[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora philosophy (was ATI video comes out of the closet)

Ed Greshko wrote:

I would disagree about bleeding edge - Fedora tries to be current Which
is what people were asking for at the time and still do so: very loudly.
Are there _really_ that many people asking for major changes in the
kernel to be done in mid-rev of a distro?  Or are people actually just
asking for current userland apps and perhaps drivers for new sata
controllers and the like?

[Very large snip]

I'm having a bit of a difficult time following this particular topic.  Too
many people responding with "sound bites" to other people's "sound bites".

I think, as I believe I heard you say, CentOS 3.x and Red Hat 7.3 work
perfectly fine for you and that you've no particular reason to update.  Yet,
you have a bone to pick with Fedora...which you have tried using but doesn't
meet your needs.  Some may question why you would waste your time trying to
do so it when what you are running fits your needs...but I suppose that is a
different matter.

Quick recap: on the server side, RHEL (and thus Centos) is just fine, because the relevant server applications (apache, sendmail, named, dhcpd, etc.) were feature-complete ages ago and all they need to do is just keep running, following the same standards as when they were installed. The side effect of having old application versions as the price of keeping a reliable kernel isn't a big problem there.

On the desktop side the opposite is true because the applications are still evolving rapidly. So, when the distribution ties the same policies to the kernel and apps, the price of a machine that you can trust to keep working is applications that suck (RHEL,Centos) and to get current apps (fedora) you have to take a wildly experimental kernel.

What I think would be helpful would be for you to list what you feel are the
goals of the Fedora Project and why/how the Project has failed to meet up
with those goals.

To put it bluntly, I think the goal of the Fedora Project is to make a system stable enough to use _only_ during the last few months before a release of RHEL is cut. I haven't actually gone back through the archives to check, but from memory I'll bet you find virtually no instances of messages saying "my xxxx hardware doesn't work" or "my machine won't boot" after updates during the relevant times in the FC3 and FC6 releases. Everything was sweetness and light for those short periods of time. Then the FC5 and F7 releases came, along with a return to the "this doesn't work any more" messages which match my own experience. I realize that most of the breakage comes from the upstream kernel, but the distro packagers know how to deal with it when it matters to them.

I think that would help, at least me, understand what point(s) you are
trying to make.

What I'd like to see is a distribution suitable for replacing MS windows on most desktops and I think between RHEL and fedora, all of the parts are available but no suitable product exists because to get the current applications in fedora you have to take the unstable kernel that comes with it (most of the time). Anyone who has deployed fedora on desktops in a large enterprise, accepts the updates and has never had problems please feel free to jump in and contradict me - I'd love to be proven wrong here, but even FC6 recently pushed an update kernel that wouldn't boot on some pretty mainstream Dell and IBM machines with scsi controllers.

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell gmail com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]