WTF? Inaccessible bug reports?

[Richard Hally]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> 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.
> 
Bruno, It looks like there is a problem with your mailer. I have received 9 
copies of this message!
There is also one with 2:15pm time that I have received 6 times. All the other 
messages from other people are ok.

Richard