On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For a while, I've been arguing with very knowledgeable people here > that there are way too many bugs in Fedora, bugs that either hinder a > pleasant user experience or plainly break systems to the point that > one wonders if he's not being hacked. And, for a non-geek like me, get > rid of them before new ones add to the heap, is just impossible. > > Developers might not be aware of some bugs I'm experiencing because > they're manifestly hardware related(1), while some others can't have > escaped their attention(2). > > (1) The only option available in my Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P's BIOS > offering only options for entering passwords, for exemple. > > (2) For instance, "New File" entering the clipboard every time a new > file is created. > > Some bugs reports, even filed by Red Hat employees, have been > outstanding for so long that most users certainly feel it's no use > filling reports and following the outcome... unless one wants to make > a full time job arguing with geeks on what is worthy bug and what is > not. > > In Linux Weekly News, Mr Sorbet... err, make this Corbet, has written > a nonetheless delightful article on the matter of what is causing this > avalanche of bugs in so-called "stable" Fedora releases. To me, the > sorbet of the whole article pretty much freezes down to this: > > "(...) the system which Fedora has in place for the review of proposed > updates - Bodhi - is often circumvented by updates which go straight > out to users. The testing and voting which is supposed to happen in > Bodhi is, in fact, not happening much of the time, and the quality of > the distribution is suffering as a result. So some Fedora developers > are looking for ways to beef up the system." > > https://lwn.net/Articles/377389/ > > And rightly so, since not breaking stable releases is the most > fundamental Fedora rule, as expressed here in the Stable release > update vision: > > "The update repositories for stable releases of the Fedora > distribution should provide our users with a consistent and high > quality stream of updates." > > This, and more very important stuff, under "Vision Statement" at this URL: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision > > If this is the Fedora's game, I'm wishing to play. Otherwise, I'll > move to Ubuntu or, as security is important to me, CentOS or > Scientific Linux, soon as RHEL 6 is released. > > So, one might ask, what will the contribution of non-geeks to Fedora > be? Well, as I said, I have a problem with my mobo. I also can't get > sound through HDMI to my TV. A recent update has made playing DVDs > impossible... except with Kplayer! (not KMplayer) Etc. > > So, if there was a place where I could report those bugs without > registering to 10,000 different bugzillas and dealing with > don't-give-a-shit geeks, I certainly would fill them and would be more > than interested in trying packages in update-testing to see if the fix > works. But I'm certainly not interested in enabling update-testing > just to see if new stuff i don't need works, and possibly break my > system. > > If my problems do not concern Fedora/Red Hat developers directly, they > can address the bug to software developers upstream. If bugs take > years to be fixed, maybe they can suggest another software... or > desktop environment be used by default on Fedora. You know, Fedora/Red > Hat certainly has the clout to wake up developers. OTOH, if Red Hat > relies on disgruntled users to fill reports on bugs that never get > fixed, users won't be the only ones to suffer. > > As for users/developers who feel more "adventurous", Rawhide does > provide enough of a stampede experience, I would think. That's the > rolling distribution that some are asking for, though, even in this > case. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to permit new updates > only every Sunday. But I don't have a solid opinion on this. > Developers are better placed to make an informed decision on this > matter. > > Then, as suggested by Matthew Garrett, before a package is moved from > Bohdi to update testing, it should receive the signatures, or "karma", > or whatever, of 3 developers. Developers know each other. If somebody > doesn't do a good job, nobody will want to sign for him. If somebody > always output a clean job, others will almost sign eyes closed. > Signatures put pressure on developers: they know that if their > software always has problems, nobody will sign for them. > > Of course, certain projects are more obscure than others, their > software is not as common as, say, a word processor. But the same goes > for the kernel development and, as far as I know, everything bears 3 > signatures. > > What I wrote here might be in part ill founded. When you're not a > developer, you can't comment with insight. It's an outsider's view, > but a very clear fact remains: whether it's only a rant or a > fullfledged case study, users must be allowed to express their POV > freely and it should be taken into consideration. > > Chasing users away with "Why don't you fill (no-use) bug reports?" or > "You don't like it? The code is there, modify it!", the way it is > typically done on Debian and Slackware groups, leads to disaster. > > If flame wars wouldn't have been so common in the community, if user > needs had been better taken care of, Debian could have achieved what > Mark Shuttlewort did, which is build a community, the largest user > base in the Linux world. So that, if you speak to Windows users > contemplating a move to Linux, the first distro that comes to their > mind is Ubuntu. That's because it's pretty much the only distribution > the generalist press talks about. > > Now, Shuttlweworth is planning to offer an iTune look-alike service > for his users. He's going to bring some money in to pay his > developers. It's not the financial clout that Google gives to > ChromeOS, but it's a move in the right direction. > > It's very strange, but it seems that open-source developers like to > pay their bills just like anybody. As more and more major companies > are entering the "open-source market", Nokia and Intel, for example, > who's going to be left developing open-source for nothing in project > that more and more will look rather futile, compared to mainstream? > > Because, believe it or not, open source is now becoming mainstream, As > I explained here: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-March/368642.html > > (Read from "As Wikipedia puts it". The rest is of no interest.) > > Google is apt to turn competition into confetti. > > Apple, which is certainly far from showing an open-source attitude(1), > makes billions with BSD-based OS X using "repackaged" standard > no-real-specs-available(2) hardware and still gains market share over > Microsoft. > > (1) Please don't bring forward this nonsense about their contribution > to WebKit. WebKit was a fork from KHTML, a GPLed project. So the code > had to be opened. and whatever contribution Darwin makes to the open > source community pretty much amount to a drop of water in the sea. > > (2) Try to get the specs of their mobos, for instance. > > At 19 years old. Linux is certainly not a new kid on the block > anymore. How come, even with Ubuntu, it is still howering at around 1% > of the market share? How come all the brawlers who invade Linux > groups/forums/lists are still allowed to bash new users pretending > that market share is not important in order to be accepted in > standards definition, that they'll still be surfing the net with Lynx > ten years from now? > > The benevolent dictator would not permit such nonsense to happen > repeatedly on this groups. Why does Red Hat, a company listed on the > NYSE, allow this? Do all the non Red Hat members on the Fedora board > agree with this? > > Can't anybody notice that traditional little budget open-source is > right in the middle of the track where the large corporations' > open-source is riding full steam head? Brawlers -- and you know, it > might be two people with 5 email accounts -- ask that they'd be taken > at their face value as real Linux advocates, and they do provide a > useful technical hint once in a while, but who's interests, knowingly > or unknowingly, are they serving? > > Anyways, that's more than enough on brawlers: some people might think > I have somethings against them :) Documentation, now. > > When, I installed the NVIDIA drivers, I went, first place, to > fedorafaq.org. Since Fedora couldn't provide instructions on > installing proprietary drivers, it seemed like an appropriate place. > But the instructions didn't work. It took some time before I got to > rpmfusion, the provider of the kmod package. Still, though I asked the > maintainer to correct his instructions, the Fedorafaq page is still > unchanged. > > How come anybody is allowed to use the Fedora's name to give wrong advice? > > Now, I want to remove the kmod-nvidia driver and there's no > instructions on how to remove it, either at rpmfusion or > fedoraproject. (I suppose removing proprietary software is not against > the law!) Just as for installing, you receive different advice all > over the place but, if the process can't be automated, how come there > is no offical information on such a fundamental matter? > > Anyways, I could go on like this for hours. If Fedora stagnates behind > Ubuntu for a total Linux market share of ~1% -- servers excluded, of > course -- it's not because God cursed Fedora, it's because there are > HUGE administrative problems. The project lacks direction, a > benevolent dictator (or an enlightened triumvirate?), somebody that > could be pointed at if everything turns to a mess like now. > > All along this summary, I've been comparing Fedora and Ubuntu, but > both are in a very different situations. Ubuntu is based on the latest > version of Debian, which is already very stable. Then, some packages > from testing are added and tested. If some bugs in unstable are > related to hardware architectures that are not supported by Ubuntu, > the package might also be added. > > Though, due to the wide variety of PC hardware, all kind of problems > pop up after an Ubuntu release, after, say, 8 months, inexperienced > users can feel confident that adopting the past release -- a new one > coming out every 6 months -- will be fairly trouble free. Every > release being maintained for 18 months, the user can, 10 months later, > choose the new release, the last or the second last. And it seems > Canonical can come up with fairly stable server releases this way. > > With 13 month releases, Fedora users have to upgrade much sooner. And > the latest version being based on the previous version of Fedora > instead of Debian, some question the validity of the whole process. > Here's what Corbet writes about this; > > "Fedora does indeed not hold back on updates; a quick look in the LWN > mailbox turns up over 600 package updates for the Fedora 11 release - > in just the last month. This is a release which is scheduled for > end-of-life in a few months. Many of these updates involve significant > changes, and others have been deemed "worthless". Regardless of worth, > there can be no doubt that all these updates represent a significant > degree of churn in a distribution which is in the latter part of its > short life. It is difficult to avoid breaking things when things are > changing at that rate." > > So, when I hear some suggesting that Fedora moves to a rolling stable > release, this sounds to me like a recipe for disaster. Of course, > stricter control on updates is often suggested, but getting to a > non-rolling stable release certainly seems like an inescapable first > step. > > IMO, Fedora releases will have to become much more stable and urgency > to get more market share will have to be established as a clear > priority. Very F-A-S-T. The Stable release update vision should be > followed "à la lettre". > > P.s.: Many thanks to Jonathan Corbet for providing me with insight on > Fedora's release process. > To all: Brawlers might find my answers have a sarcastic tone... if I > give any at all. You make some very salient points. However, you are comparing Fedora with a something that no longer exits; i.e. a non-enterprise linux distribution with a Red Hat name and paid technical support option. That died out when Red Hat spawned the Fedora Project. Fedora is beta-ware. It has been since the project's inception. You either live with the churn or choose another distribution. If you want stability go with a distribution that offers long term support. Fedora is for those who don't mind bleeding. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
