On 5/15/07, Valent Turkovic <valent.turkovic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/03/where_fedora_went_wrong.html What are your comments? I feel simillar.
Everything benefits from more testing. I see a lot more focus on making testing of Fedora 7 easier in piece-wise way this release than any other. Some examples being F7 Boot Test CD images, periodic rawhide LiveCDs being built and made public, etc. What I would like to see is an improvement in the testing methodology, tools and infrastructure available. Smolt is a nice new tool for testers to use but doesn't seem to be marketed that way. The existing sysreport and the upcoming sos are other tools that I just read about that are flying under the radar and could probably see more usage in Fedora bugzilla reports. Some guides on an acceptable period of time for bugzilla entries to go completely uncommented on are needed. Maybe there is a good wiki page that I am missing that outlines the steps that a tester should go through to make sure a released is as polished as possible. Another note: I use both Fedora and Ubuntu. The groups are *not* mutually exclusive. IMHO, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and neither are appropriate for 100% of the population (although taken both together likely have the coverage). I hate this you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality. Every distro has the same upstream heritage. Both could learn a few things from each other. I worry a lot less putting a Fedora box on a public IP because it has much stronger security in place with things like SELinux and I worry a lot less about giving Ubuntu to my sister because it is assuming that there is not a system administrator in the loop to sort out the little things (although I have had to sort out plenty of little things). /Mike
