Fedora 18 Is Now One Month Behind Schedule
Phoronix: Fedora 18 Is Now One Month Behind Schedule
Fedora 18 is continuing in the long-standing Fedora tradition of suffering from multiple release delays per cycle...
This is way better than Ubuntu's release policy, if Fedora's beta isn't ready why release it? The six month cycle is only a maximum goal, not a deadline.
17 still works fine and all the other repos used have already adopted to it, without Fedora is nearly unuseable for me... why upgrade so soon again? (actual Linux-3.6.1 just made it into Fedora 17)
Rolling updates/releases like Gentoo or Arch would be better...
Wow, I'm glad Fedora are flexible with their schedule and actually want to release things when they're ready(although I don't use Fedora personally). Or try to, certainly.
Few projects have this policy, I know Elementary and Chakra to a degree use it. And I hope it's more widely adopted.
who cares how long they take to release it? I'm using it right now and it's the best linux ever made.
fedora is linux for pros and all the others are compiled with aids and fail
I know this won't happen but I wish they would readjust the schedule and ship fedora 18 with the 3.7 kernel... they would be so far ahead of the competition it wouldn't even be funny
elementary looks all pretty and gay but kernel 3.2 LOLOL, they are going to release a 3.2 kernel based distro in december or january 2013...
all ubuntu based distros are cancer.
what fedora needs is a software center and less anal about repos etc
To paraphrase Fesco: "If we didn't have a release schedule, we'd never release a product. If we actually enforced the schedule, no one would use it."
This is pretty subjective .. I have many qualms with this, but it also goes with personal preference.
Originally Posted by Pallidus
Elementary's window manager seems to be the faster and smoothest among anything composited I've used, heck it competes with openbox on speed.
While it DOES seem like a Mac in various places, I find it pretty beautiful.
Although I'd partly agree about the kernel part .. -.-
Not that it prevents me from using it fine.
Btw, NO, and I repeat, NO distribution other than Ubuntu or derivatives that I tried(and that's a bit ) can fully support power management on my laptop and have it run at normal temperatures, and I've tried various kernels on both ends as well as both open and closed driver(AMD). And also, I've tried the latest version of Fedora about 1-1.5 months ago.
Ubuntu is great. Fedora is mostly meant as a testing bed for Red Hat, isn't that right? I've had many issues every time I used it, and it didn't seem like a distro for casual use from the start. But I agree, it was pretty damn fast. The power management is automatic no go though ..
It's cool to like Fedora, its a cool OS, but don't undermine others, please, especially when you shouldn't. This is fanboyism, and counterproductive for Linux, Open Source, Fedora and everyone.
Except Apple cause they're Evil and behind everything that is bad in any way .. And their minion microsoft.
** Btw, pretty and gay have different meanings. ^_^
I'm not sure why Michael didn't put more detail in the story, since it's all there in the logs, but if anyone was wondering, what's delaying Beta is the new upgrade tool. Part of the installer rewrite for F18 involves re-doing how upgrades happen: preupgrade is no more, and anaconda no longer handles upgrades either. There's a new upgrade tool which works more or less like preupgrade, but is new code: it runs a preparation step from your current running install, then reboots and completes the upgrade, not via anaconda now but via dracut. This will be the only recommended upgrade mechanism for future Fedora releases, from F18 on.
The minor problem is that it isn't done yet. =) Everything else is more or less in line for Beta, but the new upgrade tool is still incomplete and not testable. We're not freezing for Beta until it's at least code complete.
Agreed 100%. This is probably the main reason I don't use Fedora. That and perhaps having a minimal install version such as Arch. Since I work all day on Red Hat servers, it would make things much more intuitive (I currently run Arch on all my machines except for personal servers, which use FreeBSD).
Originally Posted by disi
Lol, that was a funny joke.
Originally Posted by Pallidus
Last edited by t0ken; 10-16-2012 at 04:47 PM.
Rolling updates is just a completely different release model from stable releases. You can't really say one is 'better' than the other, each has advantages and drawbacks. No major RH customer would want a rolling release version of RHEL, for instance. Stable releases provide a sysadmin with an assurance that the system will, basically, work the same way throughout its lifetime. Rolling updates do not allow this. By their nature there will be 'regular' system updates that cause massive changes to system behaviour and may require significant manual care and feeding. This is great for a geek enthusiast, it is not much use for a stable deployment.
Originally Posted by t0ken
Personally I think the rolling release model might make a deal of sense for Fedora and it'd be interesting to try it, but it's certainly not the case that rolling release is simply 'better' than stable releases. It's good for some use cases, terrible for others.
Fedora already has a minimal installation option. At present it installs around 200 packages and uses 770MB of disk space (F18). There's some discussion on the devel list at present as to how some core components could possibly be split up to make a minimal install more space efficient.