On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:30:41 +0100, Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Paul W. Frields
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:31:47PM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>> Yeah, I think we definitely need to make the text part of the Fedora
>> process as I would assume that we want to adjust the descriptive text
>> over time.
>> So maybe we can figure out a system where our design and marketing
>> teams can
>> provide updated textual decscriptions for each release and in a format
>> allows our translators to translate it before release.
> I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing, maybe I
> I was referring to the actual interface of the liveusb-creator. It
> features jargon such as "destructive (cp)"/"non-destructive (dd)"
> "persistence." I don't think that's going to work well for users
> their first experience procuring and installing Fedora.
Martin's message sounds like persistence is going away because it's
dd would be destructive, cp would be non-destructive.
dd is quite reliable since it keeps the ISO layout and bootloader
completey intact; whereas with cp the bootloaders will need to be
modified, which I still think is fraught with peril. I think the tool
should just use dd on the backend and inform the user very strongly
*ALL* data on the stick will be destroyed.
If the tool is using livecd-iso-to-disk on the backend, that seems to
be pretty reliable on x86_64 for both BIOS and UEFI firmware types.
But my understanding is livecd-tools is going away in favor of
Regarding dd usage, there's another problem with the partition layout
that's created in the process. It's not trivial to revert the changes that
have been done.
On every operating system, graphical tools inform you that you have a
flash drive of a size of about 10MB - that's the first partition. Most
partition editors (except gparted) see only this information, too.
If dd is to be made the default (and possibly only) option, I'll add some
way to put a basic FAT32 filesystem as the only partition on the drive.
And honestly, this is the way I'd like most - to just tell the user to use
the LUC again to have a working flash drive again.
Do you think that's sane?