FC3 - i'm disapointed

[Kam Leo]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:50:12 -0700, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:01 -0500, Kiryl Hakhovich wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > I have to post it.
> >
> > I have been using RH from RH 7.0
> > And was pretty happy with.
> >
> > Then moved on to FC1 then FC2.... and now FC3.
> >
> > I hate to admit it but FC3 is really broken in general.
> > I do not want to start a new flame thread but here is a several items i
> > can assume lot's of them has to do with kernel 2.6:
> >       - usb drivers - not stable
> >       - network - same
> >       - some applications compiled on the system - crashes
> >       - certain kernel updates - make system not bootable
> >       - Open Office tend to load memory to the point that machine need to be
> > rebooted
> >       and list grows on a daily basis which is really reminds me a windowZ
> > and nothing close what it was in FC1  on the same hardware for example.
> >
> > I understand that this is probably inappropriate post, but i have been
> > in pain since I moved to FC3.
> >
> > Does any one else experience as many problems as i do?
> ----
> Asking if others are having problems surely is besides the point.
> Certainly some are having problems. Yes, things are less than perfect
> with usb drivers.
> 
> I have no problems with crashing on compiled applications. Open Office
> seems to work fine and kernel updates have only made things unworkable
> when I have stupidly done things like 'rpm -Uvh kernel-xxxx' instead of
> 'rpm -ivh kernel-xxxx'
> 
> I have a few comments about your post...
> 
> 1 - You neglect to say whether you did clean install or updated previous
> install. If you updated, this would explain some of the things like open
> office problems (delete $HOME/.openoffice). You might need to to compile
> programs previously compiled on earlier kernels/gcc versions.
> 
> 2 - You neglected to state that you understood that Fedora was time-
> based release which dictates release schedules and not perfection.
> 
> 3 - You neglected to state that you understood that Fedora was more of a
> proving ground for new release technologies such as SELinux, latest
> release kernels
> 
> 4 - You neglected to state that you have searched bugzilla for potential
> solutions - likewise, archives of this list.
> 
> 5 - You dared to compare Fedora to Windows as if you had expectations of
> it to be something that is commercial, supported and supposedly
> finished.
> 
> There are 'stable' versions of Linux - Red Hat has their EL product.
> There is Mandrake, SuSE, Debian (and many many forms of Debian), Gentoo
> and so many others - most have their 'testing' versions and their
> 'stable' versions too. It sounds as if you are expecting the 'testing'
> version of Fedora to perform like the stable 'RHEL' product. Perhaps it
> is your expectations that are the problem.
> 
> Lastly, I view Linux - certainly the Fedora product to represent a
> partnership between the packagers and the users. It's not fair to expect
> the packagers to have everything working perfectly if you aren't
> reporting your problems (bugzilla - not this list) thereby providing
> them very necessary feedback. This list is for configuration issues -
> not bug/problem reporting.
> 
> Craig
> 

The whole premise of Fedora Core is that it is the beta for RHEL. Even
with betaware there is a certain amount of stability (more things
working than not).  I can sympathize with the OP.  He is expecting
Fedora Core to offer the stability of the old Redhat releases. 
Unfortunately, that stability is gone.  With Fedora Core schedule is
the driving force. There appears to be less testing before an update
is released. And absolutely no guarantee that there will be any
compatibility between releases.  One day your hardware and
applications work. The next day they don't.  Such is life on the
bleeding edge.