FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-13-2008, 03:00 AM
Robert Locke
 
Default

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 21:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> First you have to give someone a reason to want to migrate to
> >> Fedora. With a planned progression to an enterprise version, that
> >> would not really be a migration away from fedora but the expected end
> >> point where you are permitted to continue using anything you've
> >> contributed or developed for your own use, staying in the same
> >> community instead of having all previous work dumped out the window at
> >> the end of a cycle. I'll point out again that this is the way Red Hat
> >> developed its popularity, although it was probably a mistake to have
> >> tried to support every release forever.
> >
> > Fedora is _not_ enterprise, it is _not_ in its goals, it is _not_ it's
> > target audience. Why would anybody start on Fedora planning to "graduate"
> > to EL?
>
> For exactly the same reason that people used to use RH X.0 versions for
> development and testing, planning to run their programs on X.2 as both
> their local development and the distribution mature. That's what made
> RH popular. And there is no equivalent now that Fedora never matures to
> a supported stable version.
>

So, we are talking about doing development on a platform that evolves
and represents the latest in open source technology? And we are wanting
to deploy on a production ready/stable release? Doesn't the current
Fedora for development, and CentOS/RHEL for production not satisfy your
need?

I think the only thing missing from your need is a smooth "in-place"
upgrade capability?

But how often is development done (for a year or so) that then becomes
the actual production system? Would not the production system be
installed in parallel as you approached the timeframe for deployment?

--Rob


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 03:27 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Fedora could make it's next release somewhere around the point where
> >> the paths start to diverge so people who wanted the fast-track
> >> unstable flavor could re-install as they apparently love to do, and
> >> the rest of us could just drift into stability.
> > Why would any Fedoran want to "drift into stability"? That is a
> > contradiction in terms... If it was /so/ badly wanted as you claim, Fedora
> > Legacy would be alive and well, don't you think?

> No, Fedora, legacy or not, is not good at maintaining stability. I'm
> not surprised it didn't work and wouldn't expect it to work if
> revived.

My impression too, but experimental data trumps that.

> What people actually do is run RHEL or Centos for their
> actual work.

Depends on what "actual work" means...

> Which leaves the question of how to get from one to the
> other as you develop something new, then want to run it.

Move the SRPM over, rebuild on the target? Have done so several times, with
minimal fuss. Also moved SRPMs to Aurora (on SPARC64, Fedora-based), and
even ported SRPMs for stuff I couldn't find on Fedora from a variety of
other distributions. I also maintained locally old packages for stuff where
the newer one didn't work.

I'd expect anybody who used Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora for any length of time
have done so too...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 03:57 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Horst H. von Brand wrote:



No, Fedora, legacy or not, is not good at maintaining stability. I'm
not surprised it didn't work and wouldn't expect it to work if
revived.


My impression too, but experimental data trumps that.


Do you have numbers for the bugs shipped in Fedora? Even the ones fixed
in subsequent updates? I've had too many update kernels that wouldn't
boot on hardware where the previous one ran fine.



What people actually do is run RHEL or Centos for their
actual work.


Depends on what "actual work" means...


My experience is with things like http://www.quote.com or
http://www.futuresource.com and their backend systems handling financial
data, but I mean anything that is expected to be up 24x7 for years.



Which leaves the question of how to get from one to the
other as you develop something new, then want to run it.


Move the SRPM over, rebuild on the target? Have done so several times, with
minimal fuss. Also moved SRPMs to Aurora (on SPARC64, Fedora-based), and
even ported SRPMs for stuff I couldn't find on Fedora from a variety of
other distributions. I also maintained locally old packages for stuff where
the newer one didn't work.

I'd expect anybody who used Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora for any length of time
have done so too...


Yes, that sometimes works, but if it is as easy as you say, why not just
do that with _everything_ on Fedora as its last update when the
corresponding enterprise version has been released?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 04:00 AM
Luya Tshimbalanga
 
Default

Quoting "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>:

> | From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com>
>
> | But the first question should be why a separate community is necessary.
> Why
> | is it not possible for one of fedora's goals to be to provide a clean
> | transition to RHEL or Centos at the end of certain development cycles
>
> I think that this idea has some merit. I'm taking this out of context
> to use as a jump-off point.
>
> [I'm a long-term Red Hat and Fedora user. I also use Ubuntu
> sometimes.]
>
> Ubuntu 8.04 LTS has seduced me with its simultaneous promises of being
> maintained and having a current code base.
>
> RHEL/CentOS feels too old. Concrete issues:
>
> - support for video cards
>
> - PostgreSQL 8.3 vs 8.1


Obvious reasons, RHEL/CentOS are enterprise distributions where support for old
applications and old hardware are important. Trying to install a brand new
system without testing stability, perfornamce before applying to enterprise
fields is plain silly. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, not an
enterprise.

> Ubuntu 8.04 will be quite stale before the next LTS comes out.
> Probably more stale that RHEL/CentOS. It is all a matter of where
> each stream is in the cycle. Right now, Ubuntu LTS is ahead of
> RHEL/CentOS.
>
> Ubuntu LTS is in the same series as regular Ubuntu. RHEL/CentOS are
> not the same as Fedora. One could predict that the transition costs
> between Ubuntus are lower that the transition costs from RHEL/CentOS
> to or from Fedora. This is a disadvantage.

It is very easy to be attracted by low cost transition without considering for
a long term approach. Remember Oracle promised the same thing with their
Unbreakable distribition. In this case, it is about Canonical that are looking
to make money because they are not even profitable since their inception. Time
will tell how successful Canonical strategy will be.

> I find the various Fedora-targeted 3rd party repositories confusing
> and even conflicting. This isn't healthy. I've not had this problem
> with Ubuntu but I'm not sure why.

Blame the software patents system. Fedora being an USA distribution cannot
afford for being a big target for patent vultures and, because of this FOSS
philosophy, does not include any closed and patented applications (apart
Firmware which are separate problems). Ubuntu chose to made compromise being a
non-USA distribution but has to follow US Patent law. It will be foolish to not
consider those legal issues especially for company like Canonical and Red Hat.

>
> I like that fedora is willing to take radical steps. This is the only
> way to do some important experiments.
>
>
> Some changes make me (a conservative at heart) uncomfortable:
>
> - the idea that network connectivity is part of a session just seems
> bizarre to me. Network Manager may be useful but I think that this
> aspect does not fit in with my UNIX world-view.

That is the problem: your UNIX world-view.

> - the idea that non-X consoles will go bothers me. Just a few minutes
> ago, I used a non-X console to whack on an X problem. I hit a lot
> of X problems due to the way hardware gets introduced more quickly
> than X versions are released (and debugged). I may stop using
> Fedora when this change comes to pass.

What about other methods that may replace the old one?


> - Documentation that I expect is not provided.

Which one?

> - the anatomy of the system changes more quickly than my
> understanding. HAL/d-bus/etc. all seem like magic to me.

Perhaps a difficulty to adapt.


--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Project contributor
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 05:27 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:48 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:53 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > >> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > >> The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora.
> > > > I can not disagree more - To me, it's yet another evidence of Fedora
> > > > being on the loose.
> > >
> > > You're going to have to expound on that. I do not see Centos in any
> > > way as in competition with Fedora.
>
> > EPEL drains away resources from Fedora.
>
> Proof?

Urgh, isn't that obvious?

E.g.:
- Build server resources, mirror resources.
- People are using/testing EPEL instead of Fedora.
- Fedora infrastructure, e.g. EPEL enlarges the packagedb by almost
factor 2.
- EPEL would force Fedora contributors to test on both RHEL and Fedora.

> > > Centos is something everyone should
> > > be proud of.
>
> > Well, to me CentOS is as important as any other arbitrary Linux distro.
> > I am glad they are around, but not more and not less.
>
> It is around becase RHEL is popular, and open source.
And non-free - If it was free, the CentOS folks could start directly
contribute to Fedora or RHEL. Right now, it's them wasting time to
workaround on RHEL being non-free.

> > > >> CentOS's
> > > >> goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a
> > > >> system and run it for years. Fedora is good for people who want to get
> > > >> the latest technologies from upstream as soon as they're stable enough
> > > >> to integrate into a running system.
>
> > > > Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better.
>
> > > Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc.
>
> > ... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians,
> > different people, different strategies.
>
> Show how!

Ease reviews, bodhi, packagedb, koji, bugzilla, track, re-consider FTBS,
work-flow, trademark policy.

E.g. right now, the tools being in use are a heterogenious mixture of
separate tools, are often broken, are far from easy to use and aim at
implementing a highly bureaucratic process/work-flow.

> Telling everybody here how awful things are going isn't helping
> an iota. Everything has its limits, and for every desirable quality (newest
> shiny toys, support for the newest fad in hardware in software) there is a
> cost (can't be supported in the long range, fast turnaround, set procedures
> to handle a huge stream of new stuff)
>
> > > But baring a sudden increase
> > > in those, I would much prefer to see Fedora focus on dev and testing,
> > > let other distros pretty things up.
>
> > ACK. Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting away from this group towards
> > single-user desktops (e.g. OLPC).
>
> Then work towards drifting the opposite direction...
One reason why I am agitating ...

> Fedora (or any other large group of people) will move where the majority
> wants to go...
Well, deployment of an OS to servers, will always be a "minority use
case" and will always collide somewhere with mere desktop oriented
developments.

> > > >> > This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself.
> > > >> > Guess, how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest
> > > >> > "stable" Fedora release?
>
> > > >> As few as possible.
>
> > > > IMO, a fundamental management/infrastructure mistake - If these people
> > > > were using Fedora, they would be facing the issues Fedora users are
> > > > facing everyday and likely would being to understand why people complain
> > > > about Fedora.
>
> > > Why would they, after often suggesting that Fedora _not_ be used on
> > > production servers, use Fedora on their production servers?
>
> > Depends on how they mean it:
> > - if they are referring to "long term maintained/everlasting support"
> > servers, they are right.
>
> "Servers" are "long-time maintained" by definition...
To me, "server" is a "use-case of an OS" and is not at all connected to
running the same OS for many years.

Yes, no doubt, running the same OS on a larger number of machines for a
longer time helps maintenance, but I do not see how this is connected to
a particular machine serving as "clients" or "servers".

Yes, no doubt, there are use-cases where "long-term API" stability is
important, but this applies to client use-cases as well as to server
use-cases.

...

Finally, yes, no doubt, Fedora is not the "shoe that fits all sizes" nor
are CentOS or RHEL, but ... this doesn't mean that Fedora may not be
applicable to server scenarios.

> > - if they mean it as "Fedora is technically too unstable",
>
> Because there is no "long term maintenance"...
Again, I don't see how "lack of stability" and "no long term
maintenance" are linked together at all, nor how server and client
use-cases matter.

What matters in use-cases of short lived-distros such as Fedora is:
Upgrades "must simply work" and (admin-) personnel must be able to
handle them in a particular scenario.

> > then this
> > people should start working on improving the situation
>
> Which one?
Lack of stability, lack of usability, deficiencies of the
infrastructure, bureaucracy, short-livedness ... tools

The lack of people to me is not a cause, it's a consequence of mistakes
in Fedora's history.

> Fedora is about /not/ "long term" but "bleeding edge"...
"Leading edge" doesn't necessarily have to be linked to "bleeding" nor
"unstable". It's sad, the latter is true wrt. Fedora.

> > or (better) quit
> > Fedora.
>
> Do so, then.
I haven't given in, yet.

The cause for my current dissatisfaction is Fedora's infrastructure and
Fedora's leadership. They have driven Fedora/have allowed Fedora to move
into what I consider to be an unhealthy direction.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 05:57 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 10:28 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
> 2008/10/11 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 17:08 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:53 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> >> >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> >> >> >> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >> The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora.
> >> >> > I can not disagree more - To me, it's yet another evidence of Fedora
> >> >> > being on the loose.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're going to have to expound on that. I do not see Centos in any
> >> >> way as in competition with Fedora.
> >> > EPEL drains away resources from Fedora.
> >> >
> >> > If people were investing the time they (as I feel waste) on supporting
> >> > EPEL into Fedora, Fedora would be better.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ok. Ralf.. if you hate Fedora
> > Absolutely not.
> >
> >> and all its projects so much, why do you
> >> fricking stay around. Every fricking thread its "Fedora has too much
> >> bueracracy. Fedora has a broken build system. EPEL steals resources..
> >> " What are you doing?
> > I am complaining about a _few_ people having run down a once fascinating
> > project, with the very same people closing their eyes in front this, of
> > what I consider to be an inconvenient truth.
> >
> > Wrt. EPEL, I have always had the same opinion on it, since the very
> > beginning.
> >
> >> >> Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc.
> >> > ... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians,
> >> > different people, different strategies.
> >
> >> Then DO SOMETHING.
> > Sigh, I repeatedly have been trying to do something, but always the same
> > "Fedora chiefs" had machine-gunned almost each and every proposal.
> >
> > You know, you have been one of these - Do I really have to be more
> > direct?
>
> No, you just have to be less of an ass. As a casual observer, all you
> seem to do is throw rocks.
Thanks for throwing rocks at a Fedora contributor who is maintaining
many packages in Fedora, whos had performed and contributed to many
reviews, who is actively involved into the FPC and is contributing to
many upstream projects.





--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 06:09 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 14:13 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 17:08 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> > You know, you have been one of these - Do I really have to be more
> > direct?
> >
>
> Actually I think you are too direct. You seem to have been
> disappointed with how Fedora's leadership has gone, and never seem to
> avoid a situation to remind people that. You complain about too much
> bueracracy and lack of democracy, but your alternatives seem to be
> communicated always as "do as a I say" without compromise.
Absolutely not.

Compromising would require general agreement on "presence of a problem"
and "willingness to develop solutions". Unfortunately, I don't see them
in Fedora. To the contrary, I observe Fedora people celebrating things I
consider to be regressions/problems as "great achievements and
progress".


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 07:46 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default

Robert Locke <lists <at> ralii.com> writes:
> Really? You saying that Fedora 7 came out before RHEL5? Looking at the
> calendar, it's a pretty simple Fedora Core 6, RHEL/CentOS 5, Fedora 7.
> I don't see that "long moved past", unless you like to run Rawhide, at
> which point, why are we talking about a stable LTS?

One word: updates!
By the time RHEL 5 came out, even FC5 had a newer kernel (and several other
packages).

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 08:15 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default

Robert Locke <lists <at> ralii.com> writes:
> But how often is development done (for a year or so) that then becomes
> the actual production system? Would not the production system be
> installed in parallel as you approached the timeframe for deployment?

They probably use the infamous "developmestuction" methodology. :-/

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Developmestuction_Environment.aspx

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 09:57] :
>
> Why, when Fedora is the one stopping support for the users that adapted
> to a particular Fedora version? I'm suggestion this migration as a
> substitute for the ongoing support that is lacking.

We do not stop support.
At any one time, two versions of Fedora are maintained.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:10 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org