On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 00:38 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>wrote:
>
>
> > But yeah, it'd be nice to have a dd-ish graphical tool that was Fedora
> > branded, or at least not anything *else* branded, and ran on Linux, OS X
> > and Windows. Right now I'm recommending four different tools for three
> > different OSes, and we don't have anything graphical for non-GNOME Linux
> > or for OS X.
> >
>
> Another benefit of writing our own tool is the ability to notify the users
> if the image they are using is obsolete,
> and the ability to verify the image to save time and keep users secure.

I actually think writing our own tool is kind of stupid, and we ought to
work together with other dd-ish distros - which includes at least SUSE
and Arch, from which I actually cribbed most of the dd-ish instructions
on the new wiki page - to create one. Distros could always do customized
builds if they absolutely MUST have something branded / trinket-y
features like this one, but really, this is something we should just be
sharing the work on.

(Before anyone asks, I've tried just asking unetbootin if they're
willing to write Fedora images dd-style instead of their current janky
way. Radio silence.)
 
Sharing a tool would be weird.
It will also confuse the users with too many options.
If the user just downloaded a tool from fedora, it shouldn't promote Arch or SUSE.


But even if we share a tool, that tool must have some way to verify image signature and checksum.
It's not only for security, it's for saving the user's time as well,
you want to let the user know their download broke before they reboot, so they won't waste time trying to figure out why stuff won't work.

The goal is to simplify the install process, not complicate it.
--
-Elad Alfassa.