Daniel B. Thurman: >>> Seems that whomever released this distro should throw away >>> the iso cds and create a BRAND NEW ONE. This distro is very >>> very very hosed and buggy. Tim: >> Why isn't this done by Fedora? (Not outsiders that we don't know >> whether we can trust.) Craig White: > The answer has been pretty clear on this - the release cycle is so > short, that it doesn't pay to spend the energy rebuilding the current > release because by that time, they are busy doing the builds for the > test releases for the next series. What?! A computer can't make a new ISO during the *several* months between new releases? Sure, it's silly to make a new one each week. But there's been a few show stoppers that ought to have just screamed for the base install to be fixed: e.g. Seriously screwed up Xorg that just doesn't work, at all, on some cards. Install routines that don't install unless the user types "garbage" into the prompt. >> In the past we had Red Hat Linux 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 before we jumped to >> 8.0. You had a fighting chance of getting an installation working in >> the first go. Having to do another hour (or more) of updates, straight >> away, is a right pain. Just as bad as Windows. > No - has nothing to do with Windows. It has to do with pushing the > development along. You should read Eric Raymond's 'Cathedral and Bazaar' > for a developers view of fast paced, less than perfect releases as a > method that brings rapid development to Linux / F/OSS. I'd say it has everything to do with the same mentality: We must have a product by X date, doesn't matter if it's broken, it must be out. >> The whole Fedora approach of rushing out major changes to releases on a >> certain date for the sake of a schedule has proved itself to be a stupid >> idea. I don't *need* to be rebuilding the entire OS on several PCs that >> often, and I certainly don't want to. I'm now looking at using >> something else, instead. One of the BSDs is looking favourable to me. > Actually, that's your point of view and certainly noted. You don't have > to be rebuilding several PC's, you can keep them where they are...the > choice is of course always yours. Red Hat has certainly lost the place it used to have. Before you had a system that you could use on a server (that's definitely not something you want to be rebuilding every few months), or a work station (again, something you'd prefer not to have to rebuild often, but less of a hassle than a server). *ix is really more of a server OS (all those servers, a system that takes an age to boot, something that's meant to be running 24/7) than a workstation OS, but this VERY short lifespan doesn't fit that well. The ditching of what was Red Hat Linux into short lived Fedora has seriously pissed off a number of former Red Hat fans, and I don't blame them. It wouldn't be quite so bad, but the differences from one release to another are just too great. What you had doesn't transplant to the new release. The install routine doesn't make it easy for you to wipe out system and applications, leave home space, and install the new. If you want to do that, you have to faff around with backing things up and restoring, or using separate drives. The limited options to re-use all the space, or use the empty space, with no keep certain partitions, as-is, are rather pathetic. I've used other systems where updating a system is just that (the rest is left alone, applications and data, *and* it still works with the new system). And the option of updating over the top is fraught with problems. > BSD is worth a shot - you will probably get some valuable knowledge > about how other systems do things. You should probably look at Ubuntu > too. If you want stability and long term maintained, consistent release, > RHEL or the rebuilds like CentOS give you that. Again, you have the > choice - it's your software. Ubuntu seems just as bad (short lived distros that completely replace your prior installation - but only if you don't run into snags). The fingers have been burnt by Red Hat, but Fedora remains the distro that you're most likely to find software packaged for. I'd say that my server would be something else by the time the next Fedora release comes out, and perhaps the clients might stay with Fedora. But all these radical changes each release probably precludes mixing different distros together. As I said, BSD looks most favourable. They don't seem to be pushing out a new distro just to be cool. There's a new one when there's compelling reasons that a new distro is an advantage. I see Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu doing the same things: Rushing out releases on a set date, the release being full of faults, never releasing a fixed version (as a whole), and the next release being a radical change (not the bugs ironed out of the prior release, but a change in tack). It's like committees reorganising themselves, lots of action, little tangible benefits, and lots of new problems, continually. And that is like Windows. Windows 95, crappy from the get go, never was a good version. (This being from a point of a view of a person who's used better than Windows systems.) Windows 98, crappy from the get go, and has never been fixed in 7 years. Next release, different, never fixed. And so on... For hecks sake, whichever OS it is, get it right, get it running smoothly, *THEN* start designing the new, better, one. Don't just keep making different ones. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
