Clarify purpose of factory types

[kprosise]

Added very simple and brief definitions for container-only and LmP Factory types to the getting started page. We may want to add/change more here, either now or in the future. Also made other small changes to the wording and layout of the page.

Built docs and checked output.Ran Vale linter and
linkcheck. No issues.

This commit addresses fftk-4543, "…purpose of Factory types…"

PR Template and Checklist

Please complete as much as possible to speed up the reviewing process.
You may delete items that are not relevant to your contribution.
Readiness and adding reviewers as appropriate is required.

All PRs should be reviewed by a technical writer/documentation team and a peer.
If effecting customers—which is a majority of content changes—a member of Customer Success must also review.

Readiness

• Merge (pending reviews)

Checklist

• Run spelling and grammar check, preferably with linter.
• Step through instructions (or ask someone to do so).
• Review for wordiness
• Match tone and style of page/section.
• Run make linkcheck, and add redirects for any moved or deleted pages.
• View HTML in a browser to check rendering.
• Use semantic newlines.
• follow best practices for commits.
  • Descriptive title written in the imperative.
  • Include brief overview of QA steps taken.
  • Mention any related issues numbers.
  • End message with sign off/DCO line (-s, --signoff).
  • Sign commit with your gpg key (-S, --gpg-sign).
  • Squash commits if needed.
• Request PR review by a technical writer and at least one peer.

Comments

Any thing else that a maintainer/reviewer should know.
This could include potential issues, rational for approach, etc.

[kprosise]

@vanmaegima We may want to make more changes, this is just a quick attempt on my part.

[angolini]

I don't like this change now. I would not merge right now. For me it requires the product names established first.

[angolini]

I'm not sure "adding packages that can not run as containers" is a good way to describe the need of a package installed into the rootfs. I would at least avoid the "can not" and use something more vague as "might". But I would suggest:

Suggested change

	This allows for customization of the platform, such as adding packages that can not run as
	containers, or changes to support hardware requirements.
	This allows for customization of the platform, such as installing packages to the rootfs, or changes to support hardware requirements.

[kprosise]

I just copied it from the customizing LmP tutorial/page. I will edit it here and update the source in a different PR.

[angolini]

I don't like this sentence. Because it makes me think if I know which type of factory do I have/want.

I would say instead:

Suggested change

	The FoundriesFactory® Platform has two paths for getting started, depending on your Factory type.
	The FoundriesFactory® Platform provides two flavors/configurations/types/products of FoundriesFactory: container-only Factory (here use the right name) and LmP Based Factory.

not that I don't know the product names, we have an agreement to never say only Factory. And "LmP Based Factory" is far from being a good name.

But, my point is that this is supposed to be the very first sentence a newcommer will read, so the reader does not know anything, the reader does not know which is a factory, and does not know what factory type s/he has/need

[kprosise]

Yeah, I think explaining what a Factory is first would be appropriate

[kprosise]

@angolini Thanks for the feedback! I even considered opening this as a draft first, so I really appreciate your insight.