[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: Sean <seanlkml sympatico ca>
- To: fedora-devel-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: Leaving?
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:03:58 -0400
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:51:09 +0930
n0dalus <n0dalus+redhat gmail com> wrote:
> There would still be a large number of people who installed nvidia
> drivers without using rpms, or people who have rpms for it installed
> but don't get any updates (so they wouldn't receive an update with a
> Conflicts). We're not talking about a breakage in a small application
> (where the user could still look online for help), we're talking about
> a breakage that will leave all but the most competent users unable to
> fix it from the console.
Then people who care about these users should be getting the message
out with instructions for them on how to prepare for the coming
update. Fedora should not be held hostage because these people
were given less than complete advice on installing binary packages.
Hopefully this will mean that in the future people who give
advice on how to install binary drivers will include _all_ the steps
necessary to prevent this problem as well.
Anyone (or any howto, documentation, etc) who helps a naive user
install binary drivers without also preparing them (or their systems)
to deal with updates to core isn't doing anyone a favor. This
situation has to change, and it's not Fedora Core that should pay
the price for this community failing.
> As for people saying 'Just use an excludes', this argument is not
> really helpful, as many others have pointed out that we're worried
> about the people who don't know what the update has in store (and you
> can hardly blame people for not knowing what the update will do, since
> yum provides zero information about what the updates contain.)
You _can_ blame the people who helped these people install the binary
driver in the first place. The fact that updates (kernel etc) are
coming that will be a problem should not be a shock to anyone.
Any documentation howto's etc, should have anticipated this
problem and prepared these less competent users machines for this
situation. The fact that this wasn't done should not cause Fedora
to be handcuffed.
> I presume that most people with FC5 installed would already have
> working video drivers (or it wouldn't have installed, or would have
> tried another distribution/OS to find one that works). I'm sure that
> X.org 7.1 provides some nice updates, but I think the number of people
> it will actually provide a noticeable improvement to is small (please
> correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't know the numbers. But there will be a significant number of
people that have a better support from this new version of X. Enough
to justify releasing it even over the complaints of binary-driver
> I don't think proprietry/open-source has anything to do with this. If
> a large number of users had installed an open source extension from
> outside Fedora to X that meant this update will stop X from working,
> what would be done then? Of course it's only hypothetical, and
> unlikely, but I think it shows that the decision should not be made on
> the basis of whether or not the conflicting driver is open source.
It does matter though because Fedora is an open source distribution
meant to showcase and support open source software. Those that taint
their systems with binary-only drivers take on the responsibility of
keeping their systems working. Such systems should not handcuff
Fedora from releasing improved open source software to all the users
that _don't_ use binary-only drivers. If that ever happens, we've
> Personally, I would do the following:
> - If X.org 7.1 is easy to get working for FC5, then provide a special
> repo for it and post it on the lists and places like Fedora News and
> Fedora Forum. Hopefully those people who would benefit from the update
> will find out about it.
> - If X.org 7.1 would take some work to get working in FC5, instead use
> that developer time to improve FC6 so we can all in enjoy it along
> with X.org 7.1 in early October.
If this were a one time thing then maybe you'd have a case. But this
will be the same story over and over again whenever a kernel or
X update needs to be pushed. Even in FC6, FC7 etc.. No, this needs
to be viewed in the longer term, and Fedora just should not be
handcuffed because of these users.
Personally, I would do whatever is best for the open source users and
let the binary-only users do whatever is necessary to cope. Hopefully,
any pain they feel will be mitigated by those users that care enough
to prepare them now before the update or (unfortunately) after the
update. And all howto's and 3rd party repos should be updated quickly
so that this scenario doesn't repeat when the next kernel or X update
> Either way, I don't see Fedora being held back by not pushing the
> updates for FC5.
This isn't just about this one update. It's about all kernel and X
(and other?) updates in the future as well.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]