Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 120

Thread: Fedora 20 Moves Ahead With Wayland Tech Preview

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Northumberland, UK
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    not in the same way at all and if they did i be saying the same for them
    At the end of the day, a CLA is a CLA and there is nothing stopping Red Hat or any one else from introducing a CLA like Canonicals. Unfortunately we don't like in a perfect world, and companies can do far worse than use a CLA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    I wouldn't go that far... Fedora + EasyLife is a great way to handle a user friendly linux distro. More recent packages than OpenSUSE and Ubuntu. More polish than Arch. Good middle ground honestly.
    I don't think Fedora is appropriate as an "everyday" Linux distro for non-technical/non-enthusiast users given the short support cycle of each release.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielnez1 View Post
    At the end of the day, a CLA is a CLA and there is nothing stopping Red Hat or any one else from introducing a CLA like Canonicals. Unfortunately we don't like in a perfect world, and companies can do far worse than use a CLA.
    I don't think Fedora is appropriate as an "everyday" Linux distro for non-technical/non-enthusiast users given the short support cycle of each release.
    yeah like 9mos is a long time...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    307

    Default

    The second phase of the Linux revolution - on the desktop - has begun. May it take the world by storm over the next 10 years!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielnez1 View Post
    I don't think Fedora is appropriate as an "everyday" Linux distro for non-technical/non-enthusiast users given the short support cycle of each release.
    Actually it is for every two releases which is roughly 13 months or at most two years. Setting automatic update to stable and enable the option to upgrade to the next release greatly simplifies the process.
    How much different than say Apple OS X aside paying for the cost?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    33

    Default

    I have been waiting quite some time for a major distro to have something wayland ready... this is a good start. Here's hoping it is great.

    I missed the whole part of the article about canonical... apparently others did not, so I won't comment on that.

    I will try this one, I was not inclined to try Rebeca Black distro.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Northumberland, UK
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    Actually it is for every two releases which is roughly 13 months or at most two years. Setting automatic update to stable and enable the option to upgrade to the next release greatly simplifies the process.
    How much different than say Apple OS X aside paying for the cost?
    Mac OS X 10.6 (released August 2009) still receives security updates. 10.5 (released October 2007) received its last security update in May 2012. AFAIK 10.7 still receives updates too.

    While I agree some users who like to use a system that has the latest packages etc., for more casual users I would argue that having consistent install that doesnít require upgrading to a new version (and the baggage that can bring) is far more important for them.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    Setting automatic update to stable and enable the option to upgrade to the next release greatly simplifies the process.
    Interestingly when I go into Software Management --> Settings the option to check for a distribution upgrade is disabled (greyed out and inaccessible).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Blatant troll. Welcome to the ignorelist.
    He's actually right. Fedora 19 is terrible experience. However, I like they push Wayland so hard and I hope it will work with usable DEs like KDE.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielnez1 View Post
    Mac OS X 10.6 (released August 2009) still receives security updates. 10.5 (released October 2007) received its last security update in May 2012. AFAIK 10.7 still receives updates too.

    While I agree some users who like to use a system that has the latest packages etc., for more casual users I would argue that having consistent install that doesnít require upgrading to a new version (and the baggage that can bring) is far more important for them.
    Well, when you need to pay for the updates (correct me if I wrong, but I believe Apple charges you for version upgrades), it becomes really important to have security updates for a long time. When upgrading is free, it makes a bit less sense, aside from convenience or in the case the resources use goes stupidly high.
    However, I'm aware that at least for Ubuntu (Ubuntu flavors are the only ones I used enough time to require this, not that I think it's special of them), upgrading sometimes brings problems that newbies usually don't know how to solve. It's happening less often for me as time passes, but it still happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielnez1 View Post
    Isnít that a little paradoxical since Red Hat have used CLAs before?
    I don't approve their older CLA, so even when I can't speak for the others, I can speak for myself. My case is not paradoxical, they don't use, currently, a CLA that give them asymmetrical rights.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Northumberland, UK
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Well, when you need to pay for the updates (correct me if I wrong, but I believe Apple charges you for version upgrades), it becomes really important to have security updates for a long time. When upgrading is free, it makes a bit less sense, aside from convenience or in the case the resources use goes stupidly high.
    However, I'm aware that at least for Ubuntu (Ubuntu flavors are the only ones I used enough time to require this, not that I think it's special of them), upgrading sometimes brings problems that newbies usually don't know how to solve. It's happening less often for me as time passes, but it still happens.
    May years ago, I upgraded Ubuntu on my Mum's netbook and the whole thing was completely hosed on the first boot after the upgrade. Regardless of the OS, there is always the risk that a OS upgrade can go awry in some way. also, needing to upgrade to new versions frequently can be disruptive especially if software extensions break etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I don't approve their older CLA, so even when I can't speak for the others, I can speak for myself. My case is not paradoxical, they don't use, currently, a CLA that give them asymmetrical rights.
    My case is not paradoxical either, I'm just saying that Red Hat are not "squeaky clean" when it comes to CLAs and unless a free software licence prevents CLAs, anyone is free to introduce their own.

Posting Permissions

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