On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dag Wieers <dag at centos.org> wrote: > On Fri, 1 May 2009, Scott Silva wrote: > >> on 5-1-2009 12:19 PM Alan Bartlett spake the following: >>> On 01/05/2009, Marcus Moeller <mail-7BlZPJ8e1eab+SiqwsCprbNAH6kLmebB at public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> >>>> > So it becomes effectively useless for everyone with a netbook/laptop and >>>> > needs wireless ? I cannot use the LiveCD unless I somehow transfer the >>>> > firmware (or remake the LiveCD), you loose users, hurt the project. >>>> >>>> I am not sure if missing netbook support leads in loosing our audience. >>> >>> Result: Another potential user lost. >>> >>> Surely that didn't really need to be spelt out for you, Marcus? >> >> The opposite would also be true... >> Novice tries CentOS live CD and says "Wow, this works great. I want to install >> CentOS!". Several hours later as he DL's the CD's to install it ,"Now this >> piece of @#&% doesn't work". Also into the trash... > > So you prefer someone whose hardware would work on CentOS not use CentOS > because he is under the impression that it does not work. Some people I know have said something around the lines of: "I tried the CentOS live CD and it didn't, work so I used Ubuntu" > Seems counter-productive. And yes there is a good reason to run an > enterprise linux on a netbook or a laptop. Saying there are better > alternatives is a very personal statement. I use CentOS on my laptop and I would never want to change :) The problem I see with having a live CD that includes all the 3rd party repros is that it will be a lot of work and people will not notice that there is a difference between "base" and "extended". So why not go with 2 different CDs one like it is now the "base" and then have a second one that has all the 3rd party packages enabled and is clearly labeled as such. I am aware that this will be more work to produce. Cheers Didi