PROPOSAL: Fedora user survey

[Seth Vidal]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:

>
> Seth,
>
> The problem is that when things do get broken in a stable release, the
> updates  that  fix  the  problem  often  only get released in the next
> release.
>
> When I installed F11, two of  my systems ran fine  for the install and
> those  updates  available at time of installation. One of those was an
> Intel  system  which  only  was  able to do graphical install with the
> final release (not any of the snapshots before release). The other was
> an older ATI board.
>
> Both  systems  were borked by X11 updates that came one week after the
> GA. I was able to get both system running vesa-mode with help from the
> mailing  list.  I  dutifully  opened  bug  reports...  which I updated
> regularly.  It took on the order of three months until things got back
> into good enough shape to run native X again. Part of that was because
> I'd  upgraded  my  monitor and replaced the built-in Intel with an ATI
> card  (needed  to  support  a widescreen LCD at 1920x1200).
>
> I  am  worried  that  the  direction a number of folks is taking would
> place  excessive  focus  on  minimizing  risk  due  to  changes. Stuff
> happens,  so  in  complex  areas  such as X my experience of a "stable
> release"  being broken a week after release was unpleasant but not all
> that  unexpected.  What was unexpected was that it would be acceptable
> for this regression to be left unaddressed for months, with all of the
> development resources focused on the next release.
>
> My  primary  server is stuck at F10, waiting for the bind/dnssec smoke
> to  clear. Until I can get my second server functional at F12, it will
> not be touched. Reality says that I need it functional so I can log in
> to my day job and get stuff done.

Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?

-sv