Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 194

Thread: Alan Cox Calls Fedora 18 "The Worst Red Hat Distro"

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Someone in this thread complained about a logout feature missing (there is a lock screen feature for that, incase you suffer from alzheimer)
    In case you are suffering from Alzheimer, there are valid reasons to logout on a single user machine, mentioned in this thread (using the lock screen feature will for example not update the environment about the groups your user is in).

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    It's not less unstable than Ubuntu though, minus the fact they have no LTS version.
    Oh yes, it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Oh yes, it is.
    So it is more stable you meant?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Now Alan Cox has left the Linux developer community:

    http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/0...ux-development

    See what you did Fedora? You drove him to Ubuntu, and he couldn't take it for very long! Now he's gone.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    In case you are suffering from Alzheimer, there are valid reasons to logout on a single user machine, mentioned in this thread (using the lock screen feature will for example not update the environment about the groups your user is in).
    Alzheimer patients usually live in the past, right?:
    Adding your user to groups (sys, disk, lp, network, video, audio, optical, storage, scanner, power, etc.) is not necessary for most use cases with systemd. The groups can even cause some functionality to break. For example, the audio group will break fast user switching and allows applications to block software mixing. Every PAM login provides a logind session, which for a local session will give you permissions via POSIX ACLs on audio/video devices, and allow certain operations like mounting removable storage via udisks.
    Source: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    526

    Default

    this is coming from someone that used and liked fedora 17:


    fedora 18 is not only the worse fedora release to date, it's also a broken distro that should have never been released.



    The writing was on the wall and when, month after month after month, they noticed how broke everything was THEY SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY DELAYED OR CANCELLED fedora 18


    jump straight to 19 or release 18 in 19's date....



    Alan Cox wasn't the only one jumping to ubuntu


    hell even the alpha right now is 238912833 times more stable than fedora 18

  6. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remm View Post
    Upgraded with fedup, no problems. Using LUKS, did not run into problems. It's odd there would be problems since it mostly does a package upgrade. OTOH, proprietary drivers are always problems on Fedora, I would recommend another OS distribution (called Windows 7) if you really insist on using some.

    Did not use the installer, which doesn't look that good right now, not quite polished yet. Hopefully F19 will fix that.

    The amount of childish whining here is always simply amazing, love the never ending G3 rants (while actually G3 is very good, if you want a bad "new" desktop, you should look at W8 instead)
    The trickiness in dealing with encrypted upgrades comes at the point where fedup reboots into the actual upgrade process - it's a sort of custom init, and we need to make sure it unlocks all encrypted volumes that contain stuff the upgrade process may need to touch. We tested this in the single-encrypted-volume cases (there's several, depends exactly what is encrypted exactly how) and got quite a few bugs fixed, but it does look like there are some multiple-encrypted-volume cases that have problems, unfortunately.

  7. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    this is coming from someone that used and liked fedora 17:


    fedora 18 is not only the worse fedora release to date, it's also a broken distro that should have never been released.



    The writing was on the wall and when, month after month after month, they noticed how broke everything was THEY SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY DELAYED OR CANCELLED fedora 18


    jump straight to 19 or release 18 in 19's date....



    Alan Cox wasn't the only one jumping to ubuntu


    hell even the alpha right now is 238912833 times more stable than fedora 18
    You realize, as a Fedora dev, this message just goes right to my junk filter, right? I mean, it's meaningless. It contains no useful data. You don't say what problem you had, you don't construct any kind of coherent argument. You basically just say 'it sucks'. This is not useful feedback for anyone.

    We have a defined set of release criteria for Fedora and a process that ensures it reaches those criteria. The F18 release was delayed because we were going through that process: once we hit the criteria, it got released. The criteria do not say 'it must be perfect', and it's entirely the case that some releases exceed the criteria while some may only hit them. This is a thing that happens in software development. Given the nature of Fedora and the development cycle we're working on, we are never going to hit a perfect release every time, especially when that release involves rewriting the entire installer.

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    Strawman. Of course Red Hat is not a charity which develops Fedora for the benefit of mankind.
    The person I was responding to explicitly invoked the word 'customer'. It's hardly a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    I agree that the criticism that some people have voiced on Fedora 18 is too harsh, and that lots of people worked very hard to improve the release in many areas. That makes it even more sad to see their work overshadowed by that turd of an installer. I have very little insight into the development process, but it appears to me that there was no proper backup plan in place so the only choice was to push out the release:
    • Fedora 17 had an installer that worked just fine. So you could have continued to use that, and optionally provide your new installer to those who want to test it.
    • You could have recommended users to ditch the installer altogether and link to a document instead which describes manual partitioning + febootstrap as the preferred install method (Gentoo does it like this, and Arch has recently adopted this way too).
    • You could have labeled Fedora 18 as "Forever Beta" and not make it an official release, just something for the interested.

    Any of these steps would possibly have led to a lot fewer disappointed users than what we are seeing now.
    Perhaps you could consider *gaining* some insight into a development process before criticising it? This is not a snark, it's a genuine suggestion. All the points you raised have been raised repeatedly, and explain repeatedly, in all sorts of venues - the Fedora mailing list, the forums, here on Phoronix - over the last few months. I'm getting pretty tired of explaining it _again_.

    "Fedora 17 had an installer that worked just fine. So you could have continued to use that, and optionally provide your new installer to those who want to test it."

    That's not how things work in practice at all. You are by all means free to confirm this for yourself: take the Fedora 17 installer, plop it down in the Fedora 18 package set, and try to build an installer image. Ten to one it won't even compose, but on the offchance that it does, the composed image will _certainly_ be entirely busted. It won't work at all and will probably eat babies.

    This is actually one of the major reasons we're doing newUI in the first place: a significant part of the work involved in maintaining any OS installer is simply in keeping it up to date with the rest of the system. You can't just take the installer from one release, shove it in the next, and call it good. It has to be maintained to account for changes in the rest of the system. oldUI in particular was getting to the point where maintaining it from release to release just so that it worked _the same_ - not noticeably better - was taking up a significant proportion of all the resources we had for installer development. That meant we couldn't really do a lot of work on making the installer better.

    One of the major advantages of newUI is that it should require rather less running-to-stay-in-place maintenance work than oldUI did. However, as long as we do something like your plan - variations on which were suggested umpteen times by people who are not aware of the details - we were making the resource problem worse, not better: because we have to _both_ maintain oldUI _and_ work on newUI. newUI work did not start in the F18 cycle, it started back around the F15 cycle; so for three releases the anaconda team has been trying to work on newUI while simultaneously maintaining oldUI. This causes significant stress on them, slows the pace of newUI development, and probably means oldUI wasn't getting quite all the love it needed.

    So any scenario in which we're continuing to work on both installers - let alone one where we actually offer and to some extent support both installers, which is pretty much the nightmare scenario - is a vary bad and unsustainable one.

    This whole setup gives us a very strong reason to get newUI in as default as early as practical: now we have hit the point where newUI is in as default, we're in a much better place. We can kick oldUI to the curb, no-one has to work on it any more. Everyone is dedicated to making newUI better, and now we have a release out where newUI is the only option, we are getting lots of feedback on what bits of newUI need improving. The pace of newUI development will be far more rapid than it would have been had we tried some kind of do-both-at-once approach.

    "You could have recommended users to ditch the installer altogether and link to a document instead which describes manual partitioning + febootstrap as the preferred install method (Gentoo does it like this, and Arch has recently adopted this way too)"

    That's...interesting, but really not in line with how Fedora rolls, I don't think. It would have been just too drastic for a single release. newUI really isn't that terrible, you know; quite a few people have been saying 'it worked fine for me, I don't get the fuss'. It's at its most awkward when you're using custom partitioning with existing complex layouts, and I think that describes quite a few Phoronix users as this is one of the places for distro tweakers, but it doesn't describe everyone. If you're just doing a fresh install to a VM, for instance, it rolls fine. Even custom install to an empty disk works pretty nicely.

    "You could have labeled Fedora 18 as "Forever Beta" and not make it an official release, just something for the interested."

    That again would have been a valid approach, but I'm not sure it buys us a lot. At this point we have the same product and it's just about massaging the messaging. That's something we already tried to do with the release announcement and other release documentation, and see how much slack that's bought us.

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Why was shipping F18 with the old installer not an option?
    See above post. It _was_ an option, we did not go into the F18 cycle committed to newUI. But we had to make a call at some point - and it had to be a substantial amount of time ahead of a release - as to when we were going to jump to newUI by default. And we had powerful motivation to do it as soon as possible, because things are much better for the future once we've jumped. Back in the mists of six months ago, we decided F18 was the right time to jump. We nearly did it for F17 before, BTW.

    With hindsight there's a reasonable case to be made that it might have been better to wait for F19, but that's a very difficult call to make six months ahead of time. The practicalities described in the previous post mean it's not really viable to jump then jump back two months later, because then you have to retool and try to fix up oldUI for the new release, which is just as bad as trying to hack newUI into usable shape. It's pretty much a one-time call.

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Now Alan Cox has left the Linux developer community:

    http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/0...ux-development

    See what you did Fedora? You drove him to Ubuntu, and he couldn't take it for very long! Now he's gone.
    Our secret is that we're terrible people.

Posting Permissions

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