On 05/26/2011 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I am wondering why you think it is.
>
> Care to explain?
I was using Gnome as an example of how project devs turn their backs on
the needs of the users. The same thing seems to be happening,
gradually, with the Fedora devs, at least to the extent
On 05/27/2011 06:15 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 05:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> You made a assumption (or a accusation if you will) on the entire
>> project with a diverse base of contributors that it was about control or
>> convenience of developers and not users and asserting it would
On 05/26/2011 05:32 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You made a assumption (or a accusation if you will) on the entire
> project with a diverse base of contributors that it was about control or
> convenience of developers and not users and asserting it would only
> demotivate people who work hard to he
On 05/27/2011 05:52 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> I know you're frustrated, but don't take it out on me. I'm not the one
> complaining, I haven't (yet) upgraded to F 15 and I've already migrated
> from Gnome to XFCE to avoid Gnome 3. All I did was point out that
> projects tend to get less and less re
On 05/26/2011 04:54 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Look, someone didn't change the Release Notes which they should have, now they
> have. You had an install fail, nobody died, the Earth's magnetic field didn't
> flip, and if you want to bitch about something the users didn't need or want,
> start with
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 02:16 PM, Kam Leo wrote:
>> After reading the bug report I can only shake my head.
>
> This is Yet Another Example of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action.
> (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html) In this case,
> the people running the project cle
Kam Leo wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Mike Williams
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/25/2011 10:44 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
It seems that the installer files
have gotten fatter and more memory is required.
>>>
>>> When I checked http://f
Kam Leo wrote:
> I tried upgrading my system using the DVD, Netinstall CD, and
> Preupgrade. Each time boot got stuck at the line "Trying to unpack
> rootfs image as initramfs. . . ". It seems that the installer files
> have gotten fatter and more memory is required.
>
> This is a known problem,
>
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> There is a difference between how live images work and the non-live
> installation in Fedora. In the case of live images, you are
> essentially copying a full image to the disk and writing a boot loader.
> It is extremely fast. Maybe takes
On 05/26/2011 07:40 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
> I create and run multiple virtual Fedora installs which are clones of
> each other. I do not feel it is proper to let Smolt report each
> instantiation because the hardware is virtual and identical. Does
> Fedora Project really need those virtual stats?
C
On 05/25/2011 06:47 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Why make the installer fiddle with dozens of RPMs then (which
> takes a lot of time) instead of copying a partition image of this
> "minium bootable system" from DVD to HD??.
Having a partition image on the DVD would make the .iso for it
considerab
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 06:49 AM, Tim wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 05:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> I would say, the average Fedora user has anywhere between 1 GB
>>> and 4 GB of RAM and with every release, the amount of people using
>>> sys
On 05/26/2011 07:30 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
> So I repeat my question: After partitioning is done, wouldn´t it be
> easier to copy a "base bootable image" to a volume?. Wasn´t that the
> big change in Windows installer from XP to 7?, the fact that the
> installer is much faster because it just
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 22:51, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I think you are grossly underestimating the complexity of a modern Linux
> distribution installer. ISCSI, LUN storage discovery, RAID, LVM,
> kickstart, network handling, kdump, mirror lists, storage
> handling, swap, partitioning,
On 05/26/2011 07:17 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> What kind of rocket science is needed by the average linux installer,
> besides extracting RPMs or .tar.gz files and copying files to the HD?
>
> Other than selecting different kernels based on architecture (say,
> i386, i686, etc) after hardware sni
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 21:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> No problem. Not sure what you were laughing about but if you are
> running Fedora with 256 MB RAM, you are in a minority of Fedora
> users. I would say, the average Fedora user has anywhere between 1 GB
> and 4 GB of RAM and with every re
On 05/26/2011 06:46 AM, Tim wrote:
> I don't really agree.
>
> It will be known that at least some minimum is required (to do a minimal
> install), probably a higher minimum is required (to do one of the
> prepared list of packages;
If you have patches, Anaconda has a development mailing list, I
On 05/26/2011 06:49 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 05:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> I would say, the average Fedora user has anywhere between 1 GB
>> and 4 GB of RAM and with every release, the amount of people using
>> systems with even more RAM keep growing.
> Must be only the hard
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 05:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I would say, the average Fedora user has anywhere between 1 GB
> and 4 GB of RAM and with every release, the amount of people using
> systems with even more RAM keep growing.
Must be only the hard core users. Because it's still common to
Kevin J. Cummings:
>> Preupgrade should know about the limitation and refuse to run the
>> upgrade if insufficient ram exists in the system instead of waiting
>> for the reboot where it just hangs with no explanation
Rahul Sundaram:
> "Should know" is true in the ideal sense. However it is fa
On 05/26/2011 05:00 AM, Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
> Rahul,
>
> First of all I want to thank the whole team for their efforts. I surely
> appreciate not only the quality of work, but also the quality of the
> product. However, I had to laugh a little when I read your note. I
> have some units that
Subject: Re: Fedora 15 installer needs more than 512MB RAM
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 03:54:17 +0530
On 05/26/2011 03:50 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Unfortunately that's not something likely to be seen by potential
> newbies who are thinking of trying out this Fedora thing
I don
On 05/26/2011 04:06 AM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> Preupgrade should know about the limitation and refuse to run the
> upgrade if insufficient ram exists in the system instead of waiting for
> the reboot where it just hangs with no explanation...
One more thing. If the installation completes but
On 05/26/2011 04:06 AM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> Preupgrade should know about the limitation and refuse to run the
> upgrade if insufficient ram exists in the system instead of waiting for
> the reboot where it just hangs with no explanation
"Should know" is true in the ideal sense. However
On 05/25/2011 06:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 03:50 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Unfortunately that's not something likely to be seen by potential
>> newbies who are thinking of trying out this Fedora thing
>
> I don't think we need to worry about newbies using the net
> insta
On 05/26/2011 03:53 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
>> QA works against a well documented and publicized release criteria that
>> gets frequent updates via test list
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Final_Release_Criteria
> Strange that being able to install on a system with minimum hardware
> requ
On 05/26/2011 03:50 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Unfortunately that's not something likely to be seen by potential
> newbies who are thinking of trying out this Fedora thing
I don't think we need to worry about newbies using the net
installation. They aren't likely to start with that. Also t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 02:46 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
>> After reading the bug report I can only shake my head.
>>
>> 1. The problem was known at least a month before the release date.
>
> Yes. As noted in the bug report, a change in the installer and re
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 02:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > 3. Release Notes have long lead times and are no longer suitable for
> > flagging important last minute changes in system requirements.
>
> Fedora doesn't rely on only the release notes. There are other places
> including the common bug
On 05/26/2011 03:19 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> I assume that the installer now checks the amount of available memory
> and displays a warning screen when you attempt an install on a 512MB
> RAM system, no?
>
> Or was that too considered "too disruptive"?. Disrupting the install
> without previous
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 16:20, Mike Williams wrote:
> There are more details here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682555
>
> Mike
I assume that the installer now checks the amount of available memory
and displays a warning screen when you attempt an install on a 512MB
RAM system, n
On 05/25/2011 02:16 PM, Kam Leo wrote:
> After reading the bug report I can only shake my head.
This is Yet Another Example of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action.
(http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html) In this case,
the people running the project clearly see nothing wrong w
On 05/26/2011 02:46 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
> After reading the bug report I can only shake my head.
>
> 1. The problem was known at least a month before the release date.
Yes. As noted in the bug report, a change in the installer and related
components are going in for Fedora 16 but the amount of ch
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>
>> On 05/25/2011 10:44 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
>> > It seems that the installer files
>> > have gotten fatter and more memory is required.
>>
>> When I checked http://fedoraproject.org/ yesterd
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 10:44 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
> > It seems that the installer files
> > have gotten fatter and more memory is required.
>
> When I checked http://fedoraproject.org/ yesterday, it said that Fedora
> 15 required 500 MB RAM; now, it says 76
On 05/25/2011 10:44 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
> I tried upgrading my system using the DVD, Netinstall CD, and
> Preupgrade. Each time boot got stuck at the line "Trying to unpack
> rootfs image as initramfs. . . ". It seems that the installer files
> have gotten fatter and more memory is required.
When I
36 matches
Mail list logo
