Am 30.04.2024 um 17:42 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 10:24 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
>> Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>:
>> But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
>
> Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates
> back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file
> system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e.
> CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
"btrfs apologists wanted to enforce"
This is egregiously false.
First, there is the negative connotation of "btrfs apologists" versus
"btrfs proponent" - it is unnecessarily adversarial to use the former rather
than the latter.
Well, both terms describe a person or a group of people who are highly committed to an
idea or a goal and invest a lot of work in it. There is no negative connotation, rather
the opposite, namely the concession to do something outstanding.
Second, the btrfs proponents asked every SIG and working group their
opinion on whether to use btrfs, and if they would like to opt in, before the change
proposal was submitted.
This is a very „abbreviated“ description of the discussion and your role. It took a
special discussion to allow the CoreOS WG and the Server WG not to use btrfs as default
(as an „exception“).
> Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora
version that
> installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora
> Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just
> something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined
> features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical
> Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
>
> But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
This is an old debate.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject....
That thread has nothing to do with this discussion. The naming of the repository as
everything is correct. It is merely a collection of all rpms that Fedora produces and not
an installation - as stated in the thread cited.
Have you asked some folks why they're using the
"Everything" image instead of the one you're recommending on the Server
website and in Server documentation?
No, why should I? Anyone who wants to is welcome to use Everything Netinstall and install
a mix of its options to fulfill server tasks. It will just not install a "Fedora
Server Edition“.
If you've done your best to encourage users, providers,
downstreams to use the proper images - and they still use the wrong thing... I'm not
sure what to say.
They argue on the official project page there is an „Everything“ medium which contains
„Fedora Server Edition“. And now someone comes along and says it doesn't work that
way. That's really difficult to argue.
That's why it's important to use precise and unambiguous terms on our website.
If it's truly easy then do it. Write up a change proposal. I
think the significant impediment for the proposal that will need to be addressed is how to
square the fact the media is titled "Everything" but the description is
"everything but Server Edition“.
The correct description would be "everything but Server Edition, CoreOS Edition, Iot
Edition, Silverblue, Kinoite and Asahi“. And I may even have missed something. Really a
great ‚Everything‘.
The name „Everything“ is simply wrong and missleading.
Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's about branding, promoting and positioning Fedora in the chorus of distributions.
It's about paying tribute to all the work of our maintainers, developers and
infrastructure people, and making Fedora more widespread and usable. If you think that’s a
molehill ...
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast