OS Future now that Fedora Legacy defunct

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 08:51 -0500, Wade Hampton wrote:
> I've been following this thread for some time and would like to add a
> few comments.  I've been a user of RHL since about version 4 and
> Slackware since kernel 0.99pl13.  I've seen a lot of changes, mostly
> for the better and really like FC, however I have some concerns (much
> as I did when RHL -> FC).
> 
> We started using FC for several reasons including that it is the
> extension of RHL, is close to RHEL, is supported by the
> hardware/software stack we use, is generally stable and secure, had
> medium-term support via fedora-legacy, and was free.  Our current
> tested and approved baseline is FC4.  I am concerned over the loss of
> fedora-legacy and shortened support.... Maybe we should have used
> CentOS instead.
> 
> The lack of long-term support will hurt Fedora.  Why should one
> install the latest on each and every computer as opposed to just on a
> few and upgrade every year or so.  For bleeding-edge developers, 6
> months is OK, but for my wife's computer or my development network 13
> months even is way too short.  A couple of years would be more
> reasonable especially if someone is running it on dozens of computers
> as I am (without sysadmin support).
> 
> Last month, I upgraded three computers at home to FC6 from FC5 and FC4
> with many issues (posted to the mailing list).  One FC5->FC6 upgrade
> (laptop, x86_64) took nearly 20 hours!  Many said that I should just
> have done a fresh install, but on multiple computers at home, a
> development network at work, and some machines across the country,
> that would be difficult.  My development network of dozens of
> computers is mostly baselined on FC4 with a few FC5 test machines.  I
> will not have time until February to begin using FC6 on the
> development network, yet no updates for FC4.  That is reality.
> 
> If the update process was fixed or streamlined, it would not be as
> much of an issue, but 20 hours for 1 computer is a bit too much (or
> even the 3-4 hours for the other ones I upgraded).  
> 
> These are some of my Fedora recommendations:
> 1) streamline the update process so that it does not take much more
> time than a fresh install
>     - this should encourage updates and would help with adoption
> 2) fix the many cases where yum update fails due to dependency mess
>     - Fedora will NEVER replace windows if updates require you to
> manually remove stuff to make it work
>     - I hear complaints about RPM that sound like Windows DLL Hell
> complaints from the late 1990's!
>     - merge of extras and core should really help here
> 3) fix the long-standing RPM issue of hanging if you cancel an update
> or install (__db* files remaining)
>     - very old issue, still an issue with FC6 AFIK, impacts updates
> 4) support two previous versions for at least 18 months (2 years would
> be optimal)
>     - For example, I would only have to update the wife's computer
> every year
> 5) reduce the requirements for the installer (memory, etc.) for legacy
> hardware
> 6) reduce the number of required CDs for a very basic, minimal install
> to 1 or 2 
> 7) reduce the minimal install footprint (remember the RULE project?)
> 8) work with mondo archive or similar on a suite of replication and
> backup capabilities and bundle with FC
----
I thought I would pipe up with a small but necessary commentary here.

People just naturally assume that the goal is to replace Windows. That
isn't the goal of Fedora - at least I've never seen that listed as a
goal of the Fedora project.

The fact is that Linux in some form(s) will of course replace Windows -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/tc_nm/gartner_prediction_dc

Fedora's objectives are their own and unless/until becoming **the**
Windows desktop replacement becomes one of them, all discussion about
that is merely one's own projections.

Craig