On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:18 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 14:00 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > My major point is that a LiveCD has needs that Fedora Core does not. > > Because of the route we're travelling with Kadischi we have to think of > > some way to satisfy those needs that fits comfortably with the rest of > > the Fedora development philosophy and infrastructure. > > After some investigation, I really don't feel the needs are that > different. Perhaps "needs" is the wrong word then. How about a LiveCD needs different technologies to achieve its ends than a hard drive install. In our two instances: squashfs addresses two needs of a LiveCD: 1) Ability to add more information to a limited space. This has not seemed to be a goal for Core. We talk about limiting the size of the necessary install in terms of dropping packages from the necessary set, not how to make more applications available in less space. 2) Faster access to programs on disk. Fedora has worked to increase startup speed via bootchart profiling, readahead, early login in gdm, and prelink. All of these benefit LiveCDs as well. Core has not decided to make a read-only, compressed image of all the programs and files on the system so they load from disk faster. Possibly because you'd have to remaster the image that we boot from. It's a pretty poor tradeoff for Core. But for a LiveCD that is already read-only and already remastered anytime there's a change, and where transferring from disk is tremendously slower, it's a natural fit. unionfs overcomes a LiveCD's inability to write to its filesystem. The goal is to provide the ability to modify configuration, provide a place to store user data and system customization, and make less work when adapting a standard linux distro to a CD environment. stateless addresses the last of the issues directly by adapting the standard distro to not write to the root filesystem. The other two are provided via a preconfigured network server. A LiveCd which includes "try-before-you-buy" and rescue capabilities as goals cannot depend on having a preconfigured server on the network (or even the nhtwork) in order to operate. Additionally, unionfs adds the capability to appear to write to a liveCD's filesystem and therefore adds to the potential uses for the liveCD. stateless attempts to subtract the need to write to the filesystem and therefore make Fedora more suited to be remotely managed. The liveCDs and stateless have different goals which have overlapping areas of interest but don't always coincide. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
