default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com
Mon Mar 3 15:48:50 UTC 2014


On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>>>> <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>>>>> So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the
>>>>>>> install options completely?", the answer is a resounding
>>>>>>> "NO". However, if you're asking "Are we removing btrfs from
>>>>>>> the drop-down of simple-install layouts?", my personal
>>>>>>> recommendation is "yes".
>>>>>> I disagree - why would we remove the drop down option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would make it exceedingly hard and rare for casual users
>>>>>> to install and test.  Basically, our Fedora btrfs user base
>>>>>> would drop to nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making it easy to test is a critical part of taking btrfs up
>>>>>> to the next level of stability!
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's a matter of user experience, here. By presenting something
>>>>> in the guided drop-down, we are effectively asserting that they
>>>>> are of equal utility and support. This is *not* the reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if you want to talk about having some sort of
>>>>> click-through for "I want to try out some experimental options
>>>>> without going all the way to customizing my layout manually",
>>>>> that (to me) needs to be a different, third path. But listing
>>>>> it directly alongside the default gives a false expectation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, this might be as simple as changing the modern drop-down
>>>>> from * EXT4 * BTRFS * XFS [] Use LVM
>>>>>
>>>>> To something like: * XFS-LVM (Recommended) * XFS * EXT4-LVM *
>>>>> EXT4 * BTRFS (Experimental)
>>>>>
>>>>> But even still, Fedora QA is at least ostensibly supposed to
>>>>> test all guided paths and best-effort of custom paths. This is
>>>>> more paths than are strictly necessary, especially considering
>>>>> that we don't expect many people to actually USE the guided
>>>>> paths (in favor of custom and/or kickstart).
>>>> Ok I was just confused as I haven't done a normal install in a
>>>> few releases.  So you can still get to btrfs going through some
>>>> new "custom layout" option but you want to remove the "install
>>>> onto btrfs" easy button in the normal guided option?  I'm ok with
>>>> this, I just want to make sure that I/users don't have to jump
>>>> through icantbelieveitsnotbtr hoops to install onto btrfs.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Josef
>>> I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above -
>>> let users have the GUI present an option that gives preference to
>>> the default without totally hiding other options.
>>>
>> To be clear, I don't really like that option at all. I was presenting
>> it to show how it's not a great user experience. That being said, if
>> everyone else (and especially QA) prefers that approach, I'm certainly
>> flexible on the point.
>>
>> I'm really hoping that the design, user experience, anaconda and QA
>> teams will make their opinions on this known. I know full well that
>> this is not my area of expertise. BCCing a few specific individuals to
>> hopefully get their input.
> I agree with Stephen here, assuming I'm understanding him correctly.  When
> you talk about choices in a UI, you start exponentially increasing the
> number of paths to do basically the same thing.
>
> Exposing a filesystem choice to users really degrades the user experience.
> Does everyone know what a filesystem is?  And if they know, do they know
> what the options are that we are presenting them?  Do they know the pros and
> the cons between them?  Do they really care that much?
>
> To me it sounds like the goal here is to advertise other filesystem options
> in the hopes that we get some drive-by interest by people doing first time
> installs.  10 years of bug reports tell me that people just don't care about
> that option.  A default is exactly that, a default.  We should pick a good
> default that is well supported across all of the architectures that we care
> about in Fedora.  By exposing a filesystem selection option at install time,
> we're really saying we have that many defaults.  Oh, and we need you to
> understand them so you can pick one.  Most people would probably leave that
> option alone, which begs the question: why have it at all?
>
> It's 2014 and we're still holding on to BTRFS as the solution to all of our
> filesystem problems.  That's fine, but it hasn't happened yet.  And as long
> as that's the story, we should expose something that's actually usable and
> recommended at install time.  I really see no value in offering slightly
> different filesystem options at install time.  If we want something
> different, it should become the new default.
>
> (For clarification, the above is speaking about the automatic partitioning
> code path, not custom partitioning.  Custom will likely always involve more
> knobs and controls for users, and many filesystem types.  But that's ok,
> custom is for those users.)
>

I am fine with having the custom partitioning be the place to deviate from the 
defaults...

Ric



More information about the devel mailing list