Trends - how to save Fedora ?
alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Sun Nov 13 21:30:22 UTC 2011
> like maybe there's some round hole/square peg going on here. Fedora,
> almost by definition, will be bleeding edge and therefore, somewhat
> buggy. But, really, our version of "buggy" is *so* much better than I
> deal with as regards most closed source commercial code, it's not even
This is the "Its ok to torture people providing we do it a bit less than
the bad guys" argument. I don't buy it.
Fedora should aspire to quality. Yes being leading edge means it'll be a
bit rougher unavoidably and it's always going to hit a few "doh" cases
that look really silly and got missed. Yes if you want a quite life you
should be running Centos.
That doesn't mean Fedora should be sloppy because once your bugginess
passes a certain point it becomes impossible to work with. Every time you
try and fix something it breaks somewhere else. Fedora is a long way from
that at the moment but it's slowly slipping that way in F15 and F16. It's
just something which in the normal order of things is going to create
pushback and complaining which should correct the slippage.
Nothing needs "saving" just a bit of process focus tweakage.
> expectation that you're going to mod the installation to your needs. If
> I wanted a "click next, next, next, take what we damned well tell you
> to, and like it" installation, I would run closed source.
Well I expect open source to be at least as good as closed source. So if
the closed source can get 'just hit next' right, the open source ought to
be able to do. It's not exactly hard, Even Ubuntu pretty much manages
"Just hit next" is a *feature*. It's a sign of good design, and of
quality. It's also a really good stability feature because most users
just hit next so you know which path to test the crap out of.
More information about the users