Where Fedora Went Wrong (nice conclusion)

[Les Mikesell]

Todd Zullinger wrote:

>> but I'd think that (again given a 3 digit IQ) that security related
>> fixes should be pushed in the last couple of months along with bug
>> fixes that are serious (as in several people have reported it)
>> stability problems.  Eye candy that's not well tested is another
>> horse that shouldn't even be given a show at the payoff window.
> 
> Agreed.  The hard part is determining which updates are important and
> which aren't.  Any bug which affects my system is an important one to
> me.  But it might not be so to you, even less so if the fix for me
> happens to have an undesired effect on your system.

This is why people use the 'enterprise' distributions (RHEL, Centos, 
etc.) for machines where they don't like surprises.   With them, someone 
else has already sorted out the bug/security fixes from the "here's 
something new to test" type of update.

But, someone has to test those new things, and fedora seem to be the 
place.  Just run it on machines where a surprise can be nice and you can 
tolerate ones that aren't.

Another thought about how things could be improved: make yum capable of 
rolling back to undo it's last update.  Then unless yum itself breaks or 
you can't boot even to the saved previous kernel, you could be 
adventurous with installing new code without too much danger of killing 
your system completely.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com