Dear friends,
By now, it is clear that F18 has not quite matched up to expectations. The main problem appears to be the installer. Several people here have expressed their intent to stick to F17 and give F18 a miss. While there is always a small proportion that appear to say this every time a new release is put out, there is a larger issue here for Fedora itself: several of us can not update because fedup or even fedora-upgrade does not work (and some of us do not want to try this out because failing would mean dealing with the installer or going back to F17). However, Fedora needs to have people try out the distribution to work through kinks in all the packages, otherwise F19 will be equally bad if not worse. But without installing F18, there is no way out to this problem.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the feedback generated thus far). I am not sure how an update to the installer in F18 will help since an install is needed for an update and once updated, there is no need for the installer. The main benefit to Fedora for such an approach will be that all the other features introduced in F18 can be tried and evaluated.
Best wishes, Ranjan
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:41:31 -0600, Ranjan Maitra maitra.mbox.ignored@inbox.com wrote:
Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the feedback generated thus far). I am not sure how an update to the installer in F18 will help since an install is needed for an update and once updated, there is no need for the installer. The main benefit to Fedora for such an approach will be that all the other features introduced in F18 can be tried and evaluated.
The old installer won't work in F18. Anaconda is tightly coupled to several other packages which changed for f18. To accomodate this the old anaconda would have needed a number of changes to get it to work with f18. That is a significant factor in why we didn't fall back to using the old anaconda for f18. Given the limited anaconda developer resources are needed to work on improving the new installer, it is very unlikely anyone will update the installer used for f17 to get it to work for f18.
You should be able to use a yum update to go from f17 to f18 without too much trouble.
There could easily be fedup improvements which would get brought back to f17. You should be sure the problems you were having with it are logged in bugzilla.
Am 23.01.2013 15:41, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the feedback generated thus far)
this is impossible why?
because first new anaconda was approved and integration all over the distribution started and after that damage was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
that is why i repeatly had the question "WTF does FESCo?"
if someone comes with a feautre with a impact on the whole distribution and says "i can not show you anything but i promise to do all this work in the few months" kiss this naive child in the future goodbye and tell him he should come again if the work is done and not only promised
whe had pulseaudio, kde4.0, gnome3, systemd how often do we need the same again until developers start to think?
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:51:10 -0600 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:41:31 -0600, Ranjan Maitra maitra.mbox.ignored@inbox.com wrote:
Therefore, I would like to suggest that Fedora put this current installer (F18) in abeyance and re-roll the release using the old installer while the new one is fixed for F19 (after responding to the feedback generated thus far). I am not sure how an update to the installer in F18 will help since an install is needed for an update and once updated, there is no need for the installer. The main benefit to Fedora for such an approach will be that all the other features introduced in F18 can be tried and evaluated.
The old installer won't work in F18. Anaconda is tightly coupled to several other packages which changed for f18. To accomodate this the old anaconda would have needed a number of changes to get it to work with f18. That is a significant factor in why we didn't fall back to using the old anaconda for f18. Given the limited anaconda developer resources are needed to work on improving the new installer, it is very unlikely anyone will update the installer used for f17 to get it to work for f18.
I see.
You should be able to use a yum update to go from f17 to f18 without too much trouble.
There could easily be fedup improvements which would get brought back to f17. You should be sure the problems you were having with it are logged in bugzilla.
I had some problems with this too: I do have a working system but that which can not do a bit of stuff.
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2013-January/429357.html
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2013-January/429357.html
Both of which generated into discussion not particularly relevant to solving my problems.
Trouble with using fedup and fedora-upgrade, is, as I said, there is no guaranteed fall-back option of installing, if these fail.
Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration all over the distribution started and after that damage was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging from what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it. This suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this from happening yet again?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration all over the distribution started and after that damage was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging from what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it. This suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this from happening yet again?
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right... development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place?
james
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:59 PM, James Freer jessejazza3.uk@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration all over the distribution started and after that damage was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging
from
what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it.
This
suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this
from
happening yet again?
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right... development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place?
james
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
I think this is a great idea, and it would be interesting to know if there actually is an updated rationale for a bi-annual release cycle as it is now.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0000, James Freer wrote:
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale, actually making the problem worse rather than better.
I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic" planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a bigger two-year cycle wrapping a series of releases together.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0000, James Freer wrote:
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale, actually making the problem worse rather than better.
I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic" planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a bigger two-year cycle wrapping a series of releases together.
Matthew Miller
I wasn't suggesting a bi-annual release... but an annual one. I've used the ubuntu LTS and it's fine for the first year and then quite a few apps are out of date. I found 6 months too frequent for installing and did an annual update which i found about right. Two years ends up with problems.
Only problem with a fixed point release as has happened with kubuntu 8.04 (think it was a while now) one ends up with two kernels as at that stage there was a change over. It was a hiiccup but the release had to go out on a certain day. F18 was late by almost two months as developers tried to solve the problem. Fedora are not quite as tight (allow a week or so) as ubuntu are on releases.
I don't know as much as yourself and certainly wasn't attempting to create a contrary debate. But i'm now thinking that a rolling release is the better option for my uses.
james
On 01/23/2013 11:59 AM, James Freer wrote:
Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place?
That would probably be a Good Idea. Personally, I'd be happy if new systems and re-writes of old ones were given conditional approval: that is, instead of accepting them "ready or not," they'd be accepted for the first release after they're complete to the point of being at least as functional as what they're replacing. At most, there might be a "testing spin" that includes some of the new, unfinished programs as options so that they can get the testing they need, while the rest of us don't end up as unwitting beta-testers. (People have accused Microsoft for years of using their customers that way because of how much of their new software sometimes seems poorly tested, and this is one thing Linux shouldn't be copying from them.)
On 01/24/2013 09:11 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/23/2013 11:59 AM, James Freer wrote:
Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place?
That would probably be a Good Idea. Personally, I'd be happy if new systems and re-writes of old ones were given conditional approval: that is, instead of accepting them "ready or not," they'd be accepted for the first release after they're complete to the point of being at least as functional as what they're replacing. At most, there might be a "testing spin" that includes some of the new, unfinished programs as options so that they can get the testing they need, while the rest of us don't end up as unwitting beta-testers. (People have accused Microsoft for years of using their customers that way because of how much of their new software sometimes seems poorly tested, and this is one thing Linux shouldn't be copying from them.)
I wonder how much of this conversation is "Talk to the hand- the face isn't interested" as far as the Linux devs are concerned.
Reindl Harald writes:
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
In theory, changes to fedup should be fairly open-ended, it could be rewritten completely, and pushed out in F17.
In theory, everything broken in fedup can be fixed, and pushed out. And, new installs can be done by installing F17 first, then fedup, in a pinch.
In practice, who knows…
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Reindl Harald writes:
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
In theory, changes to fedup should be fairly open-ended, it could be rewritten completely, and pushed out in F17.
In theory, everything broken in fedup can be fixed, and pushed out. And, new installs can be done by installing F17 first, then fedup, in a pinch.
In practice, who knows…
the f18 installer is good, except the partitioning section.
Am 24.01.2013 02:00, schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
Reindl Harald writes:
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
In theory, changes to fedup should be fairly open-ended, it could be rewritten completely, and pushed out in F17.
since when is fedup the same as anaconda? we spoke about INSTALLER
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:07:53 -0200 Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Reindl Harald writes:
now the damage is done - F18 is a release with a highly dangerous or partly unuseable installer depending on the usecase/workload and nobody on this planet can change this for F18
In theory, changes to fedup should be fairly open-ended, it could be rewritten completely, and pushed out in F17.
In theory, everything broken in fedup can be fixed, and pushed out. And, new installs can be done by installing F17 first, then fedup, in a pinch.
In practice, who knows…
the f18 installer is good, except the partitioning section.
Agreed. It is not clear that pushing an updated is any help: you need to install F18 to be able to update, in which case you don't need an update.....
____________________________________________________________ GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:04:55PM +0000, James Freer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale, actually making the problem worse rather than better.
I wasn't suggesting a bi-annual release... but an annual one. I've
I'm not telling you what you're suggesting. I assume you know that already. :) I'm telling you about an alternate proposal that was seriously floated recently. That proposal involves 2-year major release cycles, with point releases continuing at a 6-month cadence.
The annual release (or 9 month cycle, or whatever) idea still runs into the problem I stated above: it tends towards even *more* too-much-to-do crammed into the cycle. The fundamental problem is that estimating future work is hard and we (humans, not Fedora in specific) are terrible at it. In fact, we're as bad at estimating effort in hindsight as we are for the future. Estimating over larger timeframes just makes the problem bigger.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 15:29:23 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic" planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a bigger two-year cycle wrapping a series of releases together.
From the summary I have read from that proposal, it doesn't provide a solution for how to develop changes that need more than one release to land while things are changing underneath them. The proposal essentially ends up syncing the big changes so that none can span the last release of one series and the first of the next series. I can see that being valuable if someone was going to use that last release as the basis of a long term support release, but otherwise it seems to just limit when we can do changes that span releases.
I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:38:19 -0600 Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
Now, that is something to think about!! If the current approach isn´t working, let´s try different. :)
FC
On 01/24/2013 03:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 15:29:23 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
By decoupling these works from the Fedora N+1-release process.
One way to achieve this would be to branch Fedora N+1 off from Fedora N instead of rawhide and then to cherry-pick those packages from rawhide which are supposed to be "ready" into Fedora N+1.
As this would be quite some work, an alternative would be add an other rawhide-like distro layer (unstable devel) above current rawhide (stable devel).
Ralf
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:54:27 -0500 Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:38:19 -0600 Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I'd rather we spent more effort on how figuring out how we can efficiently develop changes that will take longer than one release to get done.
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
In general, this is almost (but not exactly) equivalent to a rolling release model (with a snapshot once in a while). I am all for it, however, note that troubles with the installer were picked up only (and could not be otherwise, since this only happens when installing) when the distribution was released.
I would suggest the beta be announced along with more emphasis on catastrophic new changes: the change to anaconda and the installer was announced for sure, but it would have been really worthwhile to have stressed that the old way of maintaining partitions while installing was not going to work or perhaps considered in development (this would have resulted in more people testing the specific aspect of the install).
I however, personally strongly favor the rolling release model, with periodic snapshots.
Ranjan
On 24 January 2013 16:14, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
Now, that is something to think about!! If the current approach isn´t working, let´s try different. :)
Sounds like the approach Enlightenment developers took -- "We'll release it when we're done fiddling with it!" It took them 12 years to release E17 after E16.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Ondrej Majerech oxyd.oxyd@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2013 16:14, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
How about no schedule? When something worth releasing is done, declare it is time for a new release. Could be 6 months, could be 2 years.
Now, that is something to think about!! If the current approach isn´t working, let´s try different. :)
Sounds like the approach Enlightenment developers took -- "We'll release it when we're done fiddling with it!" It took them 12 years to release E17 after E16.
I think that's taking it to extremes a bit really. This is the plans for ubuntu... i don't know whetehr Fedora started 6 month release or followed ubuntu - but ubuntu are considering giving up.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-...
Do a google 'ubuntu rolling release' and see what else comes up.
james
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:19:49 +0000 James Freer wrote:
but ubuntu are considering giving up.
Yea, but they HAVE to change - they are almost out of letters in the alphabet!
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
james
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Hi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM, James Freer jessejazza3.uk@gmail.comwrote:
I think that's taking it to extremes a bit really. This is the plans for ubuntu... i don't know whetehr Fedora started 6 month release or followed ubuntu - but ubuntu are considering giving up.
Fedora release plan has existed before the first release of Ubuntu.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle?rd=LifeCycle#Develo...
Rahul
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Trend which I see in my Linux "neighbourhood" is quite transparent - people switch from Fedora elsewhere: some of them to Centos, others to different distro, some leave Linux entirely. Perhaps nobody now is using Gnome3. Reasons were always same - unacceptable quantum of bugs, which solving take unacceptable quantum of time (when problem was possible tackle/bypass by himself). Or there were some SW faults which was needed solve with developers, and in many cases it wasn't solved even until distro EOL.
I myself was not afraid install Fedora at production workstations and servers, even in their beta phase - but it ended with F12-F13 (F14 was still good distro, but in beta phase there was unworkable systemd; in final release was upstart). And now I install Fedora not before several weeks after final releas - and for testing purposes only.
On 01/23/2013 02:59 PM, James Freer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
because first new anaconda was approved and integration all over the distribution started and after that damage was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging from what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it. This suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this from happening yet again?
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right... development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place?
james
I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives from all sides. First,....the developers would be able to REALLY put their apps and what-not through a GRUELING testing session, this way...when they say it works.....IT WORKS! Second,.....the public wouldn't find themselves scurrying to acquire the latest version, and slamming it onto their machines without knowing that things won't crash & burn un-necessarily......also it would give the public time to "adapt" and become comfortable with the latest release, instead of going into shock at the arrival of a new desktop environment...or new feature-sets that were not there before. I guess it's just a matter of someone (or a LOT of someone's) voicing their opinion loud enough to be heard by the higher-ups? I don't know that they would actually change things around like that....(it would be NICE!) but eventually they might get restless enough to completely flip thing around and have longer time frames between releases.
EGO II
On 01/23/2013 03:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0000, James Freer wrote:
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale, actually making the problem worse rather than better.
I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic" planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a bigger two-year cycle wrapping a series of releases together.
"Epic" as in the shock and awe at the evolution of Gnome 3.x? (Mind you...I LOVE Gnome 3.*! I'm in the process of trying to get it for my Ubuntu box at home!) But I notice that a LOT of people who were used to Gnome 2.x didn't really take too well to the 3.x version, I wonder if there is something to be said for including more options when it comes to DE's? I like how F18 allows you not only the "mainstream" heavy hitters (XFCE....LXDE....KDE...and of course Gnome!) But that they also allow the inclusion of MATE and Cinnamon...(my brother's favorite!) I think as long as there's an gradual introduction of the features and other aspects of a distro, while still allowing things to be done "the old fashioned way" for those who are resistant to change...then there shouldn't be any reason for a rejection of the offerings made by the developers...who in all actuality do what they do as a labor of love and are not "obligated" to cater to the whims of the general population.
EGO II
On 01/27/2013 12:18 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives from all sides. First,....the developers would be able to REALLY put their apps and what-not through a GRUELING testing session, this way...when they say it works.....IT WORKS!
Up until about F15, it was generally enough. Now, however, it looks as though new packages and re-writes of old ones are being accepted "ready or not." I'm not involved in that, so I'm only guessing, but it looks to me as though things are ear-marked for a specific version unconditionally, and the entire Fedora user base suffers because they're not really ready on time. I don't know what can be done about it, because I understand that nobody ever wants to be working on a package that might not be kept, but the problem needs to be addressed. Possibly there might be one version where (if practical) the two packages are run in parallel: e.g., have both the old init and the new sysctrl installed but only one of them active, set by a kernel param. Then, after there's time to work out the early bugs, switch over completely. I've no idea how that would work for anaconda, of course, or even if it would work at all, but at least I'm looking for ways to make it better instead of just complaining. (BTW, an example of this actually being done is Gnome 3's fallback mode.)
On 01/27/2013 04:11 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 12:18 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives from all sides. First,....the developers would be able to REALLY put their apps and what-not through a GRUELING testing session, this way...when they say it works.....IT WORKS!
Up until about F15, it was generally enough. Now, however, it looks as though new packages and re-writes of old ones are being accepted "ready or not." I'm not involved in that, so I'm only guessing, but it looks to me as though things are ear-marked for a specific version unconditionally, and the entire Fedora user base suffers because they're not really ready on time. I don't know what can be done about it, because I understand that nobody ever wants to be working on a package that might not be kept, but the problem needs to be addressed. Possibly there might be one version where (if practical) the two packages are run in parallel: e.g., have both the old init and the new sysctrl installed but only one of them active, set by a kernel param. Then, after there's time to work out the early bugs, switch over completely. I've no idea how that would work for anaconda, of course, or even if it would work at all, but at least I'm looking for ways to make it better instead of just complaining. (BTW, an example of this actually being done is Gnome 3's fallback mode.)
I like your ideas J.Z....(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. Then they also have their "ex[experimental / developing" distros which include a lot of apps and software that may-or-may-not work as expected. I wonder what it would take for something like that to happen in the Fedora community of developers? (I'm assuming money would be one of the things it would take!) But it would be nice to have a "Fedora 18 Spherical Cow" version which is normal and not prone to disturbances or errors, then.....for those who live a more "Indiana Jones" kind of lifestyle..there'd be a Fedora 18 "Round Beef" version which is the equivalent to Spherical Cow except it has the experimental and cutting edge technology that might not play as nice with your hardware as the "standard" release....(oh to be able to write code and MAKE apps and things!...LoL!)
EGO II
EGO II
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z....(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. Then they also have their "ex[experimental / developing" distros which include a lot of apps and software that may-or-may-not work as expected.
Thanx. AIUI, Fedora does have an experimental version: Rawhide. Alas, I'm beginning to get the impression that things are taken from Rawhide and dropped into the mainstream version before they're ready. If anybody on this list is involved in Fedora development and would like to correct me, feel free; I'm always interested in learning something new.
On 01/27/2013 05:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z....(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. Then they also have their "ex[experimental / developing" distros which include a lot of apps and software that may-or-may-not work as expected.
Thanx. AIUI, Fedora does have an experimental version: Rawhide. Alas, I'm beginning to get the impression that things are taken from Rawhide and dropped into the mainstream version before they're ready. If anybody on this list is involved in Fedora development and would like to correct me, feel free; I'm always interested in learning something new.
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.....and I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out something that isn't "reliable" enough for me to work on daily.....I might have to either stick with F17 (which will eventually leave me "stranded" on a distro that won't receive updates anymore!) or else I'd have to jump ship and move to something else...which would really be a shame because I'm a "loyalist"....in which case....since I've been here for so long I'm kind of devoted to 'em...(I have t-shirts....stickers....coffee mugs etc. wih the famout Fedora "F" logo!) But I will wait and see if F19 comes out and "levels" off....I'm thinking they might have just been in a bit if a hurry to get F18 out the door....since it was already late to the party! Only time will tell...
EGO II
P.S -Sorry about the "J.Z." thing...I was in a rush to get my response to you...(had to reboot my machine and didn't want to wait until after wards!!)
On 01/27/2013 02:10 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
P.S -Sorry about the "J.Z." thing...I was in a rush to get my response to you...(had to reboot my machine and didn't want to wait until after wards!!)
That's not a problem for me. Like with everybody, there are a few ways I don't like being addressed, but my initials aren't one of them. However, it might not be a bad idea[1] if you sent me your GPS coordinates on the off-chance that I might need to send them up to OADS.[2]
[1]From my POV; yours would almost certainly be different. [2]http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/OADS/anvil_chorus.html
On 01/27/2013 05:21 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 02:10 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
P.S -Sorry about the "J.Z." thing...I was in a rush to get my response to you...(had to reboot my machine and didn't want to wait until after wards!!)
That's not a problem for me. Like with everybody, there are a few ways I don't like being addressed, but my initials aren't one of them. However, it might not be a bad idea[1] if you sent me your GPS coordinates on the off-chance that I might need to send them up to OADS.[2]
[1]From my POV; yours would almost certainly be different. [2]http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/OADS/anvil_chorus.html
LOL!.....Sure....sure! Just give 'em the SAME co-ordinates for Nome, Alaska,....and tell 'em to fire when ready!....(Note* the girl who broke my heart lives near there!...so tell em to make it a three or four pass exercise!....LoL!)
EGO II
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Trend which I see in my Linux "neighbourhood" is quite transparent - people switch from Fedora elsewhere: some of them to Centos, others to different distro, some leave Linux entirely. Perhaps nobody now is using Gnome3. Reasons were always same - unacceptable quantum of bugs, which solving take unacceptable quantum of time (when problem was possible tackle/bypass by himself). Or there were some SW faults which was needed solve with developers, and in many cases it wasn't solved even until distro EOL.
I myself was not afraid install Fedora at production workstations and servers, even in their beta phase - but it ended with F12-F13 (F14 was still good distro, but in beta phase there was unworkable systemd; in final release was upstart). And now I install Fedora not before several weeks after final releas - and for testing purposes only.
Well, is curious... I see the opposite situation. People from other distros (especially Ubuntu) dropping into Fedora. May be a geographic difference?
Regards from the south, Lailah
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 16:44:57 -0500, "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z....(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work.
There has been at least one abortive attempt to do that. There hasn't been enough interest to make this happen. Backporting fixes to releases (of packages) that are no longer supported upstream is a lot of work. If packagers had to commit to doing this for every package for multiple years of support we'd end up with a lot less poackages in Fedora.
One or two people aren't going to make that happen. You'd need a lot of people willing to commit to doing this. And in the, probably not many people who use the stable releases. I think people are attracted to Fedora for the new shiny stuff and people that want stable running RHEL clones or distros where the ratio of paid work to volunteer work is a lot higher.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500, "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.....and I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out something that isn't "reliable" enough for me to work on daily.....I might have to either stick with F17 (which will eventually leave me "stranded" on a distro that won't receive updates anymore!) or else
F18 works well for me. I have heard of people having trouble with fedup or anaconda or kernel / video driver regressions, but once you have it installed with a kernel that works for your hardware it should be fine.
On 01/28/2013 02:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500, "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.....and I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out something that isn't "reliable" enough for me to work on daily.....I might have to either stick with F17 (which will eventually leave me "stranded" on a distro that won't receive updates anymore!) or else
F18 works well for me. I have heard of people having trouble with fedup or anaconda or kernel / video driver regressions, but once you have it installed with a kernel that works for your hardware it should be fine.
Me also I find it reliable and quite good to use. My only minigripe woudl be the way the windows I have open on the desktop frequently go smaller if the mouse moves too far. It seems an unnecessary extravagance. I'd love to stop that. Apart from that Fedora18 ,V. V good. Roger
On 01/27/2013 11:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/27/2013 01:44 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I like your ideas J.Z....(LoL!) like I know of a few distros that have their "long term support" versions that are stable, and the packages and apps have all been tested and have been proven to work. Then they also have their "ex[experimental / developing" distros which include a lot of apps and software that may-or-may-not work as expected.
Thanx. AIUI, Fedora does have an experimental version: Rawhide. Alas, I'm beginning to get the impression that things are taken from Rawhide and dropped into the mainstream version before they're ready.
That's my perception for a long time - I feel it's just that thanks to systemd, Gnome3 and F18's anaconda, things have become more visible to "normal" end-users.
Ralf
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:51:43PM +1100, Roger wrote:
On 01/28/2013 02:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 17:10:36 -0500, "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
That would truly be a shame! I have used Fedora since 13/14.....and I've loved every version of it! But if they start cranking out something that isn't "reliable" enough for me to work on daily.....I might have to either stick with F17 (which will eventually leave me "stranded" on a distro that won't receive updates anymore!) or else
F18 works well for me. I have heard of people having trouble with fedup or anaconda or kernel / video driver regressions, but once you have it installed with a kernel that works for your hardware it should be fine.
Me also I find it reliable and quite good to use. My only minigripe woudl be the way the windows I have open on the desktop frequently go smaller if the mouse moves too far. It seems an unnecessary extravagance. I'd love to stop that. Apart from that Fedora18 ,V. V good. Roger
Well, I found the installer a bit of a PITA, rather a big PITA. It took me almost five days with umpteen times of reinstalls that I was able to understand its logic & how I could circumvent it to do my job.
First of all it has stranage quirks which surface & block one from taking an action so I partitioned the disks & created btrfses manually from command line to include them in the install & circumvent the logic the installer has.
Developers need to really work on the manual partioning logic to get it right, where one can do almost anything what linux promises.
I would really love to do the dirty work of checking & reporting on the betas etc but firstly I am a bit constrained due to my job that prevents me from devoting my time towards that & more importantly my machine is not virtualization capable & so I cannot work with virtual machines where diff scenarios can be checked out.
My little suggestion to developers etc is that since it is impossible to check all kinds of permutations due to diff ways of partioning by individuals etc, the developers should ask for submission of scenarios of how one would go about partioning one's disks & install the OS, that would give lots of people with the resources to check those scenarios & file bug reports which will make the installation code robust & also give a chance be heard to those people who cannot do the same due to some constraints.
It might also create a lib of cases where the same can be checked for each release. These cases can be numbered & people can just pick one which has not been checked & file a report of success or bug against it.
Except for the installer & a few strange logics I encountered, I find the release quite pleasent, better & more optimized than I imagined.
It was quite a hard work & I want to convey my thanks to all who participated in it.
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Trend which I see in my Linux "neighbourhood" is quite transparent - people switch from Fedora elsewhere: some of them to Centos, others to different distro, some leave Linux entirely. Perhaps nobody now is using Gnome3. Reasons were always same - unacceptable quantum of bugs, which solving take unacceptable quantum of time (when problem was possible tackle/bypass by himself). Or there were some SW faults which was needed solve with developers, and in many cases it wasn't solved even until distro EOL.
I myself was not afraid install Fedora at production workstations and servers, even in their beta phase - but it ended with F12-F13 (F14 was still good distro, but in beta phase there was unworkable systemd; in final release was upstart). And now I install Fedora not before several weeks after final releas - and for testing purposes only.
Well, is curious... I see the opposite situation. People from other distros (especially Ubuntu) dropping into Fedora. May be a geographic difference?
/Regards from the south,/ */Lailah/*
To add my 2 cents,.....I have both Ubuntu and Fedora on two separate machines,the Ubuntu box is more for "dabbling" around with different apps and the like,....while I've always used my Fedora machine for "_work_".....(creating spreadsheets for inventory of PC's laptops and hardware for the company I work for....using LibreOffice, and responding to HelpDesk tickets that I forward to myself from work to Thunderbird / GMail at home!) And while I STILL haven't upgraded to 18 as yet I eventually will......I'm just terribly afraid of losing a lot....and since I'm not conversant enough with the command line to "restore" my DejaDup Backups....I'm pretty much stuck for the moment until I know 18 is a little more stable...as for people "jumping ship" even though a few of the releases might have had a lot of bugs...I don't think I'll be leaving Fedora just yet...LoL! I will wait to see if things smooth out by like...19...maybe 20....
EGO II
On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Trend which I see in my Linux "neighbourhood" is quite transparent - people switch from Fedora elsewhere: some of them to Centos, others to different distro, some leave Linux entirely. Perhaps nobody now is using Gnome3.
This matches with what I observe here. On my home network/personal machines, my way to survive was to switch my home-server to CentOS and to resort to Xfce as DE on Fedora clients.
I myself was not afraid install Fedora at production workstations and servers, even in their beta phase - but it ended with F12-F13 (F14 was still good distro, but in beta phase there was unworkable systemd; in final release was upstart). And now I install Fedora not before several weeks after final releas - and for testing purposes only.
Well, is curious... I see the opposite situation. People from other distros (especially Ubuntu) dropping into Fedora. May be a geographic difference?
I'd guess, it's people being dissatisfied with what they are used to, now being on a "quest for the better".
That said, from what I've heard and read, Ubuntu is in a similar crisis as Fedora. What is Gnome3 in Fedora seems to be Unity in Ubuntu (users turning away), what's the anaconda-disaster in F18 seems to be a general stability in Ubuntu 12.10.
I'm pretty much stuck for the moment until I know 18 is a little more stable...as for people "jumping ship" even though a few of the releases might have had a lot of bugs...I don't think I'll be leaving Fedora just yet...LoL! I will wait to see if things smooth out by like...19...maybe 20....
My 2 cents ... stability-wise, from what I've experienced so far, F17 and F18 currently seem on par. Also, yum-upgrading existing F17 installations to F18 went without many problems for me.
However, installing F18 probably is a completely different matters ;)
Ralf
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
Trend which I see in my Linux "neighbourhood" is quite transparent - people switch from Fedora elsewhere: some of them to Centos, others to different distro, some leave Linux entirely. Perhaps nobody now is using Gnome3.
This matches with what I observe here. On my home network/personal machines, my way to survive was to switch my home-server to CentOS and to resort to Xfce as DE on Fedora clients.
---- myself, I use Ubuntu for server and KDE for DE on Fedora clients. At the time, installing CentOS/RHEL-5 wasn't an option any longer and Red Hat was ridiculously late delivering RHEL-6 and then CentOS took forever to get their initial build out the door. Ubuntu LTS versions are surprisingly good and I haven't regretted the move even a little. ----
I myself was not afraid install Fedora at production workstations and servers, even in their beta phase - but it ended with F12-F13 (F14 was still good distro, but in beta phase there was unworkable systemd; in final release was upstart). And now I install Fedora not before several weeks after final releas - and for testing purposes only.
Well, is curious... I see the opposite situation. People from other distros (especially Ubuntu) dropping into Fedora. May be a geographic difference?
I'd guess, it's people being dissatisfied with what they are used to, now being on a "quest for the better".
That said, from what I've heard and read, Ubuntu is in a similar crisis as Fedora. What is Gnome3 in Fedora seems to be Unity in Ubuntu (users turning away), what's the anaconda-disaster in F18 seems to be a general stability in Ubuntu 12.10.
---- these meta discussions seem only to highlight the things one doesn't know about the other. I use both Fedora and Ubuntu. Can use either for server or desktop and can make myself generally happy with either though oddly, for servers these days, I am preferring Ubuntu and for desktop usage, I am preferring Fedora but that could easily change. In the end, there aren't significant differences. Ubuntu, you enable universe and in Fedora, you enable rpmfusion-nonfree and you get the source restricted, patent encumbered and obviously more risky stuff installed. I am reasonably certain that Ubuntu actually uses Anaconda these days and it's not an ideal installer but for server installs, it's thin and quick to get up and running. ----
I'm pretty much stuck for the moment until I know 18 is a little more stable...as for people "jumping ship" even though a few of the releases might have had a lot of bugs...I don't think I'll be leaving Fedora just yet...LoL! I will wait to see if things smooth out by like...19...maybe 20....
My 2 cents ... stability-wise, from what I've experienced so far, F17 and F18 currently seem on par. Also, yum-upgrading existing F17 installations to F18 went without many problems for me.
However, installing F18 probably is a completely different matters ;)
---- yes but re-writing the installer seems to always pay dividends down the road if you try not take the minor breakage that comes with a re-write to heart.
Craig
On 01/31/2013 12:09 PM, Craig White wrote:
these meta discussions seem only to highlight the things one doesn't know about the other. I use both Fedora and Ubuntu.
I use Fedora only and migrated to Xfce to avoid having to use Gnome 3. My older sister uses Ubuntu, with me for (literally) in-house tech support. After a year fighting Unity on her desktop, she had me talk her through installing and switching to Xfce. (Parkinson's and itty-bitty precise mouse movements don't mix!) Now, she's asking me to download the .iso for the latest Xubuntu so she can have the computer guru at her school replace the Ubuntu on her netbook for the same reason. (I don't mind her doing it that way; they're getting paid for it.)
Given the choice, I prefer Fedora for myself, but if somebody just wants to get away from Windows, I'll always point them to Ubuntu because it's designed for "Windows refugees" and Just Works. Now, however, I suggest that they try Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu, installing whichever one they like best. (Unity isn't exactly for everybody!) When I first ran across Unix, I complained that the biggest problem it had was that when you asked how to do something, the answer had to start with, "That depends." Now I realize that the freedom to decide for yourself which distro, which shell, which DE you use is its greatest asset, especially when you compare it to Microsoft's One Size Fits Nobody.
On 01/31/2013 04:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:09 PM, Craig White wrote:
these meta discussions seem only to highlight the things one doesn't know about the other. I use both Fedora and Ubuntu.
I use Fedora only and migrated to Xfce to avoid having to use Gnome 3. My older sister uses Ubuntu, with me for (literally) in-house tech support. After a year fighting Unity on her desktop, she had me talk her through installing and switching to Xfce. (Parkinson's and itty-bitty precise mouse movements don't mix!) Now, she's asking me to download the .iso for the latest Xubuntu so she can have the computer guru at her school replace the Ubuntu on her netbook for the same reason. (I don't mind her doing it that way; they're getting paid for it.)
Given the choice, I prefer Fedora for myself, but if somebody just wants to get away from Windows, I'll always point them to Ubuntu because it's designed for "Windows refugees" and Just Works. Now, however, I suggest that they try Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu, installing whichever one they like best. (Unity isn't exactly for everybody!) When I first ran across Unix, I complained that the biggest problem it had was that when you asked how to do something, the answer had to start with, "That depends." Now I realize that the freedom to decide for yourself which distro, which shell, which DE you use is its greatest asset, especially when you compare it to Microsoft's One Size Fits Nobody.
Well I would say that for each person there's a distro & a DE that suits them. I "abandoned" Windows when I finally hit the "wall" of fuster-clucks....(imagine the Exchange server literally HANGING in the middle of shutting down ex-employee email exchange accounts?.....now imagine the CTO walks in...and asks YOU what the heck is going on!) In that instant I knew I had to "find" something else. Apple was (and to me still IS!) way too expensive for practical and economic people who are looking to save their pennies. Which left me with Linux, and I have never had a problem with the Gnome desktop.....nor the Unity one. If anything Unity to me anyway...is easier to use than Windows! I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome desktop...or the Unity one...I always thought Linux was for "freedom of choice" if you didn't like a certain desktop...download.....install...and use a DIFFERENT one! It's not that hard...remember......those programmers and developers who work hard at even MAKING some of the things we take for granted?.....have feelings too...and I don't think its fair to CONSTANTLY slam them for trying to be different, bold, daring, and anything but plain "vanilla"!...but hey that's just me!...
EGO II
On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome desktop...or the Unity one.
Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and you'll understand. Or, consider somebody like me who wants certain programs to be on certain workspaces and doesn't want to have go guess where the DE decided to put them.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:09:49PM -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome desktop...or the Unity one.
Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and you'll understand. Or, consider somebody like me who wants certain programs to be on certain workspaces and doesn't want to have go guess where the DE decided to put them.
I dont have Parkinson's, but my symptoms are pretty close. [also, I'm stable: Old Age will kill me]. still, I loathe the thin-red-line and the "thumb" that vvanishrd within seconds--before I can grasp it. I've forgotten how long it took me to un-hack the gnome-crap and get back a std scrollbar.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
El jue, 31-01-2013 a las 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius escribió:
On 01/31/2013 04:44 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/27/2013 06:15 PM, Lailah wrote:
El vie, 25-01-2013 a las 22:40 +0100, Frantisek Hanzlik escribió:
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:46 PM, James Freer wrote:
LOL - good reply! I must admit i do get fed up with the twin names. In the Precise version... it was very much IMprecise. Just too many bugs now to be worth using.
It often seems to me that they're too concerned about making their names cute for my taste, but I don't use it myself and keep my opinion to myself for the most. Now, alas, it's beginning to look like Fedora's going down that path instead of marketing itself as a serious distro for people who are more interested in how it works than in what it's called. Alas, from what I can see, unless I'm active as a Fedora dev (My programming skills rusted away decades ago.) the only input I have to the process is making suggestions. None of us "mere users" have a vote.
I'd guess, it's people being dissatisfied with what they are used to, now being on a "quest for the better".
That said, from what I've heard and read, Ubuntu is in a similar crisis as Fedora. What is Gnome3 in Fedora seems to be Unity in Ubuntu (users turning away), what's the anaconda-disaster in F18 seems to be a general stability in Ubuntu 12.10.
Of what stability are you talking about? In Ubuntu I couldn't find it. And Unity is worse than Gnome 3.
Just my experience Lailah
On 02/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lailah wrote:
El jue, 31-01-2013 a las 16:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius escribió:
I'd guess, it's people being dissatisfied with what they are used to, now being on a "quest for the better".
That said, from what I've heard and read, Ubuntu is in a similar crisis as Fedora. What is Gnome3 in Fedora seems to be Unity in Ubuntu (users turning away), what's the anaconda-disaster in F18 seems to be a general stability in Ubuntu 12.10.
Of what stability are you talking about?
I am reading/following other forums and lists, too. There some people are quite heavily complaining about various issues with Ubuntu 12.10 and them starting to ask "which distro instead?".
Except that I have a Ubuntu 12.04 installation, which I am occasionally using for testing purposes, I don't actually use Ubuntu.
In Ubuntu I couldn't find it. And Unity is worse than Gnome 3.
Well, based on my short experiments with Unity and my failed attempts with Gnome 3, I don't like both. Both are similar, both are based on the same GUI-ideas. If I only had a choice between these 2, I'd choose Unity.
Ralf
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
[snip] Well, based on my short experiments with Unity and my failed attempts with Gnome 3, I don't like both. Both are similar, both are based on the same GUI-ideas. If I only had a choice between these 2, I'd choose Unity.
Ralf
I think it's a function of complexity. I can remember when there weren't all these manager and configuration tools and such, and installing linux on a new machine meant editing files, downloading drivers, etc. When a new version/distro came out, it was a huge hassle, but most of the hassle didn't come from the distro. It came from downloading and configuration by hand -- but it was expected, so it somehow didn't "count."
Now we have all these shiny distros with bells, whistles, flashing lights, and automatic configuration tools that do all this stuff for us in an entertaining manner. We have reorganized things to make it easy for the configuration tools in a way that makes manual configuration harder and harder.
That's OK. It's a good thing that linux is easier to install and use for people who do''t want to be system administrators. But the cost is that every one of these features introduces a probability that it will not work with something else, and the likelihood that a new version or distro will have problems necessarily approaches 1.
And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (if there is such a one nowadays). My personal philosophy is that I try to stick with one distro and learn how to manually modify things to bypass the configuration tools as much as possible -- though some such tools, such as NetworkManager seem to do their best to fight against those efforts.
billo
Am 01.02.2013 15:41, schrieb Bill Oliver:
Now we have all these shiny distros with bells, whistles, flashing lights, and automatic configuration tools that do all this stuff for us in an entertaining manner. We have reorganized things to make it easy for the configuration tools in a way that makes manual configuration harder and harder.
+1
And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (if there is such a one nowadays). My personal philosophy is that I try to stick with one distro and learn how to manually modify things to bypass the configuration tools as much as possible -- though some such tools, such as NetworkManager seem to do their best to fight against those efforts.
+1
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/31/2013 08:13 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I cannot understand why so many people were up in arms about the Gnome desktop...or the Unity one.
Try watching somebody with Parkinson's try to use either of them and you'll understand. Or, consider somebody like me who wants certain programs to be on certain workspaces and doesn't want to have go guess where the DE decided to put them.
It is certainly possible to have fixed number of workspaces in GNOME 3 and this has become incrementally easier to tweak in Fedora 18. gnome-tweak-tool has a clear option to do that. Also you can install the following extension to determine which app gets launched automatically in which specific workspace.
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/16/auto-move-windows/
Install this extension and use gnome-shell-extension-prefs GUI to configure it or you can do it via the command line if you want to script this
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions/auto-move-windows
Rahul
On 02/01/2013 06:41 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (if there is such a one nowadays).
AIUI, Slackware probably comes closest. Maybe we should design a distro with no configuration tools, GUI or text and call it "Luddite Linux," just to see how many people use it. I'll bet there will be people installing it just for the bragging rights of "see how old-school my Linux box is."
Am 01.02.2013 19:34, schrieb Joe Zeff:
On 02/01/2013 06:41 AM, Bill Oliver wrote:
And it will approach 1 for *any* such distro. Changing distros doesn't help this problem, unless you go to one of the minimal distros that are still oriented towards simplified manual configuration (if there is such a one nowadays).
AIUI, Slackware probably comes closest. Maybe we should design a distro with no configuration tools, GUI or text and call it "Luddite Linux," just to see how many people use it. I'll bet there will be people installing it just for the bragging rights of "see how old-school my Linux box is."
no - for the bragging rights not PERMANENTLY get knowledge destroyed because all the happy shiny new things are not only change their internals, no they ALWAYS change their configuraion interface compared with the things they replace
this si a really dumb attitude in the last few years
there are even command-line tools suggested to replace well known ones with completly different switches this is not how a replacement works
the guys which designed unix did a damned good job their base worked over decaeds, was understandable and had a well documanetation and a lifetime where the time to learn things worth - these days you must be an idiot trying to undrstand how the new shiny crap really works because before you finished your study they all replaced again _______________________________
the reason?
lazy and dumb developers with a poor attitude how software should behave because if they would make things longliving it would take more time and maybe get finished someday - no this must not happen, things must not be final, never because after that the new generation of developers would be bored
On 02/01/2013 10:21 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Also you can install the following extension to determine which app gets launched automatically in which specific workspace.
*Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt down and install third-party extensions to get back the functionality that was taken for granted in an earlier version. YMMV, and obviously does.
On 02/01/2013 11:10 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
there are even command-line tools suggested to replace well known ones with completly different switches this is not how a replacement works
You know that, I know that and most of the people on this list (if not all) know that. Alas, there are always going to be people pushing new things simply because they're new and because they really, truly believe that if it's new it must be better. And, of course, some of them will be so entranced by how good it's going to be when it's all working[1] that they ignore the fact that at this point it's nowhere near as good as what it's intended to replace and insist on swapping it in anyway, long before it's ready for anything other than alpha-testing.
[1]Am I the only one reminded by a boy trying to seduce his girlfriend? Ugol says I'm not.
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
*Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt down and install third-party extensions to get back the functionality that was taken for granted in an earlier version. YMMV, and obviously does.
Dynamic workspaces weren't part of the previous release and that is the default behavior. If you prefer a different behavior, I have outlined the steps to do so and there is no need to hunt down anything at all. The reason to do this is when you want GNOME 3 but prefer to tweak one particular behavior. If you don't want to use GNOME 3 at all, that's fine but static workspaces aren't the reason to stay away.
Rahul
On 02/01/2013 12:23 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you don't want to use GNOME 3 at all, that's fine but static workspaces aren't the reason to stay away.
True. They're just one of the many reasons I migrated away from Gnome even before Gnome 3 came out. The lack of built-in configuration tools and the attitude of the Gnome devs about listening to mere users were far more of an influence. I prefer a DE developed and maintained by people who understand that not everybody wants to do everything the same way, or have their desktop look the same and makes sure that it's easy for people to customize things. If I wanted a DE with One True Way to do things and no easy way to change it, I might as well be using Windows.
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
If I wanted a DE with One True Way to do things and no easy way to
change it, I might as well be using Windows.
The defaults are simple but GNOME Shell UI is actually extremely customizable. The entire UI is just scriptable widgets, With extensions you can modify anything you want. It even has a javascript debugger built-in. It is pretty similar to Firefox in that regard.
Rahul
On 02/01/2013 03:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The defaults are simple but GNOME Shell UI is actually extremely customizable. The entire UI is just scriptable widgets, With extensions you can modify anything you want. It even has a javascript debugger built-in. It is pretty similar to Firefox in that regard.
When it first came out, there were a number of things that couldn't be changed at all, such as the fact that there was exactly one panel and it was always on top. Then, people started writing extensions to allow you to change bits and pieces of this, but the Gnome devs were adamant that they weren't going to fold any of them into Gnome Shell, no matter how popular they were, and that they wouldn't make any effort to avoid breaking them. If they've learned a bit of flexibility since then, that's nice, but I much prefer a DE where the devs actually care about what their users want. As an example, there's a regular poster on the Xfce forum who's a core developer; that tells me that there's at least one Xfce dev who cares about what the users think and is willing to help. And, to be honest, I like the way Xfce works. If you enjoy using Gnome 3, don't let me stop you; as I've written before, Linux is all about choice.
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
Then, people started writing extensions to allow you to change bits and pieces of this, but the Gnome devs were adamant that they weren't going to fold any of them into Gnome Shell, no matter how popular they were, and that they wouldn't make any effort to avoid breaking them
The evidence is to the contrary. They have supported the framework that made these extensions possible in the first place and they certainly made some efforts to define the API better to avoid breakages. http://extensions.gnome.org and the infrastructure surrounding that wouldn't be developed if they hadn't cared about that.
Rahul
On 02/01/2013 04:33 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The evidence is to the contrary. They have supported the framework that made these extensions possible in the first place and they certainly made some efforts to define the API better to avoid breakages.
I sit corrected, then. However, I've been told several times that the Gnome devs had warned people that they'd make no effort to avoid breaking extensions and hadn't heard otherwise. I wonder what made them change their attitude. I'm not going to guess, but I am happy to hear that they've changed their minds. Still, I'm not very happy with Xfce, TYVM, and have no desire to go back.
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
However, I've been told several times that the Gnome devs had warned people that they'd make no effort to avoid breaking extensions and hadn't heard otherwise.
I think an unfortunate reality of this list, is that it has many people who ascribe motivations to developers and repeat them to the point where others believe this to be a fact I wouldn't buy into these assertions without sufficient references to back them up if I were you.
Rahul
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:05:09 -0500 Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
However, I've been told several times that the Gnome devs had warned people that they'd make no effort to avoid breaking extensions and hadn't heard otherwise.
I think an unfortunate reality of this list, is that it has many people who ascribe motivations to developers and repeat them to the point where others believe this to be a fact I wouldn't buy into these assertions without sufficient references to back them up if I were you.
Agreed. And at the end of the day, while most of us users are important to the OSS community, it is the developers who do the hard work. We may disagree with their philosophy and choices, but we should persuade them with reasoned arguments, not call them names just because they chose a particular path (not to mention that very often, people like me, do not bother to find the time to comment on beta-stages).
As an aside, I think that given the number of complaints about G3 (and I would not know, having used only XFCE, LXDE and fvwm), in my view, Fedora could consider moving the base distribution to something else? But i don't feel strongly about it, so I am fine with the current situation.
Ranjan
El vie, 01-02-2013 a las 12:08 -0800, Joe Zeff escribió:
On 02/01/2013 10:21 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Also you can install the following extension to determine which app gets launched automatically in which specific workspace.
*Shrug!* I prefer a DE where you don't have to hunt down and install third-party extensions to get back the functionality that was taken for granted in an earlier version. YMMV, and obviously does.
Hi!
They are not third-party, they are from Gnome. See the link is extensions.gnome.org
Regards, Lailah
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Christopher Svanefalk -
Craig White -
EGO-II.1 -
Fernando Cassia -
Franta Hanzlík -
Gary Kline -
itamar -
James Freer -
Joe Zeff -
Matthew Miller -
Ondřej Majerech -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ranjan Maitra -
Reindl Harald -
Roger -
Sam Varshavchik -
Sylvia Sánchez -
Tom Horsley -
Vikram Goyal -
William Oliver