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

Re: lwn article on the death of Fedora Legacy

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 10:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>Maybe the question we should be asking is: Can we do this? We don't
>>>have the number of people that Debian Security has on supporting old
>>>releases.. and because we have fallen so far behind with everything..
>>>can we dig ourselves out.. or do we need to completely reboot the
>>>whole thing (new people, new goals, new name) with the new people
>>>really knowing that
>>>A) we arent going to get much help from 3rd party vendors
>>>B) we arent going to get much help from the community
>> I'd comment that for this fedora user at least, the security etc stuffs
>> should be extended at least to the point where we each of us, has a
>> system, old though it may be in FC years, that works and does
>> everything WE want it to do.
>Hi, Gene. I haven't been around here for a while. Nice to see something
>from you.
>That's my situation, too. But I don't think that the FC project is
>really set up for that. I use FC2, and when I finally bite the bullet
>and feel it imperative to "upgrade" it won't be to FCx. That isn't
>what FC is about, it seems. For the reason you give, it doesn't really
>suit my needs.
>> Throwing us "to the wolves" doesn't make me want to format and update
>> at anywhere near the release cycle for FC.  My email archive alone goes
>> back into 1998 here.  Yes, there are backups, and I do them rather
>> religiously
>Umm, FC didn't exist in 1998.

Of course not, but RH5 did.

>Anyway, FC is really for tinkerers, not for people who want a distro
>that "just works". I installed it because I was asked to do so by
>a company which hired me for a contract. For my *own* needs, Debian
>would have been better. Much slower release cycle. Fewer defects.
>> But I'm not about to do this every 6 months as planned by the FC
>> people, I
>Well, that's what FC *is*. I have several friends who have started
>using Linux over the last few years, and we are all going through
>culture shock at what is called QA in the "Linux World". FC, even in
>Linux terms, is a "use at your own risk" kind of distro. Not that
>care isn't taken, but stuff is gonna break when a new release comes

So we've noticed, and its the really blatant breakage that irks us the 
most, like FC4's x crashing on probably half the boxes at the initial 
reboot.  With no clues of course because the only way to get to the logs 
was to reboot from the cd in single mode.  And not being fam with the 
mount tree, the logs are hard to find.

But, that FC4 fiaso that had many of us threatening to burn someone at the 
stake did help in that it brought the attention of TPTB that additional 
checking and bodies needed to be assigned to the FC releases, and that 
additional effort can certainly be seen in the overall quality of the FC5 
release.  Unforch, now I'm reading between the lines and coming to the 
conclusion that fedora is again being body starved.  We'll see in a couple 
of days I guess.

>If you don't want installing the OS to be a hobby, perhaps you
>should consider a different distro. I know I am.

Yup, I have one kubuntu box now running emc2-head, and there may be a 
kubuntu install on this box in another few weeks.  Although, after the 
initial fixups of FC5 on my lappy, its all working pretty well, so the 
coin with kubuntu 6.10 on one side, and FC6 on the other, is still up in 
the air.  Kubuntu's main problem is the cups install is about half, like 
one testical didn't come down, so there's a lot of wheels to reinvent 
there before cups does its thing with networked printers.  I made it work 
by copying stuff off other working systems, thank $favorite-deity for 
samba & someone telling me howto make a real root account on a kubuntu 

Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

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