critera proposal/discussion: boot.fedoraproject.org
phil at pricom.com.au
Sat Jan 12 02:42:50 UTC 2013
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 I tried BFO a few times and I've found it heavily outdated every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
> 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.
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
E-mail: phil at pricom.com.au
More information about the test