critera proposal/discussion: boot.fedoraproject.org

[Philip Rhoades]

Chris,


On 2013-01-12 05:20, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:06 AM, Kamil Paral <kparal at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I tried BFO a few times and I've found it heavily outdated every 
>> time (including today) so I wasn't particularly thrilled about it.
>
> That's a problem.
>
>> Do you think this is something we should block our release on (i.e. 
>> creating a release criteria for it)?
>
> What percent of hardware does ipxe work/fail on? Even if it works on
> a majority, a significant minority failure could make testing for a
> release blocking standard difficult. And at the moment it's BIOS 
> only,
> not for UEFI.
>
>> Also, I'm not fully sure who should benefit from it. If you need to 
>> install Fedora, you do it once in a long time, and there's no problem 
>> to download ISO and boot it. If you install Fedora often (e.g. you're 
>> QA), booting from the Internet every time is a no-go, not until it's 
>> as fast as your USB flash drive.
>
> Fedora LiveCD is ~700MB, and soon after release it's ~400MB of
> updates. BFO gets you that one time install downloaded and installed,
> up to date, faster than ISO.


Exactly! - It is a great idea, I just found it too slow and clunky . .


> The thing is, LiveCD or DVD's inefficiencies still meet a wide range
> of requirements. BFO is a much narrower use case, that doesn't meet
> many needs. Therefore it requires qualification to explain who should
> use it.


I would use it as my first choice for all installs if it was faster and 
a bit more sophisiticated.


> And finding out about it is yet another issue, it's totally
> non-obvious to find BFO.


My experience too.

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
E-mail:  phil at pricom.com.au