Re: OS Future now that Fedora Legacy defunct

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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 8, Issue 362 (Out of office reply.)
    ... Subject: FC1 Users: Sample yum.conf for Fedora Legacy Updates ... However, more importantly the same problems that beset 1.0 PR1 also beset 1.0 RC1: namely, you cannot install extensions or add search engines as an ordinary user. ... I have to swap between Disk 1 and Disk 2>when I boot-up my PC. ... It is very inconvenient so I>want to setup dual-boot such that I am able to select>the OS at the boot-up time and, in the futre, I can>always switch back to single boot with Windows XP disk>only. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption
    ... I tried Windows when it was v2.0 and crashed so often DOS apps were more attractive. ... I became disillusioned with Microsoft when they started bullying companies, created the registry fiasco, rushed incomplete products to market, and has produced an operating system so insecure it spawned an industry of virus / adware / spyware software companies. ... The XP Pro install took over three hours from start to finish where a typical Fedora installation took me just about an hour. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Asus M2N32 sli deluxe
    ... Only downside to Fedora so far. ... lvm in windows. ... When you did the Fedora install did you do a custom partition or did you ... I'm running multiple VMs now. ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: OS Future now that Fedora Legacy defunct
    ... The lack of long-term support will hurt Fedora. ... Why should one install the ... wife's computer or my development network 13 months even is way too short. ... it on dozens of computers as I am. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption
    ... I decided maybe it was time to adopt Fedora as my primary OS. ... I must admit that I have no experience with recent releases of Windows ... The sad part is that Linux based programs adapted to ... Windows also are easy to install. ...
    (Fedora)