On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > We should all read today's featured Ars article: > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/fedora-24-review-the-years-best-linux-distro-is-puzzlingly-hard-to-recommend/ > > There's a few inaccuracies, but no more than normal for distro reviews. > It's good feedback at any rate. > > Highlights: > > * Author plainly states that he thinks Fedora is better than Ubuntu > and Mint > * Author thinks we released too soon, should have waited for a kernel > upgrade. (I don't think it makes sense to consider the kernel in the > schedule....) I'm not quite sure what you mean. We consider the kernel for every schedule. What we haven't done yet is hold up the release for a particular kernel. There's nothing to say that we wouldn't do that if it made really good sense to do so. Just like GCC or Gnome or any other major package. One could argue Skylake support might have been one of those reasons, particularly since we don't respin install media. > * Author mentions the Skylake fiasco in recommending that users wait a > couple months before updating to the new release; familiar suggestions > that our distro is unstable. In a sense it's Intel's fault for the bad > update, but other distros did not ship this broken update. This could > probably have been avoided if our update system was more conservative. > It's nuts that we have important packages going from testing to stable > in less than a day and we should fix this. We often joke, but part of the burden of attempting to be first means we're the first to hit issues before other distros do (first to fail). I agree microcode_ctl should have been in testing longer than a day. Adding it to critpath would enforce that. I think it's somewhat folly to assume that any reasonable amount of time in testing is going to catch every issue like this. > Some inaccuracies I found: > * Author dinged us for not having VLC, but this is really unfair; he's > probably not aware of the legal issues. He most likely is, given the suggestion of waiting a few months and then having rpmfusion sorted out. > * Author thinks we're on an eight-month release cycle (sad!) And that it's still too short. Neither one of those things is really sad. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
