Re: Why Fedora ?

Vikram Goyal wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Perkins <perk@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:33:39AM -0500
To For users of Fedora Core releases
Subject: Re: Why Fedora ?

Vikram Goyal wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:23:28PM -0800
To For users of Fedora Core releases
Subject: Re: Why Fedora ?

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Timothy Murphy wrote:

Mike McCarty wrote:

I disagree with this statement entirely. Fedora Core is not a
stable release.

What exactly does that mean?

<snip>

You want stable, either buy RHEL or migrate to a different distribution like CentOS, SUSE or Ubuntu. I *am* a reasonable expert in administering Linux boxes (I've been running Linux systems since the kernels had 0.9x versions), and Fedora still bites me hard from time to time.

I second that. I have been using redhat linux since maybe ver 4 or
something. At ver 8 redhat distribution had matured to the point that I
had thought, Ok, now it'll take off in a grand manner. Most of the
general and mundane creases had been removed, the applications'
integration was at its best and the whole system had become smooth and a
good experience.

Then came fedora with its bag of problems. Most of the users like me
thought , ok, maybe in one or two release it will also reach the same
level of comfort as redhat 8, 9. But that never happened. Rather the
most inoovative applications integrations were done away with odd
desktop user interface.

One good example is file browser. In 8,9 ver one could do almost all
acts in the same browser window. There was preferences tab with all the
nitty-gritty settings which a user might want to tweak. The comfort
level was great. Then came nautilus. File browser was put in the
system-tools. Its preferences tab removed. Now for each setting one has
to click Desktop -> Preferences -> the particular preference, which in
my opinion sucks. This is only one example, and there are numerous. Old
users know and can pin point such things. But I think they just took the
whole thing in their stride and since were more proficient in using
linux, ithey just side stepped these problems with changes in their
usage habits.

The point I want to make is that we have gone into a cycle of some level
of applications integration, then some quirk destroys that integration
and a new interface is introduces, some new policies render quite few
applications unfit for the next release and we are back to some earlier
point of integration where apps don't interact well with each other or
new quirks render them almost useless
The users unlearn and then try to relearn the system usage which sucks
the interest and resources of people.

Wow, I didn't realize there were all these issues; I've been using FC4 since September, maybe I've gotten lucky with my 1GHz Pentium III. Anyway, my understanding is that Fedora is more of a "bleeding edge" distro, a developer's distro, as opposed to a "production" distro, like Slackware, RH Enterprise, or any of the *BSDs (yes, I've used them all at one time or another.)

I don't think so. Bleeding edge software is a diff beast and a normal
user wouldn't be using it at all. To test what I mean, try rpms from
bleeding releases.

There's no desktop distro, developers distro etc in linux world. If you
want to develop something, install the devel rpms.  That's all.

Point being, if Fedora works on your system(s), by all means, use it.

Here the point is not if it works, but how it worked before than the
present. There's a frequent break in the continuity of software in terms
of options and integration, where it was not necessary or could be
cicumvented.

If you can take the time to fix what breaks, more power to you.

It's not possible for anyone to be able to fix everything. Open source
empowers one to be able to tweak something but does'nt necessarily means
every one can do it.

Linux is about _choice_- you don't have to do all the upgrades all the time,

But one has to upgrade the distro ver or not OR shall one stick with the
distro version one liked at aparticular point of time forever.

staying on the bleeding edge; you can "freeze" the system, except for security updates, you can use a file manager other than Nautilus,

The point I made about nautilus was in context to applications being
stripped of good usable options in the previous releases to some strange
abnoxious way of doing the same things, even if takes 10 mouse-clicks to
achieve the same action, which took 3 before.

As far as using apps other than the mainstream apps is another headache,
since not much upgradation exists for them. There's also fear of them
getting obsoleted. Rather we have expierienced good stable apps getting
obsoleted and replaced by stripped down versions of same. One good
example is metacity, which replaced sawmill or sawfish window manager in
gnome.

and you can use a desktop different than Gnome (which I happen to like well enough, I also like Windowmaker.) Just my $0.02...

Of course one can use other desktops does not means one wants to,
especially when one has got used to it. You will know what I mean over
an extended period of time, when you go in cycle of unlearn and relearn
to do the same mundane desktop chores which you had mastered or got used
to in previous releases. And I tell you , it sucks one of interest,
energy and fills one with frustration.
My Rs0.002...

What, precisely, are you trying to accomplish?

Curious,
David-Paul Niner

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.