On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 08:51 -0500, Wade Hampton wrote: > I've been following this thread for some time and would like to add a > few comments. I've been a user of RHL since about version 4 and > Slackware since kernel 0.99pl13. I've seen a lot of changes, mostly > for the better and really like FC, however I have some concerns (much > as I did when RHL -> FC). > > We started using FC for several reasons including that it is the > extension of RHL, is close to RHEL, is supported by the > hardware/software stack we use, is generally stable and secure, had > medium-term support via fedora-legacy, and was free. Our current > tested and approved baseline is FC4. I am concerned over the loss of > fedora-legacy and shortened support.... Maybe we should have used > CentOS instead. > > The lack of long-term support will hurt Fedora. Why should one > install the latest on each and every computer as opposed to just on a > few and upgrade every year or so. For bleeding-edge developers, 6 > months is OK, but for my wife's computer or my development network 13 > months even is way too short. A couple of years would be more > reasonable especially if someone is running it on dozens of computers > as I am (without sysadmin support). > > Last month, I upgraded three computers at home to FC6 from FC5 and FC4 > with many issues (posted to the mailing list). One FC5->FC6 upgrade > (laptop, x86_64) took nearly 20 hours! Many said that I should just > have done a fresh install, but on multiple computers at home, a > development network at work, and some machines across the country, > that would be difficult. My development network of dozens of > computers is mostly baselined on FC4 with a few FC5 test machines. I > will not have time until February to begin using FC6 on the > development network, yet no updates for FC4. That is reality. > > If the update process was fixed or streamlined, it would not be as > much of an issue, but 20 hours for 1 computer is a bit too much (or > even the 3-4 hours for the other ones I upgraded). > > These are some of my Fedora recommendations: > 1) streamline the update process so that it does not take much more > time than a fresh install > - this should encourage updates and would help with adoption > 2) fix the many cases where yum update fails due to dependency mess > - Fedora will NEVER replace windows if updates require you to > manually remove stuff to make it work > - I hear complaints about RPM that sound like Windows DLL Hell > complaints from the late 1990's! > - merge of extras and core should really help here > 3) fix the long-standing RPM issue of hanging if you cancel an update > or install (__db* files remaining) > - very old issue, still an issue with FC6 AFIK, impacts updates > 4) support two previous versions for at least 18 months (2 years would > be optimal) > - For example, I would only have to update the wife's computer > every year > 5) reduce the requirements for the installer (memory, etc.) for legacy > hardware > 6) reduce the number of required CDs for a very basic, minimal install > to 1 or 2 > 7) reduce the minimal install footprint (remember the RULE project?) > 8) work with mondo archive or similar on a suite of replication and > backup capabilities and bundle with FC ---- I thought I would pipe up with a small but necessary commentary here. People just naturally assume that the goal is to replace Windows. That isn't the goal of Fedora - at least I've never seen that listed as a goal of the Fedora project. The fact is that Linux in some form(s) will of course replace Windows - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/tc_nm/gartner_prediction_dc Fedora's objectives are their own and unless/until becoming **the** Windows desktop replacement becomes one of them, all discussion about that is merely one's own projections. Craig
