I was ArchLinux user for 2.5 years before switched to Fedora. I DO NOT WANT rolling release please. Leave rolling to gentoo, arch and other plumber's distros, keep making great desktop system i can put on work box and just use it. Recently nagios got updated from 2.x to 3.x branch in RPMForge EL repository and yum-cron pulled it in automagically. Result is broken monitoring tool i don't have time/will to repair. I don't want to my development tools to break suddenly few days before project deadline at work while applying bugfix packages to amarok. There's a reason why Fedora supports development, current and previous branches. Fedora is designed to WORK while being bleeding edge On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Eric Springer <erikina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fedora has always lead the progress of FOSS by closely following > upstream and making non-trivial contributions. I see this is a great > strength, and like many other people it's my primary reason for using > it. But it's not without trade-offs, such as giving Fedora a > perception of being 'beta' software and balancing new software without > burning the large user base is not easy either. > > This hit home today, after being impressed with the work you guys have > done with plymouth, I did a quick Google search[1] to find out a > little more. The first result is a "Ubuntu brainstorm" page[2] about > implementing it in their own distribution and the second comment is "I > support the idea but I do think that it should only be considered > after Fedora has done all the dirty work of getting it to work". This > is no way intended as a criticism of a Ubuntu, but it's a realization > that distributions like Ubuntu are able to offer a better user > experience by using stable software on a longer support cycle. > > So what I propose is that Fedora goes to a rolling release cycle. > Implemented properly I believe we can better achieve Fedoras > objectives[3] of rapidly progressing Free Open Source Software, while > providing a more user centric focus (and bringing something new to the > easy-to-use-table). While I would prefer to not get bogged down in the > technical details at this stage, we would need to provide software in > varying levels of stability. > > Perhaps something like: > hemorrhaging -> rawhide -> stable -> rocksolid > > Users should be able to very easily and freely move through the > levels, especially on a per-package basis (with PackageKit). It should > also be easy for users to "freeze" their system/package to only > receive security (and optionally bug) patches, as many aren't > interested in the constant upgrade cycle. > > New features/software/functionality would be easily tested by the > masses without needing to upgrade the entire distribution. It would > give the open source community a massive user-base they could call > upon to test easily. > > The average user would sit at the 'stable' level while perhaps > testing/using a few of their favorite software from rawhide. Servers > would typically sit at the rocksolid level, and use stable packages on > a needs-only basis. > > > > Thoughts? Flames? Ideas? > > > > > [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=Fedora+Plymouth > [2] http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11165/ > [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- http://scwlab.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
