Jon Masters wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Jesse Keating wrote: >>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater >>> to those users, can go start their own project. >> >> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? > > Prove it. Prove that it *isn't* true. I'm sick and tired of everyone screaming their own opinions as if they're established fact. The only facts I've seen are: 1. Some users like things as they are 2. Some don't (obviously, given the flaming that's been going on) 3. The ONLY numbers I've seen are that 70% like things as they are No it's not scientifically sound, but it's no less conclusive than I've seen from the folks insisting that most of our audience is upset with "the rapid degeneration of Fedora into an unstable disaster". > And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive > rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get > the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff. First off: I'm not asking for unbaked stuff. Second, "unbaked stuff" Is exactly why I have no intention of using rawhide. As for proving my point, well I've been trying to get through to you people² for the last several days. It seems that all the users in the world can stand in front of you and tell you that you are wrong, and you will just stick your fingers in your ears and yell la-la-la at them. (²"you people" == the people that want to change Fedora from what I know and love) Fourth I submit that your question is flawed and that we don't currently, *generally* have "intrusive rolling updates". I have yet to be hit by an update I consider "intrusive". (Even the /few/ bugs I can think of that came from updates I wouldn't classify as "intrusive"). I'll submit that the recent bind and kdepim updates - neither of which affected me as I don't use either - may qualify. I'll even go so far as to suggest that pushing kdepim 4.4 (note: kde*pim* 4.4, not KDE 4.4 in general) may have been a mistake. But if people gave up every time a setback occurred, there would be no progress. > And while you're at it, why not tell us why people who want to update > constantly aren't just running Gentoo or some other compile from source > distribution? Because having to compile all your own stuff constantly is a colossal pain? On some of my machines, I do actually roll my own KDE from trunk. (I fancy myself a KDE developer... in fairness I *have* made my mark, but I've not had the time recently I wish I did.) It's a major pain, especially since *I* basically have to be maintainer for all those packages, and deal with build failures as well as functionality changes. With Fedora, I get no build issues and packages that have been tested, to at least some degree, before I get them. That's a HUGE difference, both in time and effort (and to some degree, in hardware wear). And I appreciate both that, and timely updates on those systems where I *don't* build KDE. Like, for example, my ASUS. Go out, buy yourself a 4 GB SSD that is slow as heck and barely holds the binaries you want (let alone sources or /build objects/), match it to a 1.6 GHz CPU and 1 GiB of RAM with *no swap*, allocate maximum 8 hours per week (only 1 hour of which you are allowed to do anything active; the other 7 must be doing something unattended) to maintaining it, and let me know how a source-based distro works out for you. > Six months is a blink of an eye compared with many things in life. Many > Fedora users don't even update to every release - some only once a year > or perhaps even less. ...even more reason to appreciate feature updates in existing releases! (Six months can be a *very* long time if you're waiting on a feature that will save you a bunch of time.) > Rawhide [...] is generally pretty good, but not everyone wants to deal > with the occasional issues that come from not having a tested *release* > (as Simo noted). ...which is exactly why I don't use rawhide. I don't need a system that may randomly stop working after I run updates because of some major change, or that may simply fail to boot. Yes, this could be addressed by having some sort of "rawerhide" and deferring truly invasive changes (like major version upgrades of X, replacing init with upstart, etc.) until they are well tested, but then we just change "rawhide" into what we have now, and "releases" become... well, stagnant. I dropped RHEL, and won't touch Ubuntu, because I need something that isn't six months out of date. If Fedora goes that route, what will I use? > What's the point in a tested, QA'd release if you can > unilaterally decide to push an update that invalidates all the testing? *Any* update, even a security fix can do that. If you want that level of "stability", install from the DVD and don't update. -- Matthew Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies. -- Time to get out the marshmallows... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
