Trends - how to save Fedora ?

Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron at
Mon Nov 14 00:04:29 UTC 2011

Hash: SHA1

On 11/13/2011 03:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> 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
>> funny.
> 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.

Meh. Torture is intentionally causing pain. Bugs in new tech != torture,
sorry. That's a specious argument.

> Fedora should aspire to quality.

In my experience, it does.

> 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.

Or you could actually pay for the development work in Fedora and buy
RHEL. You know, that pesky "give back" thing?

> 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. 

I'm sorry, I just have not had the same experience as you. And I'm not
sure that most people have. I will absolutely agree there are bugs -
this is human written code, there will always be bugs. But my
experiences with 15 and 16 have been exactly the opposite. I'm getting
great performance and a lot of really cool stuff like dual head Just
Works(TM) and stuff like that.

> 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.

On this we can probably agree. I don't think the Fedora is bad - my
experience is exactly the opposite. But then I use pretty standard kit
so maybe I'm unusual.

>> 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
> that one.
> "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.

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about hitting next - you can
absolutely do that with Fedora and get a perfectly usable installation,
just like you can do with e.g. Windows. I was talking much more about
the "take what we damned well tell you to, and like it" part.

Fedora is pretty easy to customize and respin. You don't typically get
that with closed source.

Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat -


More information about the users mailing list