Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/24/2014 05:24 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 24 March 2014 16:11, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2014 04:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 March 2014 15:02, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>> Wrong. Most servers typically are headless, and if they have a graphic
>>>> card-build-in, it's usually inaccessible or unused.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am actually an IT professional - no, honestly, really I am - and
>>> every single rackmount server I've used in the last few years still
>>> has an SVGA port on it.
>>
>> But is it used, is it really accessed? I guess no.
>>
>
> Server not responding, plug in monitor + keyboard and check it out.
> Often it will get rebooted anyway, but this is a useful tool.
Well, I did not say, "There are no servers w/ GPU". All I said, is the 
assumption "all servers were having a usable/accessible graphics is 
invalid".

Sometimes the HW doesn't have a GPU, sometimes MoBo is physically 
inaccessible/hardly inaccessible, sometimes the GPU is switched 
off/disabled, sometimes nobody cared to configure the GPU.

On the other hand, I've also seen cases, where switching on the GPU and 
running runlevel 5 on servers helped to reduce power consumption ;)

>>>> IMNSHO, UsrMove was a prominent epic fail in the long serious
>>>> faulty decisions Fedora's leadership has committed.
>>>
>>>
>>> We-eeeelll... I am not sure that I could overall disagree with the
>>> general thrust of your argument there. :¬)
>>
>>
>> No need to do so. RH has implemented facts which have rendered this
>> discussion moot. IMO, some hidden cabal at RH had decided to pick the
>> ancient (> 20 years old) idea to abandon separate partions for /usr and /
>> and to sell it as "revolutionary novelty", instead of shooting it down such
>> proposals as "Windows way of thinking", as it has been done for 20 years
>> before :)
>>
>
> It turned out that usrmove was not a bad idea because it was 'windows
> thinking', but because it broke compatibility with other distributions
> and caused problems with applications that had been written relying on
> guarantees in the fs hierarchy. There are other people on this list
> who can fill in details on their battles with the results.

;) I have been (and occasionally still am) involved with struggling with 
the negative impacts of /UsrMov - These battles are not over, yet.

My primary critism on /UsrMov is the way Red Hat had pushed it. I regret 
having to say so, but to me, this was a rude act, accompanied by a 
disinformation propaganda campaign.

Ralf