On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:56 PM, lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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._What_changes_for_me.3F and http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ > > RAID isn`t exotic, either. It kinda is. The definition of exotic is "not ordinarily encountered." And that's even if you look at just the Linux universe, because overwhelmingly most users don't use it. If you look at the rest of the computing world it's either not an install time option or not possible. > > I always use separate partitions. It has lots of advantages. It also has many disadvantages. Hence LVM thinp and btrfs subvolumes as alternatives. > >> I might split off /var on a server but I'd need a remarkably >> persuasive use case, and on servers, I use extra-stable distros >> without GUIs, not something like Fedora. > > /var can get full, and it`s written to, same goes for /tmp. Use quotas. > 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 per day every day, for the warranty period. If you're doing that, get an enterprise SSD. Or stick with HDDs. > Why wouldn`t you use different partitions? I can see it (and have done > it) for when the available disk capacity is extremely limited, but > otherwise it doesn`t make any sense and has nothing but disadvantages. It's cute when people project their world view in such narrow terms. Looking over at Windows and OS X, for 20+ years they've had at most two partitions, one for boot and one for everything else. OS X only just went from one partition for everything to two just a few releases ago in order to support full disk encryption (around a decade after Linux had it, but then it's also on-the-fly COW online convertible bidirectionally). So there isn't an inherent good for partitioning. It's useful for certain use cases. It's a negative for others. > >> But this just illustrates the breadth of scenarios a successful >> installer must cope with! > > It`s merely a reasonable standard thing to use separate partitions and a > requirement to use RAID, and encrypted partitions for laptops, not > something in any way unusual. It is in fact unusual. What you're doing is proposing that what works for you, as a default for everyone. And your arguments for changing the paradigm are completely uncompelling. "a requirement to use RAID" is particularly irritating because you're saying everyone without boot from SAN capability, or a laptop, should be required to have two like sized drives to do an install. Otherwise it wouldn't be "required". So what you're writing doesn't even make sense. > Of course I expect an installer to handle > that as well as using a single, unencrypted partition on a single disk. > > And it`s not too difficult. The installer doesn`t need to do the > partitioning, the user does it. The installer only needs to give the > user a good tool to do the partitioning the user wants and let them use > it. Good tools to do partitioning are already available, and the > installer doesn`t need to re-invent the wheel in that. > > Perhaps it even shouldn`t. Why force the user to learn how to use yet > another partitioning tool they even rarely use unless they install > Fedora all the time? The Fedora installer will use existing layouts: partitions, PV/VGs, Btrfs, and md RAID. Click on the existing logical device and then specify a mount point for it. > Why not give them a choice, like either cfdisk or > parted, then tell the installer what to do with each partition and let > them switch between these until they are done Use kickstart? I think letting users switch between two tools means both tools are failures, or the user is neurotic. Pick a tool for a task, move on to the next tool. Switching back and forth isn't going to be stable. You're talking about a tiny percent of users doing what you suggest, which means an infinitesimal number are testing it. Seldom used or seldom tested things have no place in a GUI installer. > --- or let the installer > do whatever partitioning it wants, which means that all existing data on > the disks will be deleted. This is the most commonly supported install/reinstall use case. It is highly stable, highly successful, pretty much never fails, takes far far less development and test time, and has little potential for regressions. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
