Hi there!
According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late, but hopefully not quite *too* late :)
Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is necessarily the best idea.
The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now, and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it. Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its current form. Quick example:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
At the same time, calling the output of the Modularity effort Fedora Server doesn't do much to highlight just how much of a reimagining of the traditional server OS it is.
Based on the above, my proposal is to drop the Fedora Server moniker entirely and release as Fedora Modular Server instead.
The advantage of doing so is that using a different name signals a clear break from previous Fedora Server releases: it's a new product, one that you shouldn't expect to be a drop-in replacement. It's also a name that you haven't heard before, which might pique your interest even if you haven't been using Fedora up until now. I think it would have a positive outcome on the way this release is received.
Moreover, the repositories themselves are already named like that! So it would be just[1] a matter of doubling down on that name and making sure it's being used consistently everywhere.
Looking forward to your feedback :)
[1] Note that I have no idea how much actual work that would entail
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani abologna@redhat.com wrote:
Hi there!
According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late, but hopefully not quite *too* late :)
Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is necessarily the best idea.
The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now, and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it. Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its current form. Quick example:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
At the same time, calling the output of the Modularity effort Fedora Server doesn't do much to highlight just how much of a reimagining of the traditional server OS it is.
Based on the above, my proposal is to drop the Fedora Server moniker entirely and release as Fedora Modular Server instead.
The advantage of doing so is that using a different name signals a clear break from previous Fedora Server releases: it's a new product, one that you shouldn't expect to be a drop-in replacement. It's also a name that you haven't heard before, which might pique your interest even if you haven't been using Fedora up until now. I think it would have a positive outcome on the way this release is received.
Moreover, the repositories themselves are already named like that! So it would be just[1] a matter of doubling down on that name and making sure it's being used consistently everywhere.
Looking forward to your feedback :)
I think you make a pretty good case for this. I'd be interested to see what the Server group thinks.
josh
[1] Note that I have no idea how much actual work that would entail
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/07/2017 08:12 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani abologna@redhat.com wrote:
Hi there!
According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late, but hopefully not quite *too* late :)
Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is necessarily the best idea.
The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now, and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it. Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its current form. Quick example:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
For what it is worth, I would really like to see this as a bug we might be able to fix. I would like to try and bring back the "system-tools" module and include any obvious leaf packages that we are currently missing. :)
However, that said, I am in agreement with your argument. Especially, as mattdm says later in the thread, we couldn't make the everything else module "work." We actually do have an idea for how we might have the traditional rpms "back up" the modules but it has its own problems.
so, in short: a) please file a bug against fedora-modular-release :) b) +1 on renaming (esp. as Mo doesn't seem to think it would be a lot of work)
Langdon
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
At the same time, calling the output of the Modularity effort Fedora Server doesn't do much to highlight just how much of a reimagining of the traditional server OS it is.
Based on the above, my proposal is to drop the Fedora Server moniker entirely and release as Fedora Modular Server instead.
The advantage of doing so is that using a different name signals a clear break from previous Fedora Server releases: it's a new product, one that you shouldn't expect to be a drop-in replacement. It's also a name that you haven't heard before, which might pique your interest even if you haven't been using Fedora up until now. I think it would have a positive outcome on the way this release is received.
Moreover, the repositories themselves are already named like that! So it would be just[1] a matter of doubling down on that name and making sure it's being used consistently everywhere.
Looking forward to your feedback :)
I think you make a pretty good case for this. I'd be interested to see what the Server group thinks.
josh
[1] Note that I have no idea how much actual work that would entail
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 15:56 -0500, langdon@fedoraproject.org wrote:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
For what it is worth, I would really like to see this as a bug we might be able to fix. I would like to try and bring back the "system-tools" module and include any obvious leaf packages that we are currently missing. :)
I can do that. Would fedora-modular-release be the right component?
However, that said, I am in agreement with your argument. Especially, as mattdm says later in the thread, we couldn't make the everything else module "work." We actually do have an idea for how we might have the traditional rpms "back up" the modules but it has its own problems.
so, in short: a) please file a bug against fedora-modular-release :)
Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510792
Hi Andrea,
On 11/07/2017 06:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
Isn't that going to be the case with every Fedora edition?
~m
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
On 11/07/2017 06:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
Isn't that going to be the case with every Fedora edition?
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
I would suggest that the absence of a classic Server that is in line with every other Edition for F27 (and likely F28) is what will primarily lead to confusion. As Andrea outlined, the user experience between F26 and F27 Server is going to be fairly different. If modularity becomes the norm across all editions, we'd be able to discuss dropping the "Modular" part in the name.
josh
On 11/07/2017 08:22 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
Ah, ok. When are the others going modular?
I would suggest that the absence of a classic Server that is in line with every other Edition for F27 (and likely F28) is what will primarily lead to confusion. As Andrea outlined, the user experience between F26 and F27 Server is going to be fairly different. If modularity becomes the norm across all editions, we'd be able to discuss dropping the "Modular" part in the name.
I thought we were releasing a classic server too. Plans must have changed since I last kept up :-/ ?
~m
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/07/2017 08:22 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
Ah, ok. When are the others going modular?
I think that's still very TBD. Maybe we're waiting to see the success of Modular Server?
I would suggest that the absence of a classic Server that is in line with every other Edition for F27 (and likely F28) is what will primarily lead to confusion. As Andrea outlined, the user experience between F26 and F27 Server is going to be fairly different. If modularity becomes the norm across all editions, we'd be able to discuss dropping the "Modular" part in the name.
I thought we were releasing a classic server too. Plans must have changed since I last kept up :-/ ?
I thought this was the plan originally as well, but now it seems not. I don't really like it, but then again we're limited in what we can produce and test so I understand the decision to not do a classic Server.
josh
On 11/07/2017 08:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/07/2017 08:22 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
Ah, ok. When are the others going modular?
I think that's still very TBD. Maybe we're waiting to see the success of Modular Server?
Eek, ok! With that in mind + not releasing a classic in the plan, from the Fedora branding & website design hat here I'd say +1 to Andrea's idea. It is simple for me to change the logotype (the logo mark already has been modified to look 'modular'.) There is probably other work involved though. I will need to work with robyduck to get the website branding updated. I'm not sure where else this may affect.
I'll wait on a decision from the Server SIG to do anything, just letting you know the scope of work from my end.
Cheers, ~m
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:35 AM Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/07/2017 08:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/07/2017 08:22 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
Ah, ok. When are the others going modular?
I think that's still very TBD. Maybe we're waiting to see the success of Modular Server?
Eek, ok! With that in mind + not releasing a classic in the plan, from the Fedora branding & website design hat here I'd say +1 to Andrea's idea. It is simple for me to change the logotype (the logo mark already has been modified to look 'modular'.) There is probably other work involved though. I will need to work with robyduck to get the website branding updated. I'm not sure where else this may affect.
I'll wait on a decision from the Server SIG to do anything, just letting you know the scope of work from my end.
We have this on the agenda for the meeting today. I'll let you know.
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 01:38:12PM +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We have this on the agenda for the meeting today. I'll let you know.
For what it's worth, I have a preference (+1) for a distinctive name but won't veto (±0) using Fedora Server. I can see arguments for both.
On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 08:31 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I thought this was the plan originally as well, but now it seems not. I don't really like it, but then again we're limited in what we can produce and test so I understand the decision to not do a classic Server.
Well, as it happens Server testing is the most automated, so I can actually tell you the state of classic Server in the Final RCs pretty well. It currently doesn't meet the release criteria due to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503321
i.e. upgrading a FreeIPA server to Fedora 27 doesn't go well at present, though it's not terribly hard to work around (just running the upgrade script manually once should do it).
Aside from that, all criteria are met, I believe, though it's unfortunate that it suffers from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489184 . And I'm not sure if we've done the Active Directory client tests.
On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 08:22 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
On 11/07/2017 06:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
Isn't that going to be the case with every Fedora edition?
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
I would suggest that the absence of a classic Server that is in line with every other Edition for F27 (and likely F28) is what will primarily lead to confusion. As Andrea outlined, the user experience between F26 and F27 Server is going to be fairly different.
Just to stir the pot a bit: if I install Fedora 26 Server and then use dnf system-upgrade to upgrade it to Fedora 27, what operating system am I running?
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 08:22 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Andrea,
On 11/07/2017 06:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
Isn't that going to be the case with every Fedora edition?
How? Server is the only Edition using a Modular release for F27.
I would suggest that the absence of a classic Server that is in line with every other Edition for F27 (and likely F28) is what will primarily lead to confusion. As Andrea outlined, the user experience between F26 and F27 Server is going to be fairly different.
Just to stir the pot a bit: if I install Fedora 26 Server and then use dnf system-upgrade to upgrade it to Fedora 27, what operating system am I running?
I'm guessing... a non-Edition at that point?
josh
On 7 November 2017 at 06:08, Andrea Bolognani abologna@redhat.com wrote:
Hi there!
According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late, but hopefully not quite *too* late :)
Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is necessarily the best idea.
The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now, and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it. Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its current form. Quick example:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
Uhm.. that was not what I was expecting from how modularity was expressed earlier. If this is actually 'what we are shipping' then I agree with your assessment and that it should not be called Fedora Server.
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:57:29AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
# dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match
Uhm.. that was not what I was expecting from how modularity was expressed earlier. If this is actually 'what we are shipping' then I agree with your assessment and that it should not be called Fedora Server.
Anything that isn't in a module can't be installed. And we still don't have a solution for "everything else".
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Andrea Bolognani -
Josh Boyer -
langdon＠fedoraproject.org -
Matthew Miller -
Máirín Duffy -
Stephen Gallagher -
Stephen John Smoogen