David Zeuthen wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 18:40 -0500, Jasper Hartline wrote:
>> I see. Sorry, but I think this is a little backwards, I mean, why
>> wouldn't I just download the install CD's; it's pretty much the same
>> amount of traffic.
> I'll leave you to debate the difference between a router style 550MB
> install and a full blown everything
> chosen 7GB install. I'm sure a calculator isn't necessary to see the
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
The point is that, you wouldn't download the entire distribution of X
when there is a LiveCD you can install from, that provides the same
interface as the real installer discs.
This would be Anaconda. There is a big difference in downloading 3.2GB
of data than installing a 1.6GB system with X from
a LiveCD installer interface and not needing to know which discs are
required, this requires the network unless it is a DVD
in which case the 3.2GB could be provided on disc. This doesn't change
the installer interface, Kadischi and Anaconda are still
able to use a local repository for installation.
>> Also keep in mind that many consumers of live cd's
(typically in poor
>> countries) have zero network connectivity - all they have is a live cd
>> that some benevolent organization sent them. Like Ubuntu's ship it.
>> The approach I have in mind includes just reusing the ext3 file system
>> we have already prepared and just dd that onto the target installation
>> block device. That way an install would take very little time and the
>> only thing you need to make this work is the live cd itself.
> This is extremely unflexible and the user is limited to what you've
> mastered onto the LiveCD
Excuse me? How is this different from Kadishchi built live CD's? CD
space is limited.
Exactly. Using Anaconda to install to system defeats this barrier.
> With Anaconda it is a familiar, flexible, choosable option,
> selectable interface
> along with that upgrading the system from Core to Core is a snap, using
Oh, I see, it sounds like you're making the point that the Anaconda
package selector is better than Pirut. If so the Pirut authors better
Pirut was made for installing packages, not installing complete systems.
Yes, we know Pirut doesn't partition disks using LVM, or RAID or making
SWAP where you want it
which is compensated by your rogue disk tools.. this is also going to be
wary at first as people are familiar with
Anaconda and it is an already existing Fedora Core tool, not a rogue
disk partitioner that you wrote up in a weekend.
I'm not really sure who you are designing for here and it sounds
you are not sure yourself either. I think that important goals of a live
CD should be
1. Installable without requiring a network
(since many potential users will have little or no network
connectivity, cf. distributions to poor countries.)
2. Ability to install / try out software before installing the livecd
to their hard disk.
(to let people see if the apps they need are available)
3. Contains all software the user base you are trying to target wants
(why it's good to easily be able to build different flavors, e.g.
GNOME desktop, KDE desktop, Eclipse, Music, Games, whatever)
all this while fitting on a single 700MB CD. Besides point 1. I've got
this covered in pilgrim and in a few weeks I should have command line
utilities at least to do the live installs. The UI will follow once the
bespoke gnome-diskutil is ready.
Jasper, why you (obviously) disagree that these are important for Live
CD infrastructure is quite frankly hard to grasp especially when we have
competitors (Ubuntu) that do this already and is kicking our ass in this
department. I also think it's a really bad idea to try to fix this by
using technology (Kadischi) that is inferior to theirs.
Again, Kadischi builds LiveCDs. Anaconda is the system installer.
Anaconda is by far not inferior for installing from a LiveCD.