Good news
by John Himpel
The Release Management folks have assigned (volunteered) Patrik Polakovic to serve as our guide for the process of renaming our various distribution media.
I am virtually unavailable the next two weeks. If anyone has time to contact Patrik and begin the learning process, please feel free to go ahead.
John
Sent from my iPhone
3 days, 7 hours
Re: Fixing the "Everything" installation medium problem
by Peter Boy
> Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:17 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
>
> 1.
> The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things.
>
> The default values don't install a desktop environment. The default package set is "Fedora Custom Operating System", which is very similar to a minimal installation.
>
> You probably meant that the default filesystem layout is the same as when installing a desktop environment. That's true.
Yes, I meant the runtime environment, which is among others the filesystem.
> But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e. CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora version that installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
> ...
>
> You can make Everything netinst image behave as if it was a Server image by adding "inst.profile=fedora-server" to kernel params when booting it. I just tested that, it has Server branding, the correct Server layout and package set. Perhaps this is worth documenting?
Good to know. But part of branding is also that such "tricks" are not necessary.
>
> 2.
> There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
>
> On one hand, if somebody is experienced enough to find alternative download images, they should kinda know what they're doing.
Yes and No. Obviously, many Fedora users are used to everything working reliably and predictably "out of the box". And that's exactly what our goal is (with Fedora Next) and what sets us apart from other distributions. So you click on the installation menu and everything runs as it is listed there.
> On the other hand, it would be nice if anaconda provided more clarity about this. Either by allowing to pick one of available profiles right after selecting language (including a "generic" profile, which is the current behavior), or by asking the user whether to apply the profile values when they pick e.g. Server package set (acknowledging that e.g. partitioning might need to be re-done). File an RFE against anaconda?
I think the only acceptable way would be for Anaconda to automatically select the full Fedora Server profile, not just the file system type. From what has been said, this is currently not possible in Anaconda with reasonable effort.
And all the other options would also have to be revised. Why are "Web server" and „Infrastruktur server" mutually exclusive options, just one example from the list? And a "Fedora Server Edition" does not include a graphical user interface and certainly no "Games and Entertainment" or "VideoLan Client“. And non-applicable options do not belong in its option list for selection.
And honestly, I don't want to see "Fedora Server Edition" in such a "wild" and unsystematic list. That in no way reflects our professional aspirations.
And apart from that, who wants to go through all these options and test them?
Therefore, I think the easiest solution is to just remove the „Fedora Server Edition“. And make it very clear that this is not the Fedora corresponding to "Fedora NeXt", but Fedora DIY (for the adventurous user not asking for support).
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
2 weeks, 5 days
Preferred method for sysadmin tasks on remote hosts?
by John W. Himpel
All,
I notice that most of our Fedora Server documentation describes using
cockpit and command-line and graphical apps.
While I have no objection to this and I believe it works well for
maintaining a small number of servers and/or services, it is my belief
this becomes quite cumbersome for more than a handful of servers and/or
services.
I have been asked to edit the NFS Server service installation and setup
documentation currently found in the Staging Environment. The docs
should cover both server side and client side procedures. I am more
that willing to edit the procedures prescribed in that document. But I
prefer using ansible to maintain my server environment. It becomes
permanent documentation (in case I am no longer available) and it
becomes repeatable by only modifying the "environment files" if a
server requires a rebuild.
I am looking for the opinion and experience of the community in
deciding whether or not we should document both types of procedures.
4 weeks
Fixing the "Everything" installation medium problem
by Peter Boy
Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
1.
The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things. This violates pretty much all of the lower technical specifications for the Fedora Server Edition.
2.
There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
3.
Funnily enough, a "wild collection" of groups is offered as sub-options for the server installation, ranging from various graphical user interfaces to special configurations such as video editing. All of this certainly has no place on a "Fedora Server Edition".
4.
The compilation of options and sub-options does not give the impression that anyone has seriously considered their meaningfulness recently.
(See image in https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/136)
5.
And even worse, a major provider of rentable ROOT servers (Hetzner), which has just managed to bring Fedora back into its supported OS options, uses "Everything" because it's the best for customers. And thus produces user disappointment at a critical point. This thwarts our efforts to make Fedora Server Edition available on other platforms.
The minimum solution is to remove the option „Fedora Server Edition“ from the installation options and to rename the medium to „Fedora Selection“ or something similar.
In addition, it would certainly be beneficial to thoroughly revise the options. For example, if I select the "Fedora Cloud Server“ installation option and perform an installation, I get the following after booting the installation:
----------
Unexpected return from initial read: Device Error, buffer size 0
Failed to load image : Device Error
Start_image() returned Device Error
StartImage failed: Device Error
----------
I don't think that's the intention of Cloud Working Group.
Best
Peter
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
1 month
