Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Fedora 18 Is Now One Month Behind Schedule

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,829

    Default 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...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIwODI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    52

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    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...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    57

    Default

    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."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    I'm using it right now and it's the best linux ever made.
    This is pretty subjective .. I have many qualms with this, but it also goes with personal preference.
    Elementary's window manager seems to be the faster and smoothest among anything composited I've used, heck it competes with openbox on speed.
    Gay? lol
    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.
    (j/k?)

    ** Btw, pretty and gay have different meanings. ^_^

  8. #8

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi
    Rolling updates/releases like Gentoo or Arch would be better...
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    fedora is linux for pros and all the others are compiled with aids and fail
    Lol, that was a funny joke.
    Last edited by t0ken; 10-16-2012 at 03:47 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t0ken View Post
    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).
    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.

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •