Why was nano removed from Fedora 12 LiveCD?
On 11/18/2009 09:09 PM, Vedran Miletić wrote:
Why was nano removed from Fedora 12 LiveCD?
Try asking on the relevant mailing list that create the live cd you are referring to. Most likely it was removed due to size constrains. Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
JBG
On 11/19/2009 06:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/18/2009 09:09 PM, Vedran Miletić wrote:
Why was nano removed from Fedora 12 LiveCD?
Try asking on the relevant mailing list that create the live cd you are referring to. Most likely it was removed due to size constrains. Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
It isn't just you. That's the plan for Fedora 13, reading the recent fedora-desktop list discussions.
Rahul
2009/11/19 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org
On 11/19/2009 06:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/18/2009 09:09 PM, Vedran Miletić wrote:
Why was nano removed from Fedora 12 LiveCD?
Try asking on the relevant mailing list that create the live cd you are referring to. Most likely it was removed due to size constrains. Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
It isn't just you. That's the plan for Fedora 13, reading the recent fedora-desktop list discussions.
Definitively, it is time to retire my old 256 MB stick :'(
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 06:22:28AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/19/2009 06:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 11/18/2009 09:09 PM, Vedran Miletić wrote:
Why was nano removed from Fedora 12 LiveCD?
Try asking on the relevant mailing list that create the live cd you are referring to. Most likely it was removed due to size constrains. Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
It isn't just you. That's the plan for Fedora 13, reading the recent fedora-desktop list discussions.
"The plan" needs further vetting from other parties. Could you or someone on the desktop team please start a discussion on the fedora-devel-list about this topic?
josh
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org writes:
On 11/19/2009 06:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
It isn't just you. That's the plan for Fedora 13, reading the recent fedora-desktop list discussions.
That sounds like a wonderful idea. I'd love to have an easier way to save site-wide customizations to the original install media.
-wolfgang
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 06:14:09 -0800, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" wolfgang.rupprecht@gmail.com wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org writes:
On 11/19/2009 06:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Personally I think we should have stopped supporting optical media some time ago and target only usb sticks 1 GiB+ but hey that's just me..
It isn't just you. That's the plan for Fedora 13, reading the recent fedora-desktop list discussions.
That sounds like a wonderful idea. I'd love to have an easier way to save site-wide customizations to the original install media.
Note that images greater than 4 GiB (which is less than what fits on a DVD by a few hundred MiB) are still a problem. People using FAT for a file system have a maximum file size of 4 GiB. So providing larger images for download is going to give some people problems.
This topic was discussed in the Spins SIG about a year ago and the outcome was that official spin images need to remain under 4 GiB. (Though livecd-creator got changed to allow bigger ones for custom ones by using a different format (udf) for the iso image.)
Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to writes:
Note that images greater than 4 GiB (which is less than what fits on a DVD by a few hundred MiB) are still a problem. People using FAT for a file system have a maximum file size of 4 GiB. So providing larger images for download is going to give some people problems.
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is on FAT and flash memory. If one doesn't care about MS products, does anyone really need to use FAT? I've been formatting my USB flash drives with ext3 or ext4 for a while now. Mostly it was because I was sick of the filenames and permissions getting trashed, but if there was a filesize limit I dodged all the better. So far the only thing that failed with ext3 was when I tried sticking a ext3 flash into my Google G1 Android (linux) phone. That has also got to be a prime example of irony. The only other case I needed a FAT FS was when upgrading the firmware on an Asus mobo from the BIOS.
-wolfgang
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 13:06:26 -0800, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" wolfgang.rupprecht@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is on FAT and flash memory. If one doesn't care about MS products, does anyone really need to use FAT?
You can use other formats for usb devices. I use luks encrypted ext3 on the ones I have now. But for spins, you have to think of the target audiance and until ntfs is common on usb flash drives, there is a good reason to keep spin ISOs under 4 GiB.
On 11/20/2009 01:06 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
Bruno Wolff IIIbruno@wolff.to writes:
Note that images greater than 4 GiB (which is less than what fits on a DVD by a few hundred MiB) are still a problem. People using FAT for a file system have a maximum file size of 4 GiB. So providing larger images for download is going to give some people problems.
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is on FAT and flash memory. If one doesn't care about MS products, does anyone really need to use FAT? I've been formatting my USB flash drives with ext3 or ext4 for a while now. Mostly it was because I was sick of the filenames and permissions getting trashed, but if there was a filesize limit I dodged all the better. So far the only thing that failed with ext3 was when I tried sticking a ext3 flash into my Google G1 Android (linux) phone. That has also got to be a prime example of irony. The only other case I needed a FAT FS was when upgrading the firmware on an Asus mobo from the BIOS.
Most Linux filesystems do a lot more writing (journals, et al) than FAT does. Since you have a limited number of write cycles on a FLASH memory, I'd tend to reserve those for real work, not updating journals, bad block lists, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "How does that damned three seashell thing work?" - - - Sylvester Stallone, "Demolition Man" - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" -
Benjamín Valero Espinosa -
Bruno Wolff III -
Josh Boyer -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rick Stevens -
Vedran Miletić -
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht