Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)))

[Jiri Eischmann]

mike cloaked píše v Ne 04. 11. 2012 v 21:44 +0000:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann <jeischma at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>         
>         
>         This is a very valid argument. I understand this is a devel
>         list, so we should stay on the technical level, but if we
>         discuss such broad changes that affect the whole project, we
>         should also take into account other aspects.
>         
>         Switching to rolling release would have a *huge* negative
>         impact on marketing! It's releases what makes the fuzz and
>         their announcements get beyond our current user base. We would
>         have no release parties, no codenames. We would lose the
>         product. I wonder what impact it would have on Fedora adoption
>         by cloud providers. I think it's much more understandable not
>         only for them, but also for their customers to take Fedora 17
>         than some monthly build.
>         
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any reliable statistics about the number of users who
> feel that release parties and codenames are important to them? 

Release parties and codenames were just examples. It's about the buzz
around releases. You can check Google Trends where you find peaks in
number of searches for Fedora after every release. Or fp.org monthly
stats. You would lose reviews, that are usually published after
releases, because I don't see any reviews of rolling release
distributions by main magazines. Etc.

BTW this is not just about current Fedora users. Marketing is mainly
about potential users. 

> There will no doubt be some people for whom the idea of running a
> particular codenamed release is important - but there will also be
> others for whom a high quality established linux distribution that is
> reliable and up to date irrespective of its codename is more
> important. Marketing feedback if it is possible to give the relative
> number of users in each camp would be helpful here? Gathering such
> statistics is likely difficult though.
>  
>         I personally don't like the whole idea of switching to rolling
>         release. Although I see some pros, I see a lot of cons that
>         would outweight the pros. I've come across a few rolling
>         release distributions (Debian Testing, Arch Linux, Gentoo,...)
>         and I don't think they work if you want to achieve some level
>         of stability and predictability. 
> 
> 
> Arch linux is stable and reliable and predictable - I use it every day
> - you need to ask users of the other distributions named whether users
> feel they are similarly stable and predictable or not for the most
> part.

Well, as someone has already said here: stability and reliability are
relative terms. I used Arch Linux for a while and I didn't find it
stable and reliable on the level where I'd like to see Fedora. If you
have to read release notes before every update to make sure you know
what might break and how to fix it, then you're not using a system that
would be appealing to a large number of user. And Fedora has always been
aiming much broader audience than Gentoo or Arch. 

> Does anyone have any relative user stats on the various distros?
> 
> 
> Do any web sites gather stats which might indicate hit rates coming
> from different distros? 
> 
> 
> These data are difficult to get so in the end a clear goal for any
> distribution has to be agreed on and then executed - if Fedora wishes
> to go to rolling Rawhide but a bit more stable that at present and it
> is possible to do that - then developers must agree at least on some
> kind of overall vote maybe?  In the end the users will guide whether
> the route taken is being adopted widespread among the community.  You
> get some idea of users interested from feedback to the devel list, or
> via bodhi I guess?
> 
> 
> One other question that is hard to answer is whether a particular
> change in direction is achievable since it depends on developers
> adopting it and agreeing to work on it - inevitably some will not want
> to go to any new route - but will the new direction excite other
> developers to come on board that were not there before and make up any
> loss?
> 
> 
> The way I see it is that the two routes are a bit like asking if
> people like meat or fish for the main course at a meal - there will be
> a split opinion - and there are good points about both!  Some people
> may be allergic to one or other though!
> 
> 
> Is there an objective list of pros and cons that can be judged without
> bias in favour of rolling release or periodic releases so that a
> logical weighing of the relative merits of both approaches can be
> considered? If that goes in favour of rolling release then can it be
> achieved with the tools available without too much effort? If new
> tools have to be built within the Fedora Framework is there enough
> effort and willingness to build them?
> 
> 
> -- 
> mike c
>