How about slowing down the Fedora release cycle to allow for more QA???

[Benjamin J. Weiss]

All,

Okay, this is probably going to immerse me in a flame war, but, to put it
bluntly, I'm scared spitless.

I've been using RH since 7.2 (okay, I know a bunch of you have been using it
lots longer), but I can't remember EVER seeing this number of posts on a RHL
release about things that are non-functional right out of the box.  Sure,
plenty of security patches would show up, but at least for the most part, if
you installed from the CD, things would *work* even before you got out to
the up2date site and got stuff patched.

I'm sure many of you are on both the fedora and redhat lists.  Notice the
difference in the tenor and number of posts?  In an average day on the
redhat list, I see around 100-150 posts, mostly "how do I configure this" or
"what package does this" or other sysadmin type stuff.  Here, I see 300-400
posts a day, with "this doesn't work when installed" or "this won't
install"
or "up2date/apt/yum doesn't work after a standard install", etc.

Would it hurt that much to slow down the release cycle of fedora to match
what RHL used to enjoy?  To help ensure that a *WORKING* distro is released?
Every time I steel myself to try a fedora install, I see another 50 messages
on how some other part of the main OS is screwed up, and to go check on
bugzilla to see how to fix it.  I think I've finally been convinced to NOT
try FC1 by this list, and to wait and see if FC2 has better quality.

Don't get me wrong.  I loved RHL with an evangelical zeal.  I desperately
want to do the same with fedora.  But I just don't have the confidence in it
that I did with RHL...not after having subscribed to this list.

Ben

[Vincent]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:37:22 -0600
"Benjamin J. Weiss" <benjamin(a)weiss.name&gt; wrote:

>  All,
>  
>  Okay, this is probably going to immerse me in a flame war, but, to put it
>  bluntly, I'm scared spitless.
>  
>  I've been using RH since 7.2 (okay, I know a bunch of you have been using it
>  lots longer), but I can't remember EVER seeing this number of posts on a RHL
>  release about things that are non-functional right out of the box.  
I am the same as you, A linux-newbie friend of mine tried slackware recently and
didn't like it. I was tempted to tell him Fedora since it has so many great
'ideas' but things like yum URL's breaking out of nowhere and rhythmbox just
obscenly screwed up. I pointed him to RH 9 instead.

I expected bugs but the part that worrys me is some of this seems to be on purpose,
yum's URL's just gone one day.. what the heck was that about? I'm
more of fedoras target market and can work around these things and still be a happy guy
but what about the ppl that spend 2 days wondering why updates and package downloads
stopped working? For the most part I'm assuming this release was a bit rushed as far
as planning and FC 2 will have most of infrastructure ironed out. Then again, maybe not,
maybe its Rawhide for ideas, and not just rawhide for software.

[WipeOut]

Vincent wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:37:22 -0600
> "Benjamin J. Weiss" <benjamin(a)weiss.name&gt; wrote:
>
>   
>
> >All,
> >
> >Okay, this is probably going to immerse me in a flame war, but, to put it
> >bluntly, I'm scared spitless.
> >
> >I've been using RH since 7.2 (okay, I know a bunch of you have been using it
> >lots longer), but I can't remember EVER seeing this number of posts on a RHL
> >release about things that are non-functional right out of the box. 
> >    
> >
>
> I am the same as you, A linux-newbie friend of mine tried slackware recently and
> didn't like it. I was tempted to tell him Fedora since it has so many great
> 'ideas' but things like yum URL's breaking out of nowhere and rhythmbox just
> obscenly screwed up. I pointed him to RH 9 instead.
>
> I expected bugs but the part that worrys me is some of this seems to be on purpose,
> yum's URL's just gone one day.. what the heck was that about? I'm
> more of fedoras target market and can work around these things and still be a happy guy
> but what about the ppl that spend 2 days wondering why updates and package downloads
> stopped working? For the most part I'm assuming this release was a bit rushed as far
> as planning and FC 2 will have most of infrastructure ironed out. Then again, maybe not,
> maybe its Rawhide for ideas, and not just rawhide for software.
>
>   
>  
RH probably left in or created a number of problems to prove the point 
that Fedora was for "play" systems and to make people buy RHEL for 
"real" systems.. :)

Conspiricy theory I know but I can't help thinking that if Fedora had 
been as good as the RHL releases then no one would have signed up for 
RHEL so they had to secure their future somehow...

Later..

[Doug Brott]

Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:

> All,
>
> Okay, this is probably going to immerse me in a flame war, but, to put it
> bluntly, I'm scared spitless.
>
>   
>  
[parts deleted]

> Would it hurt that much to slow down the release cycle of fedora to
> match
> what RHL used to enjoy?  To help ensure that a *WORKING* distro is released?
>   
>  
[parts deleted]

> Don't get me wrong.  I loved RHL with an evangelical zeal.  I
> desperately
> want to do the same with fedora.  But I just don't have the confidence in it
> that I did with RHL...not after having subscribed to this list.
>
> Ben
>   
>  
Ben,

   Fedora is new.  Not only is it RH10, but it is also a split from the 
"old" way of distribution.  What we have is two big things happening at 
one time.  Redhat is in essence handing the core off to the open-source 
community.  You are seeing lots of messages here because there is no 
other support model now.  Many of these folks were probably 
calling/writing RedHat and you just didn't see them.  I believe that is 
the whole point of doing this sort of distribution anyway.

   I have every expectation that the core will stabilize, but it will 
probably be with Fedora-core 2 or possibly Fedora-core 3.  If you are 
worried, stick with RH9.  It's a very solid OS and will handle most, if 
not all, of your computing needs.  I consider myself and enthusiest and 
made the leap to see what all of the fuss was about.  After smoothing 
out a few bumps, I've been happy with the results.  I believe that RH9 
is more stable than FC1, but not by a whole lot. 

I find the update mechanism is actually easier in FC1, but only after 
you go through the stumbling block of learning a new way to do it.   I 
maintain a localized repository for udpates and it is much easier to 
setup/maintain in FC1 than it was in RH9.  And from the client side, it 
becomes a simple one-liner in a config file.  The problem is that parts 
of it are broken, but there are fixes available.  You won't see this in 
FC2 because it will definitely be fixed by then.

If you continue with FC1, please don't worry too much.  Even though you 
may feel you are in a buggy environment, most things run very well.  If 
you are only using client tools (browsing, e-mail, etc.), then you 
probably won't see any problems.

-- 
Doug Brott
brott(a)redh.com

[John Wendel]

>  [parts deleted]
>
>  >Would it hurt that much to slow down the release cycle of fedora
>  > to match what RHL used to enjoy?  To help ensure that a *WORKING*
>  > distro is released? 

I look at Fedora as a constantly changing beta release. But I feel 
pretty confident about using it when I see gurus like Dave Jones, 
Alan Cox and Ulrich Drepper posting on this list.

In fact, every problem I've encountered has been solved by reading 
this list.

Thanks to all of you.

--

John

[Peter Boy]

Am Fr, den 21.11.2003 schrieb Benjamin J. Weiss um 16:37:
>  I've been using RH since 7.2 (okay, I know a bunch of you have
> been using it
>  lots longer), but I can't remember EVER seeing this number of posts on a RHL
>  release about things that are non-functional right out of the box.  Sure,
>  plenty of security patches would show up, but at least for the most part, if
>  you installed from the CD, things would *work* even before you got out to
>  the up2date site and got stuff patched. 
I don't see much more problems as with previous versions. There is much
more traffic here as on the old Red Hat lists. So you will see much more
postings - in absolute numbers - regarding problems - purely
statistical. The relative frequencies may be the same as before.

>  I'm sure many of you are on both the fedora and redhat lists. 
> Notice the
>  difference in the tenor and number of posts?  In an average day on the
>  redhat list, I see around 100-150 posts, mostly "how do I configure this" or
>  "what package does this" or other sysadmin type stuff.  Here, I see 300-400
>  posts a day, with "this doesn't work when installed" or "this
> won't install"
>  or "up2date/apt/yum doesn't work after a standard install", etc. 
There is one big issue namely up2date and yum repositories. Red Hat made
the shift so switch from rhn to a separate fedora repository quite late
so during the tests not all bugs were found.

But if you use the core software and use pretty compatible Hardware, I
don't see more probs as usual.



Peter

[Alexandre Strube]

Em Sex, 2003-11-21 às 16:42, Peter Boy escreveu:

>  There is one big issue namely up2date and yum repositories. Red Hat
> made
>  the shift so switch from rhn to a separate fedora repository quite late
>  so during the tests not all bugs were found.
>  But if you use the core software and use pretty compatible Hardware, I
>  don't see more probs as usual. 
I cannot say. I've never used up2date on rh8 and 9, was always using
apt-get. It worked for me before, it works for me now. In fact, one of
the most painless upgrades I've ever done was from rh9 to fedora..
Insert the cds, upgrade, download the new apt-get, download java, flash
plugin, xmms-mp3, apt-get dist-upgrade and all is well!

-- 
[]s

Alexandre Ganso 
500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto Group

[Peter Boy]

Am Fr, den 21.11.2003 schrieb Alexandre Strube um 20:29:
>  Em Sex, 2003-11-21 às 16:42, Peter Boy escreveu:
>  > There is one big issue namely up2date and yum repositories. 
>  >    [snip]
>  I cannot say. I've never used up2date on rh8 and 9, was always using
>  apt-get. It worked for me before, it works for me now. In fact, one of
>  the most painless upgrades I've ever done was from rh9 to fedora.. 
Same for me, but there were some people, who had difficulties, mostly
with up2date and the new repositories. Of course, if you didn't use it
before you couldn't have those problems.

Generally, according to my experiences, all the fear and daubt wether
Fedora will be as solid as RHL was, proved to be false for now.


Peter

[Peter Kiem]

>  Generally, according to my experiences, all the fear and daubt
> wether
>  Fedora will be as solid as RHL was, proved to be false for now. 
Well I just installed Fedora on the weekend and I was surprised how well
it works compared to the Red Hat 9 installation I replaced!

It picked up the sound on my motherboard just fine (Red Hat 9 didn't),
Evolution is now stable with my large IMAP folders and I got the nVidia
drivers and VMware running fine with a simple export CC=gcc32 statement.

All in all, I am glad I switched from RH9 to Fedora :)

-- 
Regards,
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Peter Kiem            .^.   | E-Mail    : <zordah(a)zordah.net&gt; |
| Zordah IT             /V\   | Mobile    : [phone]    |
|   IT Consultancy &  /(   )\ | WWW       : www.zordah.net      |
|   Internet Services  ^^-^^  | ICQ       : "Zordah" 866661     |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
       My current spamtrap address is est1103(a)zordah.net

[Lamont R. Peterson]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 08:37, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
--SNIP--
>  Would it hurt that much to slow down the release cycle of fedora to
> match
>  what RHL used to enjoy?  To help ensure that a *WORKING* distro is released?
>  Every time I steel myself to try a fedora install, I see another 50 messages
>  on how some other part of the main OS is screwed up, and to go check on
>  bugzilla to see how to fix it.  I think I've finally been convinced to NOT
>  try FC1 by this list, and to wait and see if FC2 has better quality. 
When Red Hat finally announced a formal release policy/schedule for RHL,
it was "every 4 to 6 months."  Fedora Core's "official" release
schedule:  2-3 times per year.  What is the difference?  RHL was not
"slower" to release updates (officially).

Also, since we only have one release under our belts so far, we do not
know what the release schedule will be.  After all, look at what just
happened to Debian.

Their next version was ready to go, and was not affected by their
unfortunate event(s), but they put the release on hold, anyway.  My
point is, we never know for certain what will happen until it is past,
right?  I know, kinda obvious...but I do not like to just assume
everyone is thinking the way that I do.

>  Don't get me wrong.  I loved RHL with an evangelical zeal.  I
> desperately
>  want to do the same with fedora.  But I just don't have the confidence in it
>  that I did with RHL...not after having subscribed to this list. 
As others have said so well, this list *is* the (primary) support point
for FC.

I installed FC on my HP notebook and have not looked back.  There have
been no instabilities (that I did not cause).  YMMV, as always.  But I
hope you can become comfortable with the change, soon.  Good luck.
-- 
Lamont Peterson <lamont(a)gurulabs.com&gt;
Instructor
Guru Labs <http://www.gurulabs.com/>