[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora 7: The Linux Knight in Shining Armor?

>>I'm kind of wary about this division into desktop, kde-desktop and server.
>>Will they all come on the same dvd, or do I have to select which one to
>>download before installing? If they come separate, and I select (gnome)
>>desktop, say, does it mean I can't run k3b or qtparted? Does it mean I
>>can't install apache? Can someone please clarify why the separation?
> All the packages don't fit on a DVD or a reasonable number of CDs.  This is
> already the case, but the FC6 ISOs didn't also try to contain Extras.
> After the Core/Extras merge in FC7, there is no Extras, so the previous
> rule that "the ISOs only contain Core" becomes inoperative, and new-think
> is required.
>>On my
>>machines there is no clear cut separation between
>>desktop/workstation/server. I have countless packages that I bet will be
>>from all release types.
> In the past one installed them with yum, over the network.  Now more of
> them will be on the ISOs.  This is most important for those who don't have
> (high-speed) Internet access and only get what is on the ISOs.
> Using dual-layer DVD ISOs would fit more of Fedora, but would use (even)
> more storage on the mirror sites than the planned 3 pairs of sets of ISOs
> (say, about 32 GB vs. about 24 GB).  I'm not sure that argument really
> holds water, but that's what's being said.

Say I choose the gnome desktop version. It's only my gut feeling, but I
guess just about everybody runs sshd on their desktop. Theoretically, sshd
would have to come with the server version of Fedora. So I won't be able
during my desktop installation to tell the installer that I want to run
sshd and have it automatically open up port 22 in the firewall.
I kindda liked that. Same considerations for nfs (which many people, I'm
sure, run at home for their 3 machine LAN). How about printing? On the
other hand, I'm afraid I might be getting with my desktop release a bunch
of exotic packages formerly in extras, that I would never touch. 

The argument 32Gb vs. 24 Gb in the mirrors I don't understand. All current
mirrors store both core and extras. If core and extras are merged in FC7,
don't they add up to one and the same amount? Why would the mirrors store
more (or less)? Would essential packages like the kernel, glibc, and other
system utilities be stored 3 times (once for each of gnome/kde/server)?
I suppose not. That'd be wasteful, wouldn't it? 

It seems to me that a division based on the importance of a package to the
system or by how many people use it would be more economical. But that
would take us back to core/extras.

I don't know all the internals of FC and I don't have any stats of package
usage, so a desktop/server division might make more sense. What I said
above are just some concerns that I had, not really criticism. I trust
that the maintainers would come up with the right decisions.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]