WTF? Inaccessible bug reports?

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 19:41:33 +0100,
  Olivier Galibert <galibert at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> At fedora core 5 times, Everything was lost.  Thankfully it is still
> in kickstart, but it makes the initial testing phase more annoying.
> Way more problematic is the support time which went down to one year.

I still run Fedora 5 on one machine because of a kernel bug. It works well
for me.

> At fedora 7 time, Core was mostly lost.  There is still the list of
> package on the DVD as a guideline though, but there isn't a separate
> updates directory you can easily merge in anymore.  To the point that
> I didn't find the time to do the new installation before 8 was out.

The "everything" repository exists and I use a local copy of it to do
yum upgrades. Having core and extras combined seems to be a much nicer
approach than what was done previously. The Unity people have even put
out a multiDVD "Everything" spin.

> Now we're at 8 and I want to try to move to it, but static ip support
> is fucked, and the list of packages on the DVD doesn't even have tcsh,
> which 50% of the people here use.  Installing from the DVD by checking
> all 3 options at the top level doesn't even give you make or gcc,
> which is kind of annoying when the reason for installing interactively
> in the first place is to have everything needed to hack on anaconda to
> fix the static ip issue.  An yum install '*' conflicts all the way due
> to the multilib crap.

I use static IP addresses and don't have a problem with that. I don't use
NM though. There are some advanced things I do using iproute2 in rc.local,
but the plain stuff can be done with system-config-network.

> Fedora was originally nice for people coming from an Unix background,
> where 50% of the windows on the screen are xterms.  It seems to have
> collectively decided that it should instead cater to the Windows kind
> of people, to the detriment of the Unix ones.  A default installation

I don't see that.

> does not have a compiler.  Everything looking slightly technical is
> hidden as much as possible.  Easily understandable and editable text
> configuration files are routinely replaced by an obfuscated xml-based
> registry[1] with automatically generated GUIs from hell[2].  Basic
> things like static ips and routes are considered legacy and their
> support totally untested and/or considered unimportant.  And
> significantly every comparison is done with Ubuntu, the epitome of the
> windowsian-come-here distributions, and never with Debian or Gentoo.

When I see people asking for Fedora to be more like Ubuntu, I typically
see a response that we aren't going there.

> Keep cranking up the pain, guys, and fedora will definitively makes
> its place in the "master of none" category.

Well, there is definitely pain involved with Fedora. That's best helped by
having some people volunteer to try rawhide to catch issues early.