Re: WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!



Based on the dates of the release directories, fedora
releases seem to average 2 per year:


Index of /fedora/releases

Name <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/?C=N;O=D> Last modified <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/?C=M;O=A> Size <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/?C=S;O=A> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent Directory <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/> - 7/ <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/7/> 14-Jun-2007 20:09 - 8/ <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/8/> 03-Nov-2007 01:11 - 9/ <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/9/> 08-May-2008 22:45 - 10/ <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/10/> 20-Nov-2008 18:37 - test/ <http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/test/> 02-Feb-2009 21:22 -

I understand Mike Chalmers frustration with the release
frequency. No one is actually forced to re-install a new
release. The support cycle for each release extends to
about 18 months.
I am however in agreement with Mike's basic proposal: that given ANY fedora installation, there should be
an easy and seemless way to continually update all the
packages, and the kernel without having to re-install.
I think this is the general weakness of all linux distros.
While many will issue numerous reasons why this is not
possible, due to the domino effect of dependencies,
I think that the manner of how the dependencies are set up
needs to be altered so that none of the packages (including
the kernel) have any OS release version in the dependency
(such as foo-1.2.3.fc8....etc). The dependencies and the
packages should dump the 'fc??' (and here I am referring
not only to fedora but to all distros as well) and depend
solely on the package version and architecture.
Some may argue that this will wreak havoc with people
installing such packages on non-fedora distros when
installed by inexpert users.
To that we need to say that even this dependency ought
to be erased. Let the system updater (such as yum) take
care and resolve the dependency issue. What I am driving
at is that there really OUGHT to be just one LINUX and all
packages out to be built for just ONE LINUX. Let the distros
distinguish themselves by their logos, initial installation
UI bells and whistles and the desktop backgrounds, even by
unique user tools. But the rest of the open source packages
from the topmost application to the kernel ought to be
for just ONE LINUX! Many people using linux today have absolutely no recollection
of why Microsoft eclipsed Unix. All unix vendors had their
proprietary Unixes, and they were not compatible. Major customers,
especially the government (where the big bucks come from) decided
to dump all these non-compatible unix systems in favor of windows
on every desktop and most server installations. Incompatibilty
and interoperability issues went out the window (pun not intended).
So, who are the big commercial Unix vendors today?
Arguably Sun Microsystems' Solaris, and IBM's AIX. But we all know
what has happenned to the installed base of Solaris and AIX.
It has shrunk drastically and continues to do so. Ever wondered
why IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon?

I think Linux is repeating the mistakes of unix, and I can see
the writing on the wall. Linux will eventually kill itself and become
a mere novelty for a very minority number of worlwide users.
Microsoft need not complain nor worry about Linux contiuing to steal
customers. Microsoft COULD encourage divergent distros of Linux just
to speed up the process of creating all these incompatible distros
and it will win the battle. The Borg will indeed reign supreme.

Hello Linus - I hope you wake up and smell the Borg :)




Robin Laing wrote:
Mike Chalmers wrote:
I do not understand how Fedora expects you to upgrade or reinstall
every 6 months or so.

This is just not right.

Should a distro keep continuing to make you install every six months,
if so, I would rather use Microsoft. Why not provide updates, major
ones, to the already installed OS instead of having to reinstall a new
OS!!! I imagine that this, if done in an organized way, could be
easier on the developers of Fedora.

INSTEAD OF MAKING CONSUMERS INSTALL EVERY SIX MONTHS OR UNTIL THE
UPDATES STOP, JUST PROVIDE LARGE UPDATES THAT UPGRADE A SYSTEM WITHOUT
HAVING TO DO A COMPLETELY NEW INSTALL???

THEN YOU WILL HAVE A LARGER FAN BASE AND A MORE STABLE OS!!!


I have not read the whole thread yet but I don't update every six months. My home systems were running Fedora 7 until I moved to 10. That is over a year.

I know people that are still running FC4.

There are other versions of Linux out there that offer long life just as Centos does.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines