Proposal: Rolling Release

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:

> Ubuntu does not have the same exclusionary 
> policy so you don't have to track down packages from a million 
> uncoordinated places.

Yet they have created Gobuntu and the new installer option for using
"open-source non-restricted software" only, which I consider an option
for end-users, who want to stay on the safe side and avoid the threat
of legal/patenting/licencing issues.

I think you're struggling to draw a connection between legal requirements
in Fedora and 3rd party repos which don't work together. It's the Fedora
community's fault that incompatible repos are offered and advertised in
community support places. Another trend is to publish and advertise
personal repositories of small sets of packages instead of working a
little bit harder on getting the stuff included in Fedora. You can find
people who offer "fixes" that way (replacement packages, unofficial
upgrades) or add-ons, which could be included in Fedora. Of course,
a personal repo is much more convenient.

> > Dependency
> > problems and inter-repository issues are not specific to Fedora or RPM.
> > Experimental upgrades/replacements/alternatives, orphans, and poorly
> > maintained packages do exist for other dists, too, not just in 3rd
> > party repos.
> 
> Of course that can happen - Fedora just makes it impossible not to happen.

Not impossible.

Actually, the Fedora policies are not adhered to in many cases when
packages break the ABI/API (and hence break compatibility with 3rd party
repos). Add to that the normal regression caused by version upgrades.
It's the packagers who are over-ambitious in publishing the latest
upstream releases without appropriate testing. You would think they would
test for binary incompatibility. No, they don't. And those who do won't
search for--and get in contact with--an unknown number of 3rd party repos
that may be considered relevant/popular/whatever in the Fedora universe.
And it's the insatiable (and impatient) target group who requests version
upgrades, as the dist gets boring without hot+new+exciting stuff.

I'm not a fan of "bleeding edge at all cost" in case you don't know. ;)

> on my laptop Ubuntu installs the right 
> video and wireless driver and lets me pick Sun java from the GUI 
> software tool.  Fedora doesn't.

You're free to choose, especially if you have very specific preferences.
A couple of months in the future it may already be different again.

> When I've installed fedora, I've had 
> to track down the components myself and had them break regularly during 
> updates.

What issues? What bugzilla ticket numbers?

> You are seriously underestimating users if you don't think they are 
> capable of trying a few distros and tossing the ones that break.

Well, I'm watching them as they either jump to false conclusions
(e.g. comparing dist ABC v5 with dist XYZ v6) or discover after some time
that the big (well-known) dists have different strengths and weaknesses,
and that they are not fully happy with either dist. Or some would swear that
App 1.2.3 in dist ABC works while exactly the same App version in dist XYZ
doesn't -- only to learn later that both are affected by the same problem
actually as confirmed by the maintainers.

> Fedora forces the replacement issue regularly anyway with its fast
> expiration cycle.

There's nothing wrong in using CentOS. Even [online] upgrades of Fedora
work fine for users. I have no reason to believe that Fedora could easily
enlengthen its dist life-cycle.

I've cut off the bottom of the mail as I don't see the goal of this
sub-thread.