What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:35:02 +0100, Kevin wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:32:12 -0600, Arthur wrote:
>> >
>> >> 6 months is a pretty long time to wait for a major release. I
>> >> understand the rationale, but if this is going to be the new Fedora,
>> >> best announce this and let  everyone know so that they can reevaluate
>> >> if Fedora is for them. As things are, I feel that we are being _too_
>> >> conservative. Any further move to more conservatism seriously affects
>> >> Fedora's usefulness to me.
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because, like me, he chose Fedora *because* of the stream of updates, we
>> *want* those updates, including version upgrades.
>
> Judging on the community uproar everytime a grave bug in updates is
> discovered, I don't see that Fedora's users want so many poorly tested
> updates and upgrades that throw away the work of the previous development
> (Rawhide) period. I hear and read that the six months release cycle
> is fast-moving enough for them and that every new release suffers from
> enough bugs which requires updates to bring it into usable shape.
>
> What I see is that although we have updates-testing repos and a karma
> system in bodhi, nothing is done to build up a Fedora QA team that
> controls the flow of updates into the stable repo. Why do we force our
> precious users to become guinea pigs instead of only giving them the
> chance to become early adaptors [by enabling updates-testing]? It's
> especially the version upgrades that break the most things. Broken
> dependencies are harmless compared with changes in a user-interface and
> changes and in a feature-set.
>
> "Idiot filters in bodhi"? - Not a bad idea to add a check-box where
> package maintainers must acknowledge the guidelines:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility#Maintain_stability_for_users
>
>> We would be using Ubuntu
>> or CentOS or any of the other bazillion conservative distros otherwise.
>> A distro with a 6-month release cycle, but conservative updates, already
>> exists, it's called Ubuntu, why do we need to copy it? If you want Ubuntu,
>> go use Ubuntu.
>
> CentOS is not only "conservative", as a copy of RHEL and completely
> different release cycle it doesn't offer any release that is close to
> Fedora 8/9/10. Colin has mentioned (essential) differences between Ubuntu
> and Fedora. There are more. Ubuntu won't become equal to Fedora if it
> increased its updates frequency.


We will have to agree to disagree on this as I found none of the
reasons he gave substantive. I'll wait to see what looks like may be a
new pace of releases play out. I will say that I find the tone of the
proposed changes to be overly conservative and overall unfortunate.
But if that's what the majority wishes, so be it.

-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )