On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:48 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:53 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote: > > > >> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote: > > > [snip] > > > >> The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora. > > > > I can not disagree more - To me, it's yet another evidence of Fedora > > > > being on the loose. > > > > > > You're going to have to expound on that. I do not see Centos in any > > > way as in competition with Fedora. > > > EPEL drains away resources from Fedora. > > Proof? Urgh, isn't that obvious? E.g.: - Build server resources, mirror resources. - People are using/testing EPEL instead of Fedora. - Fedora infrastructure, e.g. EPEL enlarges the packagedb by almost factor 2. - EPEL would force Fedora contributors to test on both RHEL and Fedora. > > > Centos is something everyone should > > > be proud of. > > > Well, to me CentOS is as important as any other arbitrary Linux distro. > > I am glad they are around, but not more and not less. > > It is around becase RHEL is popular, and open source. And non-free - If it was free, the CentOS folks could start directly contribute to Fedora or RHEL. Right now, it's them wasting time to workaround on RHEL being non-free. > > > >> CentOS's > > > >> goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a > > > >> system and run it for years. Fedora is good for people who want to get > > > >> the latest technologies from upstream as soon as they're stable enough > > > >> to integrate into a running system. > > > > > Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better. > > > > Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc. > > > ... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians, > > different people, different strategies. > > Show how! Ease reviews, bodhi, packagedb, koji, bugzilla, track, re-consider FTBS, work-flow, trademark policy. E.g. right now, the tools being in use are a heterogenious mixture of separate tools, are often broken, are far from easy to use and aim at implementing a highly bureaucratic process/work-flow. > Telling everybody here how awful things are going isn't helping > an iota. Everything has its limits, and for every desirable quality (newest > shiny toys, support for the newest fad in hardware in software) there is a > cost (can't be supported in the long range, fast turnaround, set procedures > to handle a huge stream of new stuff) > > > > But baring a sudden increase > > > in those, I would much prefer to see Fedora focus on dev and testing, > > > let other distros pretty things up. > > > ACK. Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting away from this group towards > > single-user desktops (e.g. OLPC). > > Then work towards drifting the opposite direction... One reason why I am agitating ... > Fedora (or any other large group of people) will move where the majority > wants to go... Well, deployment of an OS to servers, will always be a "minority use case" and will always collide somewhere with mere desktop oriented developments. > > > >> > This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself. > > > >> > Guess, how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest > > > >> > "stable" Fedora release? > > > > >> As few as possible. > > > > > IMO, a fundamental management/infrastructure mistake - If these people > > > > were using Fedora, they would be facing the issues Fedora users are > > > > facing everyday and likely would being to understand why people complain > > > > about Fedora. > > > > Why would they, after often suggesting that Fedora _not_ be used on > > > production servers, use Fedora on their production servers? > > > Depends on how they mean it: > > - if they are referring to "long term maintained/everlasting support" > > servers, they are right. > > "Servers" are "long-time maintained" by definition... To me, "server" is a "use-case of an OS" and is not at all connected to running the same OS for many years. Yes, no doubt, running the same OS on a larger number of machines for a longer time helps maintenance, but I do not see how this is connected to a particular machine serving as "clients" or "servers". Yes, no doubt, there are use-cases where "long-term API" stability is important, but this applies to client use-cases as well as to server use-cases. ... Finally, yes, no doubt, Fedora is not the "shoe that fits all sizes" nor are CentOS or RHEL, but ... this doesn't mean that Fedora may not be applicable to server scenarios. > > - if they mean it as "Fedora is technically too unstable", > > Because there is no "long term maintenance"... Again, I don't see how "lack of stability" and "no long term maintenance" are linked together at all, nor how server and client use-cases matter. What matters in use-cases of short lived-distros such as Fedora is: Upgrades "must simply work" and (admin-) personnel must be able to handle them in a particular scenario. > > then this > > people should start working on improving the situation > > Which one? Lack of stability, lack of usability, deficiencies of the infrastructure, bureaucracy, short-livedness ... tools The lack of people to me is not a cause, it's a consequence of mistakes in Fedora's history. > Fedora is about /not/ "long term" but "bleeding edge"... "Leading edge" doesn't necessarily have to be linked to "bleeding" nor "unstable". It's sad, the latter is true wrt. Fedora. > > or (better) quit > > Fedora. > > Do so, then. I haven't given in, yet. The cause for my current dissatisfaction is Fedora's infrastructure and Fedora's leadership. They have driven Fedora/have allowed Fedora to move into what I consider to be an unhealthy direction. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
