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

Re: Feature Proposal: Rolling Updates (was Re: WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!)

Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Mark Haney <mhaney ercbroadband org>
> To: Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora.
> <fedora-list redhat com>
> Date: 02/10/2009 03:21 PM
>> Now, I'm done with this thread.
> OK, great. Maybe we can speak to you now.

As if I've not been listening?  I have. I just refuse to lay down on
something like this. I am defending my position that I like rolling
updates better.  Not that everyone should.  Sheesh.

> Firefox
> Yes, it's a beast for me, too. Fedora builds FF with Pango support. Try
> disabling Pango in the /usr/bin/firefox script and see if it makes any
> difference for you (sometimes it does for me). MOZ_DISABLE_PANGO

Honestly, I am so used to FF being a slug on my desktop, I don't even
use it any more.  I use Opera now.  However, I will keep this in mind.

> Rolling Updates
> Think about this for a second. Rolling updates work -- if you have the
> infrastructure for it. Fedora was based on Red Hat. Red Hat was
> supporting a corporate mindset of version numbers on operating systems.
> The mindset you speak of is without version numbers. You can never slap
> a version number on a rolling update distribution.

I never said Fedora NEEDED to change.  I never demanded that they should
I simply stated my preference for rolling updates.  I'm more than aware
of Fedora's beginnings. I was using RH4.2 long ago. I'm also about 3
hours from their corporate offices and have stayed loyal because of that
and because they do damn good work.

> In reality, for rolling updates, you need a QA staff to make sure
> nothing breaks. For Gentoo, Debian, and friends, they rely on keeping
> "stable" levels of software that are often multiple versions behind
> upstream. Fedora doesn't want to wait that long (cue "bleeding-edge"
> mantra). However!!! Fedora is actively gaining a refined and better QA
> team and QA system.

Sorry, I hate to break it to you, Gentoo's versions are just as up to
date and bleeding edge as Fedora's.  I'm running KDE 4.2.  The .28
kernel, etc, etc.  So that argument fails in my opinion.

I do believe that Fedora has a QA staff as well.  So, I don't see your
point here.  I'd dare say my gentoo system is as 'bleeding edge' as most
fedora boxes.  QA is QA.  Bug reports are bug reports.

> This brings me to my point:
> While Fedora gains new features, it also gains more flexibility.
> PackageKit and friends technically allow rolling update functionality in
> Fedora. This flexibility can also be seen on the Red Hat side with their
> "Satellite" software package. We [Fedora] can now provide updates of any
> multitude to people with or without Internet access. This is a HUGE step
> up from the Fedora 1 through Fedora 6 days.

Hey, I'm not knocking the feature set in Fedora.  RH drives a lot of
technology adoption and always has.  I've never had a beef there.
Personally, I've seen too many issues with PackageKit to be real fond of
it at present.  But I do like what I see.

> Before Fedora gets to Fedora 15, 16, 17, etc... I think you should be
> actively pushing for a rolling update feature. Every release bring it up
> with FESco. Start a blog, website, etc.
> http://www.fedora-rolling-updates.org/ or whatever fits your fancy.

I suppose I can do that, but it seems there are too many conservative
elements who think that it does more harm than good.  I would like to
see it as an option at the very least.

> I can see one day that we rid ourselves of a distribution versioning
> scheme. It's old, it's obsolete, and it's does more harm than good. You
> must get the right people to see this or else it will just be a pipe dream.
Versioning is fine for packages. I'm just not sure it's valid for
operating systems like linux any more.  I suppose, if it must be
versioned that my gentoo box is 2008.0.  However, it's just gentoo to
me. I rarely even think about versions.  I certainly see the need for
'checkpoints' in the distro for QA, etc.  But a full 'upgrade' cycle I
just don't see any longer.

Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

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