End of Saga WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!

[Leslie S Satenstein]

Mark

Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is imposed, one is often negative,
but when one chooses, then one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs.
I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or perhaps even more, given your
explanation.

Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in Fedora-list. :)

Leslie

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Mark Haney <mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org&gt; wrote:

From: Mark Haney <mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org&gt;
Subject: Re: WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!
To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora."
<fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 4:14 PM

Mike Chalmers wrote:
>  As I said above I am sorry for the initial RANT. Thank you to all
> for
>  your patience and help.
>  
>  I have been looking into ARCH, which someone, mentioned above, and I
>  think their philosophy towards Linux is, quite good, a rolling
>  release. It is harder to work with initially seeing as it does not
>  have a graphical install process. It is a minimal installation, which
>  I like, and you install only what you want after the minimal
>  installation. It also releases the latest packages usually in 1 day or
>  2. Didn't know that there was a distro like ARCH.
>  
>  For the question above, I do like to stay up to date, and the GUI
>  matters a pretty good bit to me. I love the changes that KDE made,
>  with their GUI, when they went to 4 and now to 4.2!
>   
I have to throw my 2 cents worth in.  I have to agree that doing a full
upgrade every 6-8 months gets tiresome when you have a dozen or so
machines running it.  However, preupgrade does seem to help that a lot
and it's getting better with oddball setups like some I have.

That said, rolling updates are the way to go.  No need for continual
upgrades to 'releases' just update to the latest version of a package
and be done with it.  I'm just not sure a 'major release' design is the
way to go any longer.  With internet access the way it is, why not just
do rolling updates?

Personally this is why I use gentoo more and more.  No need to download
an ISO or anything of the sort, just switch to a new profile, update the
needed packages and you are at the latest 'release'.  Then, update
packages as they are released as stable. (or as ~arch in the gentoo world).

Nothing else makes as much sense to me in the open source world that
isn't a 'paid' or 'enterprise' edition.


-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
[phone]

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Charles A. Crayne]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:10:04 -0500
"Mark Haney" <mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org&gt; wrote:

>  It's 500+MB of
>  updates.  With rolling updates it's possible to scale that down, I
>  think. 
Your post makes it seem like Fedora does not do any rolling updates. I
haven't been keeping an exact count, but since F10's release, I'm
pretty sure that I have installed several hundred updated packages,
totaling over 500MB in size. By the time that F11 is released, I expect
that more than half of the original F10 packages will have been updated.
In addition, many of the F11 packages will be subsequently repackaged
for F10, which will still be supported for about another six months.

Having said that, however, I agree that there is still room for
improvement 

-- 
Chuck 
http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/charles.html

[Mikkel]

Mark Haney wrote:
>  Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>  
> > I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies
> > result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the
> > opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries
> > like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same
> > blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.
>  
>  My point is that including virtually every compile option in every
>  package means the system links to many more libraries than are probably
>  needed.  I know some compromise for 'desktop use' has to be made and I
>  understand that.  But including dependencies for every media player out
>  there seems silly.  Does that make a little more sense with where my
>  train of thought is going?  If not, don't worry, my wife doesn't
>  understand me either.
>   
I have not seen that. What I have seen is several media players
having the same dependencies, so you only have to drag them in when
you install the first medial player. On the other hand, I have seen
GUIs that require more then one CLI media player - usually because
the GUI will work as the front end for more then one CLI media
player. I am not sure how to handle installing the GUI first, but
installing it after the CLI program(s) should let it install without
requiring the other ones. I think it can be built that way. (Like
you can have Sendmail or Postfix installed, and fill the requirement
for a MTA.
>  
> > You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So
> > you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when
> > you are installing the GUI.
> >
> > If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small
> > programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other
> > programs to perform a specific task...
>  
>  Personally I like the 'one task and do it well' philosophy.  We've seen
>  the fun that is M$ and it's joke of an OS in Vista.  trying to be
>  everything to everybody and doing none of those things particularly
>  well.  But that is for another thread, methinks.
>   
I do as well. But that may be because I started with the CLI and I
am still comfortable with it. Shell scripts are fun!

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Mark Haney]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:

>  I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies
>  result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the
>  opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries
>  like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same
>  blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary. 
My point is that including virtually every compile option in every
package means the system links to many more libraries than are probably
needed.  I know some compromise for 'desktop use' has to be made and I
understand that.  But including dependencies for every media player out
there seems silly.  Does that make a little more sense with where my
train of thought is going?  If not, don't worry, my wife doesn't
understand me either.


>  
>  You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So
>  you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when
>  you are installing the GUI.
>  
>  If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small
>  programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other
>  programs to perform a specific task... 
Personally I like the 'one task and do it well' philosophy.  We've seen
the fun that is M$ and it's joke of an OS in Vista.  trying to be
everything to everybody and doing none of those things particularly
well.  But that is for another thread, methinks.

>  
>  Mikkel
>   

-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
[phone]

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

[Mikkel]

Mark Haney wrote:
>  
>  Bollocks.  I am quite aware of the differences between the two distros.
>   Do not insult my intelligence.  The point I'm making is that some
>  dependencies seem unnecessary.  (Again, I'm unable to come up with a
>  specific example at the moment, since I'm at work, but I'm sure there
>  will be a post shortly that says 'why do I need this to install this?')
>  
>  Adding all those dozens upon dozens of dependencies in just result in
>  bloated binaries and lowered performance because of that.  Surely, NOT
>  including the 'kitchensink' dependency will cut down on the size of
>  binaries.  Not to mention lowering the bloat on a system.
>   
I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies
result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the
opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries
like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same
blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.

You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So
you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when
you are installing the GUI.

If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small
programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other
programs to perform a specific task...

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Mark Haney]

Jonathan Underwood wrote:

>  Because gentoo builds from source on your local machine, building in
>  support for componenets as specified by your USE flags, whereas Fedora
>  is a binary distribution, and dependencies are generated during the
>  building of those binaries.
>  
>  Now, why don't my apples taste like oranges?
>  
>  Jonathan.
>   
Bollocks.  I am quite aware of the differences between the two distros.
 Do not insult my intelligence.  The point I'm making is that some
dependencies seem unnecessary.  (Again, I'm unable to come up with a
specific example at the moment, since I'm at work, but I'm sure there
will be a post shortly that says 'why do I need this to install this?')

Adding all those dozens upon dozens of dependencies in just result in
bloated binaries and lowered performance because of that.  Surely, NOT
including the 'kitchensink' dependency will cut down on the size of
binaries.  Not to mention lowering the bloat on a system.



-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
[phone]

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

[Ralf Corsepius]

Mark Haney wrote:
>  Charles Crayne wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST)
> > Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> >> With internet access the way it is, why not just
> >> do rolling updates?
> > Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the
> > package you want to install.
> >
>  
>  One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora.  A ridiculous
>  number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous. 
You are in error.
These deps aren't there for fun, but for technical 
necessity.

Ralf

[Jonathan Underwood]

2009/2/10 Mark Haney <mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org&gt;:
>  Oh?  And how come I can install the same set of software in Gentoo
> and
>  not need an extra 50+MB of dependencies?  I wish I had an example at the
>  moment, but I don't.  However, I'm sure one will pop up sooner or later.
>  
Because gentoo builds from source on your local machine, building in
support for componenets as specified by your USE flags, whereas Fedora
is a binary distribution, and dependencies are generated during the
building of those binaries.

Now, why don't my apples taste like oranges?

Jonathan.

[Mark Haney]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  Mark Haney wrote:
> > Charles Crayne wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST)
> >> Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
> >>
> >>> With internet access the way it is, why not just
> >>> do rolling updates?
> >> Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the
> >> package you want to install.
> >>
> >
> > One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora.  A ridiculous
> > number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous.
>  You are in error. These deps aren't there for fun, but for technical
>  necessity.
>  
>  Ralf
>   
Oh?  And how come I can install the same set of software in Gentoo and
not need an extra 50+MB of dependencies?  I wish I had an example at the
moment, but I don't.  However, I'm sure one will pop up sooner or later.


-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
[phone]

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

[Mark Haney]

Charles Crayne wrote:
>  On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST)
>  Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
>  
> > With internet access the way it is, why not just
> > do rolling updates?
>  
>  Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the
>  package you want to install.
>   
One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora.  A ridiculous
number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous.   But,
again, what's it like when a new release comes out?  It's 500+MB of
updates.  With rolling updates it's possible to scale that down, I think.


-- 
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
[phone]

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

[Armin]

On Monday 09 February 2009 23:37:43 Antonio Olivares wrote:
>  --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > From: Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt;
>  > Subject: End of Saga WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!
>  > To: " encouragement and advice for using Fedora.Community assistance"
>  > <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt; Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 7:04 PM
>  > Mark
>  >
>  > Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is
>  > imposed, one is often negative, but when one chooses, then
>  > one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs.
>  > I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or
>  > perhaps even more, given your explanation.
>  >
>  > Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in
>  > Fedora-list. :)
>  >
>  > Leslie
>
>  Not even close :(
>
>  Not even the KDE* flames/RANTS were that long :), this one is the thread to
>  beat --->
>
>  http://www.nabble.com/Why-is-Fedora-not-a-Free-GNU-Linux-distributions--td1
> 8426601i760.html
>
>  Yes, you can thank me for reminding you :)
>
>  How can I forget it?
>  I saw somewhat a smaller version of it in Distrowatch Weekly comments
>  section, but nowhere the glamor, glory that can be found here :)
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Antonio 
oh wow, that's one big huge fat immense enormous thread!

-- 
Armin Moradi

[Charles A. Crayne]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

>  With internet access the way it is, why not just
>  do rolling updates? 
Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the
package you want to install.

-- 
Chuck 
http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/charles.html

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

>  From: Leslie Satenstein <lsatenstein(a)yahoo.com&gt;
>  Subject: End of Saga WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!!
>  To: " encouragement and advice for using Fedora.Community assistance"
> <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 7:04 PM
>  Mark
>  
>  Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is
>  imposed, one is often negative, but when one chooses, then
>  one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs.
>  I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or
>  perhaps even more, given your explanation.
>  
>  Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in
>  Fedora-list. :)
>  
>  Leslie
>   
Not even close :(

Not even the KDE* flames/RANTS were that long :), this one is the thread to beat --->

http://www.nabble.com/Why-is-Fedora-not-a-Free-GNU-Linux-distributions--t...

Yes, you can thank me for reminding you :)

How can I forget it?  
I saw somewhat a smaller version of it in Distrowatch Weekly comments section, but nowhere
the glamor, glory that can be found here :)

Regards,

Antonio