> > > The reason for writable root as opposed to readonly root is convenience. > There was(/is?) a fedora/redhat readonly root project for a long time, > I forget its name. The current method caught on, because warts and all, > people liked the results better. Unionfs is a similar alternatve to > readonly root, and was also chosen enmasse by other projects. It > suffers from similar, but differing warts. >
What is the difference in the results? I know that creating a boot-able ubuntu stick is pretty easy to do and I think mostly involves renaming the overlay (if it is done with partitions this is all it involves, so that it just gets mounted as /home rather than /. Is there similar functionality in Fedora? I know that this isn't necessarily ideal, but if it prevents the corruption it could be a temporary fix until something more permanent and less hackish gets worked out. > > In general it has been my experience that fedora/redhat devs are far too > eager to blow off users with older hardware. I understand it makes > design simpler, but it is entirely at odds with a project that is aiming > to recycle older computers in the third world. > > I'd guess (I'm not speaking for anybody), that the 1G stick is still a > target of SoaS, and will be, for at least another year or two or three. > Whereas fedora devs don't give a crap about that use case, any more > than they give a crap about the usecase of my laptop without vt tech. > (i.e. the removal of even the capability of using kqemu accelerator with > qemu) I don't mean to incite anything here, and perhaps I am misunderstanding some things but isn't using Fedora itself counter productive, if the goal is supporting older hardware? If this is the goal we should use puppy linux or something that has stuck with an older kernel (for the reason of supporting all old hardware), it seems to me like every time the kernel upgrades, many things stop working on my hardware, and it isn't that old but I still have to wait for backports from the old kernel. Also this isn't the goal of Fedora at all, it isn't their niche in the ecosystem as I see it, and they actually put it best themselves (The Fedora Project is out front for you, leading the advancement of free, open software and content), it seems like they implement the most advanced portions of Linux, in order to make it stable so that it can be implemented in Red Hat Enterpirse, and other distributions benefit from this experimentation, but it will never run as fast, on old hardware with virtually no ram as something like Puppy, or DSL. Also not to mention that filling up the overlay would never happen because the entire Puppy system is something like 100M, we could even add all of the documentation that it only links to with the web, and stay far under the current size. -Alexander Pirdy
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
