What Seriously Ails Fedora

[jd1008]

On 05/28/2015 01:07 PM, stan wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:26:12 -0600
> jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Some of these problems seem to stem from the fact that not all
>> installed rpms of the current release (let's say 21) are made
>> available in f22.
> [snip]
>> So, I am wondering if the thought has even crossed the minds of the
>> fedora project architects/managers/directors to properly address this
>> issue.
>>
>> I have been a victim f this particular issue ever since the early
>> fedora core
>> days.
> If you've been here that long, then you know that the issue isn't that
> the problem isn't recognized.  It's that there isn't enough man(and
> woman)power to do all the things that need doing.  So, the tasks that
> have the most effect are prioritized.
>
> Even at a cash cow like Windows, the managers probably wish they could
> have more resources to do the things they want done.
>
> So, absent an alien army of minions, are you volunteering to pick up all
> the dropped and obsoleted packages?
>
> [snip]
>> That said, I am totally against the elimination of those packages
>> from the user's system just to please the update and upgrade
>> processes. Somehow fedora project needs to come up with a scheme to
>> let the previous release's packages
>> and their dependencies to continue to live and work in the new
>> release and subsequent releases without raising any problems or
>> errors for updates and upgrades.
> Maybe you should have a look at NixOS.  Or Gentoo.
>
> What you are talking about entails either recompiling everything when
> changes occur, or having multiple versions of packages on the system,
> especially libraries.
>
> Lots of overhead in the first, lots of security exposure in the second.
>
> And sometimes, the package you want to bring forward is obsolete, no
> longer supported, or on the waning side of technological
> progress. What happens then? Seen lilo lately?
>
> The people involved with Fedora are smart.  Sure, they sometimes miss
> things, but they definitely consider issues like this.
>
> Your comment sounds like 'surly dog' to me.  With all your experience,
> you didn't recognize the reason a package didn't update.  You even
> mention that you've experienced this many times before.  And you're
> surly and trying to make it someone else's fault.  Doesn't fly for me.
> And the Fedora folks don't deserve it.
Your reply  is indeed a serious flaw in your type of mentality
and is a strong contributer to the problem at hand.

Your assumptions about what I think of the developers are utterly flawed!!!