[SoaS] [Sugar-devel] SOAS 2 problems

Xander Pirdy xander.pirdy at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 18:21:43 EST 2010

> The reason for writable root as opposed to readonly root is convenience.
>  There was(/is?) a fedora/redhat readonly root project for a long time,
> I forget its name.  The current method caught on, because warts and all,
> people liked the results better.  Unionfs is a similar alternatve to
> readonly root, and was also chosen enmasse by other projects.  It
> suffers from similar, but differing warts.

What is the difference in the results? I know that creating a boot-able
stick is pretty easy to do and I think mostly involves renaming the overlay
(if it
is done with partitions this is all it involves, so that it just gets
mounted as /home
rather than /. Is there similar functionality in Fedora? I know that this
necessarily ideal, but if it prevents the corruption it could be a temporary
until something more permanent and less hackish gets worked out.

> In general it has been my experience that fedora/redhat devs are far too
> eager to blow off users with older hardware.  I understand it makes
> design simpler, but it is entirely at odds with a project that is aiming
> to recycle older computers in the third world.

> I'd guess (I'm not speaking for anybody), that the 1G stick is still a
> target of SoaS, and will be, for at least another year or two or three.
>  Whereas fedora devs don't give a crap about that use case, any more
> than they give a crap about the usecase of my laptop without vt tech.
> (i.e. the removal of even the capability of using kqemu accelerator with
> qemu)

I don't mean to incite anything here, and perhaps I am misunderstanding some
but isn't using Fedora itself counter productive, if the goal is supporting
older hardware?
If this is the goal we should use puppy linux or something that has stuck
with an older
kernel (for the reason of supporting all old hardware), it seems to me like
every time the
kernel upgrades, many things stop working on my hardware, and it isn't that
old but I
still have to wait for backports from the old kernel. Also this isn't the
goal of Fedora at
all, it isn't their niche in the ecosystem as I see it, and they actually
put it best
themselves (The Fedora Project is out front for you, leading the advancement
of free,
open software and content), it seems like they implement the most advanced
portions of
Linux, in order to make it stable so that it can be implemented in Red Hat
Enterpirse, and
other distributions benefit from this experimentation, but it will never run
as fast, on old
hardware with virtually no ram as something like Puppy, or DSL. Also not to
mention that filling
up the overlay would never happen because the entire Puppy system is
something like 100M,
we could even add all of the documentation that it only links to with the
web, and stay far under
the current size.

 -Alexander Pirdy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/attachments/20100129/bd94c473/attachment.htm 

More information about the SoaS mailing list