On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 18:39 +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > > All distros which ship hybridized ISOs really *need* a tool like > > this; > > I've actually poked through the docs for most distros and they all > > have > > some kind of instructions for doing a dd-style write on Windows and > > OS > > X, and they all kinda suck just like ours. So I think a shared tool > > with good cross-OS support would be a huge win for all of us. I > > included links to the support pages for the major distros here: > > > > https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/02/04/more-on-booting-a-practical- > > fedora-uefi-guide-and-dont-use-universal-usb-stick-writers/ > > > > you can see from that that we're all promoting a kind of mish-mash of > > non-purpose-built tools which don't really give a great user > > experience > > overall. > > Having one finalized tool for all distributions is frankly a no-go for > me. The last thing I wanna have is a tool that people download at > getfedora.org and that offers them a list of distributions including > our competition. That would not be wise. That's not the idea. > Having some common base which every distribution would use to build > their own branded LUC on? That's the idea. The important bits of the tool are generic, anyway - the actual writing (and restoring) code (and if we ever get to the point of writing them, the overlay bits - or if there's distro specificity to this, it can be made one of the modular bits). The branding and the list of images for download can very easily be made modular, such that they can be specified as part of a build step. Then each distro can have its own 'personalized' package and/or executable distribution(s), but it's really the same tool under the covers, we aren't all wasting time working on a dozen bad implementations of the same thing. > Why not, but it's definitely not in the scope > of the current initiative. We will be glad if we have it ready for > Fedora by 24. And I also think it's in the interest of other > distributions to drive the project in that direction, we're not the > ones to create the demand. I think it's in *everyone's* interests for distributions to collaborate where it makes sense. A decent USB writing tool is just a box all distros should be checking, and which we're currently all not checking while simultaneously wastefully spending separate resources on. A USB writing tool is really not a big enough deal to be a 'selling point' for a distribution, it's something we should just get together and maintain collaboratively to be more efficient and avoid the situation where we all have a half-assed tool that isn't maintained half the time and so people wind up using unetbootin or Rufus, failing, and deciding Linux sucks. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
