On 29/08/2019 08:06, Lee Starnes wrote:
I have a lot of suggestions. I also don't write plain-text email
so let me know if my formatting is bad.
This is a good format. Thank you.
4. It seems like the paragraph under "Opportunity" really
goes more with
the "Existing Systems" heading. Would it make sense to combine them into
a single heading?
That paragraph serves as an introduction to the entire Opportunity
section, so I feel it should stay.
11. Windows 7 is almost end-of-life and Mac OS X was rebranded to OS
then macOS. I would change the end of the first sentence under "Where
Our Solution Fits" to "such as Windows 10 or macOS".
We are specifically targeting the sort of installation system that
Windows Vista/7/8 had, not 10. Additionally, the macOS installer gives
the user less choice than it did when it was Mac OS X. This may need to
13. For "Objectives", should we specify whether objectives
1 or 2 must
be able to be performed without access to documentation that is not
included on the installation media?
The purpose of the on-line help system is to allow users to access said
documentation. I feel it is unreasonable to time users *not* using the
documentation we're providing for them.
14. For objectives 3 and 4, what constitutes a publication? I'm
that a couple of random blogs should count, but I don't think we need
academic journals to review Horizon.
Random blogs, no. I was thinking online trade journals like LinuxPRO,
15. For objectives 3 and 4, are the time limits relative to the
date for Adelie 1.0, or are they relative to some other milestone?
They are relative to the release of Project Horizon, which is the
release date for Adélie 1.0.
16. For Charlie's 4th need, does he need full-disk encryption, or
encrypting all of the Adelie partitions except /boot sufficient?
I don't believe that this detail is in scope for the vision document.
We've just discussed this somewhat on #Adelie-Social, and everyone's
definition of FDE allows for an unencrypted /boot.
However, I have specifically noted that as Assumption ASM-4:
ASM-4. "Full disk encryption" does not include the /boot partition.
19. The "(See NEX-#.)" references are ambiguous.
Not a whole lot I can do about that with DocBook, unfortunately.
20. How esoteric is River's hardware? Are we talking a somewhat
ARM SBC like a BeagleBone Black, or is it something crazier like a
toaster powered by UltraSPARC?
It has to be supported by easy-kernel to qualify for installation by
Horizon. That said, yes, something like a BeagleBone.
23. For risk #2, it's not really a for-profit project anyway, so
this risk should have an end result of something besides severe
The project is not for-profit but will be significantly harmed from the
financial losses incurred from a scheduling overrun.
25. "Existing Systems" should include more citations.
Will note for another revision; would take too much time for 1.0.
27. Would it make sense to combine all the chapters into a single
document? People (including me the first couple of times I read this)
might not see the Prev/Next links and assume Chapter 1 is the whole
thing. Chapters 2 and 3 are pretty short too.
I should be able to generate a single-page version.
28. Under Vision, Assumptions Made, users who are installing to an
might not have a display output. In this case, should we support using a
serial console or some other way to interact with Horizon? I think some
SBC distributions just ship ready-to-use image that can be dd'd to an SD
For 1.0, we won't have a terminal component. The UI will be graphical,
as in requiring X11.
29. For DEP-5: Boot loaders, do we want to include other
syslinux doesn't work very well with x86 UEFI, and I don't think it
works at all without x86.
GRUB works with UEFI, and also supports PowerPC and SPARC. We do need
to consider U-Boot for ARM, so I've added that; thanks.
All other issues identified in your message have been fixed. Thank you
so much for your feedback!
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux