On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM, J.H. <warthog19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Currently (and since ~Fedora 12) the default media promoted for >>> installation of Fedora both via our website at fedoraproject.org and at >>> conferences and other events is the Desktop Live Media ISO, delivered >>> via pressed optical media at events, and typically delivered via >>> home-burned optical media or live usb media created via dd, >>> livecd-creator on the command line, or the Live USB Creator GUI (the >>> latter the most popular for non-Linux systems.) >> >> I don't think this is quite a fair representation of the situation >> when it comes to pressed media distributed at events. We don't promote >> either as a "default" method. We have always produced far more >> non-live media for events, usually it outnumbers all the live media by >> 2 to 1 in North America. While some people do install from the live >> media we really promote it as an easy way to try Fedora out, not as a >> preferred way to install it. > > While that may all be quite true, for live events, the fact remains when > I go to: > > http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora > > The big obvious Download button here is for the live media, not for the > installer. I would wager that since Fedora 12 the number of installs / > upgrades done via the live image has gone up significantly because of this. > > Now I am a *HUGE* supporter of the Single button serves most uses > approach (heck I'm probably the reason there's a big blue button on the > get-fedora page), but to find the normal install media on the site I > specifically have to jump through two additional clicks: > > More download options... -> Formats > > The formats section of the page is hidden via javascript, which I'll add > is annoying. > > This tells me that the Fedora Project is pushing for people to do more > via the live cd than via the traditional install media, particularly > since it's as buried as it is and the only way to find it is to dig and > know it's there. I don't disagree with that, I just didn't want both distribution channels lumped together because at live events I think the impression we give is live media is for trying stuff out non-destructively and installation media is for installing Fedora with both available to visitors. >>> Live Media affords some clear advantages over traditional installers, >>> primarily in its ability to be used via USB sticks as optical drives are >>> less ubiquitous in laptops and its singularity as one image you can >>> try-before-you-buy to test out drivers, rescue machines, and use as a >>> full installer. It also affords a gee-whiz factor. >>> >>> However, there are some serious concerns about the stability and overall >>> user experience in promoting live media as the primary installation >>> method of Fedora. There is also a larger concern about the future >>> direction and maintenance of the spins project. Creating and maintaining >>> usable live media is not a trivial task and many of our spins >>> maintainers have understandably burnt out. Reconsidering how we deliver >>> installation of Fedora to our end users may offer an opportunity to help >>> this situation. >> >> Again, we do not promote it now as the primary installation method. >>>From the perspective of someone who has handed out such media at >> events, if the install to hard drive option on the live media is >> causing issues my suggestion is to remove it. The live media has great >> value without it - it seems to be almost an afterthought anyway. > > If the project is not intending to push the download of the live image > over the traditional install media, than I must ask the obvious > question: why does the website seem to promote otherwise? I can't speak to the reasons the website is how it is. Probably just a case of the best intentions not leading to the best results. There is no reason to not revisit those decisions now and make appropriate changes. I'm all for that. > I don't entirely agree with removing the installation option from the > live media, I think it actually would be a bad idea. Yeah, I am ambivalent about the install option on live media personally. I never use, I know others who always use it. It just isn't really the selling point of the live media to me. > The issue at hand seems to be one where there are, effectively, two > different installers being supported (one from the live image, and the > more normal anaconda route). Why not simplify this some? No objection from me. > On the live image have the "install" option do nothing more than execute > a kexec (with an appropriate we will be leaving the live realm and > entering the installer, you can't switch back and forth, etc preamble) > to a safe install medium, likely the anaconda network installer to save > space. > > This would, I think, keep both sides of this situation happy. It still > uses the proper anaconda installer, while preserving the ability to > opportunistically let people install from the live image should they want. > > And if the live images had boot from iscsi support you could run the > whole thing, end to end, from the internet - but I'll admit I can't > figure out who's in charge of the live images to get that support added > in (which I'd happily do the patches for). No objection to any of those suggestions either. John _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
