and Linux in general is what it is. We are fantastically lucky > that developers and testers donate vast knowledge, time and resources. > We have choice, so many variations. > > If I were a developer thinking about improvement, speed,

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On 25/03/14 22:29, lee wrote: Tim writes: I reckon it's the case for most OSs that /most/ users don't really care much about what they're using, nor how it works. The large number of clueless people using computers would seem to be evidence of that. The number of clueless people is also larg

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On 03/25/2014 12:10 PM, Powell, Michael wrote: I disagree; if a user is presented with the following filesystem choices, btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, JFS, reiser4, reiserFS, and ZFS, and each is presented equally with a single paragraph describing its benefits, unless the user has prior knowledge

RE: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

> I`m not an expert with Fedoras installers in any way. This is simply my "user > experience". Maybe the "user experience" the installer provides should be > different. Your user experience is important, but just because you think it should be one way doesn't mean the community or developers ec

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:41 AM, lee wrote: > Chris Murphy writes: > >>> Partitioning took me about three hours with the installer of F19, with a >>> very simple setup and not even data to preserve and neither RAID, nor >>> encryption, and it was only possible after I created the partitions >>> ou

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/25/2014 02:08 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 24 March 2014 16:11, Ralf Corsepius wrote: These aren't old-fashioned, these are technically out-dated. Makes a huge difference! I am not sure it does. I would tend to consider them as 2 sides of the same coin. Have a look at "fashion" vs. "pro

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 16:11, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > These aren't old-fashioned, these are technically out-dated. Makes a huge > difference! I am not sure it does. I would tend to consider them as 2 sides of the same coin. > The fact you haven't encountered it doesn't mean there are no use cases.

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Stephen Gallagher writes: > On 03/24/2014 09:22 AM, lee wrote: >> The ones making packages probably have more influence. Is it >> supposed to be like that? >> > > > Frankly, yes. Feedback on a list is fine, but anyone can say "Hey, I > wish it was more like this:", but ultimately it will be up

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Tim writes: > I reckon it's the case for most OSs that /most/ users don't really care > much about what they're using, nor how it works. The large number of > clueless people using computers would seem to be evidence of that. The number of clueless people is also large without computers. Comput

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Liam Proven writes: > On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee wrote: >> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >> have. > > As I have commented elsewhere, I think this is a 1980s style of > thinking. Th

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Chris Murphy writes: > On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:56 PM, lee wrote: >> >> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >> have. > > Old news. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#I_have

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Liam Proven writes: > On 24 March 2014 12:45, lee wrote: >> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. And last time I looked, it would >> not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and >> /sbin but to use symlinks instead. > > > I think that's a very 1980s, or early-1990s, way o

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Liam Proven writes: >> Having been able to have /usr on a separate partition was a valuable >> feature, which now has gone lost. IMNSHO, ruined by naive, inexperienced >> kids (to use the same tone as you did), who were overwhelmed by the >> additional complexity supporting this feature had requi

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Michael Cronenworth writes: > Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written >>> >much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partitions that can >>> >be read-only on the SSDs and use magnetic disks for things like /var, >>> >/tmp, /home an

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

"Powell, Michael" writes: >> It doesn`t give you choices. It leaves you in the dark about that it is >> somehow >> possible to use an non-gui installer and to do a minimal install. It leaves >> you >> in the dark about what exactly happens when you do the partitioning and >> with trying to fi

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

Chris Murphy writes: >> Partitioning took me about three hours with the installer of F19, with a >> very simple setup and not even data to preserve and neither RAID, nor >> encryption, and it was only possible after I created the partitions >> outside the installer. There was no way to do it wit

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Bill Oliver writes: >>> Much of what we consider very important today was considered stupid >>> when it first came out. >> >> Like? >> > > Well, the automobile, aircraft, and personal computer immediately come > to mind. Those are good examples. Yet nobody would take away your horse and cart ju

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Chris Murphy writes: > On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee wrote: >> >> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. > > As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one > thinking person to change their mind. Thinking persons do not need to change their minds about it because t

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Liam Proven wrote: ... > > There is no need for separating out admin binaries, user binaries, > local binaries, graphical binaries etc. any more, and hasn't been for > about 2 decades. What about DRBL (Diskless Remote Boot Linux) and LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Pr

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 05:24 PM, Ian Malone wrote: On 24 March 2014 16:11, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/24/2014 04:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 24 March 2014 15:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Wrong. Most servers typically are headless, and if they have a graphic card-build-in, it's usually inaccessibl

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:30:23 -0700 > Rick Stevens wrote: > >> It's not so much an issue that hard disks don't fail, but they usually >> start giving some indication they're having issues > > Not any disk I ever had fail. All of 'em worked perfe

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:30:23 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > It's not so much an issue that hard disks don't fail, but they usually > start giving some indication they're having issues Not any disk I ever had fail. All of 'em worked perfectly right up to the instant where they wouldn't boot one day.

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Once upon a time, Tom Horsley said: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:27:14 -0600 > Chris Murphy wrote: > > Yeah I agree there's too much nervousness about SSD wear issues. > > And, of course, hard disks just never fail in comparison, right? :-). Of course they do. The difference is that traditional har

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 10:38 AM, Tom Horsley issued this missive: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:27:14 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: Yeah I agree there's too much nervousness about SSD wear issues. And, of course, hard disks just never fail in comparison, right? :-). It's not so much an issue that hard disks do

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 14:36 +, Liam Proven wrote: > On 24 March 2014 01:33, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 18:24 +, Liam Proven wrote: > >> On 22 March 2014 18:25, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> > Make sure you file a bugzilla. > >> > >> How/why? It's not a bug. > > > > If i

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:27:14 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > Yeah I agree there's too much nervousness about SSD wear issues. And, of course, hard disks just never fail in comparison, right? :-). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written >>> >much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partitions that can >>> >be read-only on the SSDs and use magnetic disks for things

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > On 24 March 2014 15:51, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> Right, so in your view ten years of install failures to baremetal is an >> intentional feature? > > And again with the challenging and hostility. No, it's just a question. I'm trying to cut t

RE: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

> It doesn`t give you choices. It leaves you in the dark about that it is > somehow > possible to use an non-gui installer and to do a minimal install. It leaves > you > in the dark about what exactly happens when you do the partitioning and > with trying to figure out how get the partitioning

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 16:11, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/24/2014 04:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> On 24 March 2014 15:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> Wrong. Most servers typically are headless, and if they have a graphic >>> card-build-in, it's usually inaccessible or unused. >> >> >> I am actu

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > On 23 March 2014 20:19, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Liam Proven wrote: >> >>> On 22 March 2014 18:25, Ed Greshko wrote: Make sure you file a bugzilla. >>> >>> How/why? It's not a bug. >> >> How do you know? You

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Chris Murphy wrote: Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written >much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partitions that can >be read-only on the SSDs and use magnetic disks for things like /var, >/tmp, /home and swap. It's in the realm of 20+GB written pe

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 04:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 24 March 2014 15:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/24/2014 03:12 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 24 March 2014 12:45, lee wrote: /usr belongs on it`s own partition. And last time I looked, it would not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is nee

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/24/2014 09:22 AM, lee wrote: > Matthew Miller writes: > >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:34:55PM +0100, lee wrote: >>> I`m somewhat surprised that the feeling of apparent desinterest >>> of the makers of Fedora in what its users think seems kinda

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 15:51, Chris Murphy wrote: > > Right, so in your view ten years of install failures to baremetal is an > intentional feature? And again with the challenging and hostility. I have not tried every single release; I tend to do distro roundups maybe every 3-5 years. The particular

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 10:38 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee wrote: > >> Suvayu Ali writes: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its own partition until the F17 installer

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > On 24 March 2014 01:33, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >> On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 18:24 +, Liam Proven wrote: >>> On 22 March 2014 18:25, Ed Greshko wrote: Make sure you file a bugzilla. >>> >>> How/why? It's not a bug. >> >> If it doesn't

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 04:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:56 PM, lee wrote: There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t have. Old news. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 15:32, Tethys wrote: >> Since the normal way to boot a PC now is a complete functioning OS on >> a single removable-media volume - be that an optical disk or USB flash >> media > > Uhhh... wow. That's quite some selection bias you have going on there. > For the record, I'm not awa

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 07:12 AM, Liam Proven wrote: Since the normal way to boot a PC now is a complete functioning OS on a single removable-media volume - be that an optical disk or USB flash media Where did you ever get that idea? Very very few users make a habit of booting from a LiveCD or USB, whi

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee wrote: > Suvayu Ali writes: > >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: >>> >>> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >>> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >>> have. >> >> I'm

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Liam Proven wrote: > Since the normal way to boot a PC now is a complete functioning OS on > a single removable-media volume - be that an optical disk or USB flash > media Uhhh... wow. That's quite some selection bias you have going on there. For the record, I'm

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: >> >> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >> have. > > I'm sorry but the installer

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:56 PM, lee wrote: > > There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its > own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t > have. Old news. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#I_have_.2Fusr_as_a_separate_partition._W

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 15:08, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:47:18PM +, Liam Proven wrote: >> I have to say that you are one of the most hostile, confrontational > > I said this before and I'll say it again if I have to (but I hope I don't). > Please, everyone, check out the Code

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 15:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/24/2014 03:12 PM, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> On 24 March 2014 12:45, lee wrote: >>> >>> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. And last time I looked, it would >>> not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and >>> /sbin but

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:47:18PM +, Liam Proven wrote: > I have to say that you are one of the most hostile, confrontational I said this before and I'll say it again if I have to (but I hope I don't). Please, everyone, check out the Code of Conduct. It's linked in the footer of every post, b

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 03/24/2014 03:12 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 24 March 2014 12:45, lee wrote: /usr belongs on it`s own partition. And last time I looked, it would not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and /sbin but to use symlinks instead. I think that's a very 1980s, or early-19

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 23 March 2014 20:19, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Liam Proven wrote: > >> On 22 March 2014 18:25, Ed Greshko wrote: >>> Make sure you file a bugzilla. >> >> How/why? It's not a bug. > > How do you know? You haven't filed a bug report, you haven't presented any > logs t

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, lee wrote: Bill Oliver writes: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, lee wrote: [snip] If she had known that she didn`t need to throw in this or that, wouldn`t that be easier for everyone? Not necessarily. Sometimes neither that absent-minded aunt nor the avaricious nephew know wha

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 01:33, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 18:24 +, Liam Proven wrote: >> On 22 March 2014 18:25, Ed Greshko wrote: >> > Make sure you file a bugzilla. >> >> How/why? It's not a bug. > > If it doesn't work as it's supposed to, it's a bug. An intentional design

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee wrote: > There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its > own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t > have. As I have commented elsewhere, I think this is a 1980s style of thinking. Things have changed. Move on. Sorr

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On 24 March 2014 12:45, lee wrote: > /usr belongs on it`s own partition. And last time I looked, it would > not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and > /sbin but to use symlinks instead. I think that's a very 1980s, or early-1990s, way of looking at it. Since the nor

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I,?“Why?”)

On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:18 PM, lee wrote: > "Powell, Michael" writes: > >>> Then they need to turn around at once! Leaving users in the dark about >>> what`s going on makes things more difficult for them. Taking away choices >>> limits the use of the software to the point where it eventually b

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Matthew Miller writes: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:34:55PM +0100, lee wrote: >> I`m somewhat surprised that the feeling of apparent desinterest of the >> makers of Fedora in what its users think seems kinda widespread under >> its users. Perhaps it`s a wrong impression; if not, it may be someth

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

Suvayu Ali writes: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: >> >> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >> have. > > I'm sorry but the installer denying /usr on its own partit

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

Allegedly, on or about 23 March 2014, lee sent: > I`m somewhat surprised that the feeling of apparent desinterest of the > makers of Fedora in what its users think seems kinda widespread under > its users. Perhaps it`s a wrong impression; if not, it may be > something for Fedora.next to address. >

Re: Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:34:55PM +0100, lee wrote: > I`m somewhat surprised that the feeling of apparent desinterest of the > makers of Fedora in what its users think seems kinda widespread under > its users. Perhaps it`s a wrong impression; if not, it may be something > for Fedora.next to addre

Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: > > There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its > own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t > have. I'm sorry but the installer denying /usr on its own partition on F17 is the right thing

  1   2   >