That is an EXTREMELY narrow minded point of view. You go ahead and use terminal full time. In fact, why don't you just delete X and everything that depends on it?
Originally Posted by Anvil
Fact is that IN ORDER TO COMPETE with microscrap, you need to support those users who are barely able to find the ON button. They aren't going to use the terminal for ANYTHING AT ALL NO MATTER WHAT. If you force everyone to use the terminal, you're DOOMED TO FAIL. Guaranteed.
Now go back to your terminal and have fun.
BTW: I assume that you're browsing with something like lynx, right?
All of your points apply equally well to the systems used by debian/ubuntu.
Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE
I absolutely agree. That packagekit thing is an abomination.
Originally Posted by bwat47
Its acceptible if you're browsing for and installing one or two packages. Browse through them all and come up with a list of 10 or more packages to install, though, and you're f***ed --- I lost count of how many times the stupid thing would take a crap somewhere in between hitting the "go" button, and actually starting the update.
What I've started doing instead, is browsing with packagekit, and transcribing the package names to a terminal, then running 'yum install' with the list. That's the only reliable way to use packagekit that doesn't result in it borking up and forcing you to browse through all the packages again for a second try.
At least if yum takes a dump, you still have the list of packages and can try again.
And since I think of it, it would NOT be difficult to extend packagekit to save the list of packages to install in case it has to be killed with fire. I would start by separating the browser and installer. Thing also needs a smart mode, where you can tell it to skip (and report on) packages with missing/broken dependencies or conflicts, also a "back" button at the place where it yaps at you about additional packages needed for dependencies (no, I don't want to install any part of KDE!!!!) -- I want to be able to GO BACK and DESELECT packages at this point, or REJECT dependencies and have it skip installing those packages that require them.
Funny, that is exactly how I've been dealing with it (before Gnome Shell motivated me to have a look at other distros out there, but that is another story). :)
Originally Posted by droidhacker
I am really considering fedora at the moment as a replacement for ubuntu ^^ but when I read that stuff here I get frustrated ^^. I want a good gnome-shell distribution, I think fedora is the best in this way if you like the normal gnome-shell and want the true gnome-feeling ^^.
I tried also arch linux but I had problems to install stuff that was experimental what under ubuntu with a ppa did work without problems at the same time. So I am a bit between the chairs right now, I dont like rpm and I think I will not like yum much ^^ so I thought no problem, just use the gui thing, I dont need a softwarecenter with preview images and stars and stuff, but if you say that crashes very often, that is not good in that point. ^^
pfff really hard days for gnome(shell) users. using always ppas sucks and have old totem versions and stuff because of unity sucks too. gentoo is not got any better than 5-10 years ago only that it has newer programm packages ^^, arch seems also not totaly good usable because there are earlier packages that work in ppas than you get problemles working packages für AUR.
Debian also sucks when you want the newest gnome-shell ^^ maybe linux mint? but to get it to make it a normal clean gnome-shell its also some work you have to do, because its basicly the distro for people who hate kde, gnome-shell (pure) and unity ^^ basicly for gnome2-lovers that need support to make gnome3 look more like gnome2 or something like that.
It really sucks for gnome-shell users today.
Fedora is great if you want a gnome-shell. The packagekit thingy has been just a minor nuisance. I've got used to yum quite fast. TBH when running Ubuntu I prefer to use apt-get instead of the software center, maybe due to my packagekit preconditioning, LOL.
Originally Posted by blackiwid
I also use softwarecneter very seldom ^^ because if you know the names its just easier to type in aptitude install mesa firefox epiphany empathy libreoffice, than open the center then search the 1. klick to install it, search the 2nd click to install it...
Originally Posted by log0
But if you search ONE Package it can be ok, to use it, its ok if you are unsure if you want this one tool, you have some feedback there a screenshot, you can think about it and maybe install a alternative...
but yes most of the time I use aptitute ^^
so yes I will install it (fedora) on one maschine (laptop/desktop) as additionaly thing. I see a few pros about it, better gnome-shell support instlaler that supports lvm (hey they are in this centory not like ubuntu where you have to use the alternative text-installer for that ^^). So I hope its ok. The one big thing a fear a bit, is that I think the community is smaler for fedora, if you look at fedorausers.de it seems one guy did make that, and there are infos that are totaly outdated, i mean really totaly outdated, there stands that in fedora gossip is the default (preinstalled) jabber client, while it seems that project is dead at all ^^.
while ubuntuusers.de is a really good aktive side, where you maybe not find always completly top notch wiki entries but much closer and often even really at the current state. Also the ubuntu wiki on the homepage from ubuntu looks better quality and quantity and even is eyefriednlier as what fedora has on his sides.
I don't have any interest in pointing fingers or being sarcastic at you or at your team. I'm just saying that the first Fedora update (right after install) broke my boot process, while I can't even remember when was the last time (if at all) when Ubuntu updates broke the setup.
Originally Posted by AdamW
And my computer is a usual one - neither latest stuff, nor weird setup.
So I don't know why Ubuntu's updates work while F17's updates break my x64 setup: Core i5, GeForce GTX 560Ti - nothing weird nor fancy.
I don't know - maybe before sending updates the folks at Canonical test them on a wide(r) range of hw, ask them about such details, have you?, they might be kind enough to actually tell your team some better or new ideas. Just saying.
I wonder what's the most popular Fedora version. I am almost sure that the KDE Spin is the most ppular one, even more than the default gnome-shell crap version.
I wish Fedora wasn't so biased towards the gnome-shell crap. Is only 'usefull' if you use the computer only for facebook.
Besides that, Fedora rocks.
Sorry, I just needed to vent for a bit there.
Obviously if an update stops your system working that's a problem, but it seemed like you were complaining about there _being_ updates after install, not that they caused a problem. The first thing to check would be the kernel, because a) it's likely and b) it's easy (you have a boot menu where you can easily choose to boot an earlier kernel). Fedora being Fedora, the kernel is updated quite aggressively (though not without testing) and it does get regressions now and again because it's completely impossible to test updates on _all_ hardware. (There is no such thing, really, as 'usual' and 'weird' when it comes to hardware. There's just lots and lots of it.) Let me know if that helps or not and we can take it from there.
Ubuntu has much the same process as Fedora in place for testing updates, only not as good: they have a repository where candidate updates are posted (we call it updates-testing, they call it -proposed), but they don't yet have a system equivalent to Bodhi which provides a unified interface for maintainers to manage updates and for testers to provide feedback on them. For now they just have a somewhat hacked-together process using Launchpad for providing feedback on updates. "We have set up an improvised way of tracking -proposed archive coverage using the bug tracker in Launchpad (but we are designing a more automated solution)." - from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed .
Remember that anecdotal evidence is the worst form thereof, barely to be considered evidence at all. If Fedora updates cause problems for one person in 10,000 and Ubuntu updates cause updates for one person in two, there's still one person in every 20,000 going 'man, Fedora updates suck, Ubuntu updates rule'. I am of course not saying this is the case; it's just an exaggerated example of why you can't rely on anecdotal evidence. In practice I'd say that while Fedora's system for testing updates is somewhat more sophisticated at present, Ubuntu has a substantially more conservative policy on what updates should do/contain; this is really just a reflection of the nature of each distro. So I would expect that Ubuntu updates would be as reliable as Fedora's, or slightly more so, but less 'enthusiastic'. If you don't need the more frequent updates Fedora provides, Ubuntu's policy may suit you better.