Re: What Is Linux?
- From: John Thompson <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:26:40 -0600
On 2008-01-06, Randy Yates <yates@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe you don't consider fedora itself "open-source tools," but I am
having issues with your support statement with respect to fedora proper.
I've been with fedora since fc3 (I'm currently on fc6) and what I'm
noticing is a troubling "upgrade from a dead distro version" mentality.
For an os that comes out with a new distro version every 6 months, this
isn't an option for me.
To be fair, Fedora is pretty clearly described as a moving target.
Perhaps a distribution based on a more static model (e.g. whitebox
linux or CentOS), might be more appropriate for your needs?
It simply takes too much of my time to install
the OS and reconfigure all the various third-part components (e.g.,
getting the right version of firefox, the flash player, postgresql,
I think the current rpm structure that ties everything to a distro
version is hamstringing the project. Why can't we have a package
architecture that is based solely on the application/tool dependencies
and not the distro version? Yes, there are dependencies, but they
could be handled by rpm, no?
I used Fedora Core 1 until a couple weeks ago. It hasn't been officially
supported in quite a while, but I was able to keep it going by building
my own rpms from source rpms or tarballs. Except for things tied to a
specfic (more modern) desktop environment, this worked pretty well.
And It Would Be Very Nice(TM) to be able to simply type
yum update fedora
That would be nice.
- Prev by Date: Re: What Is Linux?
- Next by Date: Re: What Is Linux?
- Previous by thread: Re: What Is Linux?
- Next by thread: Re: What Is Linux?