I use Arch right now, and I must say I really love the rolling release system. If Fedora would go rolling release, I just might use it instead as packaging is more commonly had in rpm (or deb) then for pacman.
I'm not saying I would switch for sure, but I would absolutly reconsider going with Fedora.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I'm always on the verge of throwing all the other distros I use away and going straight fedora, but there's always something esoteric holding me back.
But if they went with a rolling release schedule, that alone would be reason enough to make it my primary go-to system. I'd have to learn to do without a few of my favorite tools, which would entail actually having to know a few things... always a good idea anyway.
But if they went with a rolling release schedule, that alone would be reason enough to make it my primary go-to system. I'd have to learn to do without a few of my favorite tools, which would entail actually having to know a few things... always a good idea anyway.
Why is software EVER released that doesn't work?
If it were anything except software, which doesn't seem to matter, it would be recalled if released without working properly or with problems! Buy a car that doesn't start, or the wheels fall off, or a crib the baby can strangle in, you'd be sued.
"The releasing of buggy software is not all that uncommon in both the proprietary and open source worlds." Boy, you got that right. I don't WANT buggy software, thank you. Hold off as long as you need to, to get it right, even if it's years. "Cutting edge" just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather stay with ANCIENT software that works than new stuff that doesn't. Doh.
Thanks!
If it were anything except software, which doesn't seem to matter, it would be recalled if released without working properly or with problems! Buy a car that doesn't start, or the wheels fall off, or a crib the baby can strangle in, you'd be sued.
"The releasing of buggy software is not all that uncommon in both the proprietary and open source worlds." Boy, you got that right. I don't WANT buggy software, thank you. Hold off as long as you need to, to get it right, even if it's years. "Cutting edge" just doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather stay with ANCIENT software that works than new stuff that doesn't. Doh.
Thanks!
I don't get why this is an issue, particularly. Raise your hand if you have PAID for release 18 and are angry because you didn't get it when promised. Anyone? Anyone? No? It's not like 17, or 16, or 15 - or even 11, which I am still using, doesn't work just fine. Now, of course, that's if your interest is in something that just works. If you want to be able to tell all your friends (friends? IT people?) you have been playing with the VERY LATEST release because that makes you WAY more cool.... I can see why you are disappointed. For the rest of us, maybe I'll just write "Fedora 18" on a post-it note and stick it on the front of the servers I have running 11. Viola!
Whatever Fedora's constraints are, they have laid them on themselves, and they could change them if they wanted to.
Neither of the two issues mentioned in the article is actually part of Fedora. The installer and the UEFI secure boot issue, are not part of the Linux operating system.
In my opinion, they should have released Fedora on schedule, and then, when the installer and secure boot issues were resolved, add them to the download without even updating the version number.
Neither of the two issues mentioned in the article is actually part of Fedora. The installer and the UEFI secure boot issue, are not part of the Linux operating system.
In my opinion, they should have released Fedora on schedule, and then, when the installer and secure boot issues were resolved, add them to the download without even updating the version number.
And it's not like they are forcing you off 17.
...and REengineering applications and distribution components that already worked in fulfilling its respective role/function reasonably well, the overall quality and stability of the "desktop user experience" would improve drastically, and there would be significantly less release delays.
Although, the fedora devs have been hammering away pretty heavily at ARM platforms, and (as others have pointed out) it is free, so some slack should clearly be given.
Progress and change are important, and overall quite good, but whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Fellow TR member and aficionado Apotheon (http://www.techrepublic.com/members/profile/3923716) succinctly described this state of affairs in an article discussion a while back (http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-388834-3645774):
"There is a deep sickness in the Linux community that leads to desperately awful inconsistencies even within a single distribution's configuration, rapid and wholly unnecessary turnover in system components, contradictory paths forward in UI design, tremendous unnecessary complexity, and so on."
I also support the idea of rolling releases, which would be inherently more conducive to steady, incremental improvements, as opposed to the endless cycle of "innovative" rewrites and breakages that just pisses off end users, until they get used to the new state of the software (at which point, it seems to inevitably get rewritten again). GNOME shell or Unity anyone?
Although, the fedora devs have been hammering away pretty heavily at ARM platforms, and (as others have pointed out) it is free, so some slack should clearly be given.
Progress and change are important, and overall quite good, but whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Fellow TR member and aficionado Apotheon (http://www.techrepublic.com/members/profile/3923716) succinctly described this state of affairs in an article discussion a while back (http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-388834-3645774):
"There is a deep sickness in the Linux community that leads to desperately awful inconsistencies even within a single distribution's configuration, rapid and wholly unnecessary turnover in system components, contradictory paths forward in UI design, tremendous unnecessary complexity, and so on."
I also support the idea of rolling releases, which would be inherently more conducive to steady, incremental improvements, as opposed to the endless cycle of "innovative" rewrites and breakages that just pisses off end users, until they get used to the new state of the software (at which point, it seems to inevitably get rewritten again). GNOME shell or Unity anyone?
Rolling Releases, Agile Software Development (Martin Fowler Manifesto), Adaptive Refinement, Iterative Refinement, Software Evolution ...
Whatever you call it ... It has been around since the 1960's, it works, it always has worked, and will always continue to work!
Whatever you call it ... It has been around since the 1960's, it works, it always has worked, and will always continue to work!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
