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, 01:22 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Kevin Kofler wrote:

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).


Ummm, as I recall, there were some update kernels in FC5 and even FC6
that wouldn't boot on various hardware. Was it _really_ necessary to
ship those after a reliable version was available?


--
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, 01:34 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 14:48] :
The issue is that the enterprise distributions don't put their own brand
name on the early development work and ship it so users have a smooth
transition through development, testing and the final release. But the


Again, this sounds like a problem that the entreprise distributions are
responsible.


Yes, of course. The change happened when RH stopped shipping X.0
versions that were subsequently updated to X.1, X.2, etc. as they did
through up through the 7.3 version, keeping the same community of users
through the process.



Working with them to release betas seems like the best
solution to your problem, IMHO.


But Fedora _is_ the beta now... Or at least it was before the direction
turned away from something suitable for servers. I'm not quite sure
where things are going now.


--
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, 01:38 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 15:31] :
>
> The supported versions may be wildly different at any time and the next
> version may not be suitable for what you want to keep running.

Sounds like you should be using a distribution that offers a longer
support time than the Fedora offers.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 01:41 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 15:31] :
> >
> > The supported versions may be wildly different at any time and the next
> > version may not be suitable for what you want to keep running.
>
> Sounds like you should be using a distribution that offers a longer
> support time than the Fedora offers.

Sounds like you don't want fedora packagers to volunteer for a longer
(support) time in fedora (not necessarily under the fedora name but in
the fedora infrastructure).

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 02:18 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Patrice Dumas [13/10/2008 15:52] :
>
> Sounds like you don't want fedora packagers to volunteer for a longer
> (support) time in fedora (not necessarily under the fedora name but in
> the fedora infrastructure).

Oh, I don't mind that Fedora packagers start an LTS project.

I do get annoyed that they keep claiming that Fedora infrastructure is
necessary when, in fact, it isn't and I find it surprising that they
keep coming up with excuse after excuse for not actually doing anything
instead of just starting their project.

You're free to work on whatever project you want. If the board feels it
isn't appropriate for you to work under the Fedora brand, you can just
do it somewhere else. They, like I, lack the magic powers necessary to
stop you from doing whatever you feel like doing.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 08:42 PM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> 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?

No, it isn't.

Note: In my experience, getting hardware and such is cheap/easy, getting
people willing (and capable, and dependable) of doing the job is hard.

> E.g.:
> - Build server resources, mirror resources.

I don't see a great drain in build servers, and mirrors are voluntary.

> - People are using/testing EPEL instead of Fedora.

Either I run RHEL/CentOS + EPEL or Fedora. No loss at all, more of a win
(EPEL users /also/ test Fedora stuff).

> - Fedora infrastructure, e.g. EPEL enlarges the packagedb by almost
> factor 2.

Not that important, IMHO.

> - EPEL would force Fedora contributors to test on both RHEL and Fedora.

You sure? In any case, extra burden on contributors is a real drain... but
then again, EPEL and Fedora contributors aren't the same bunch, so...

> > > > 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

It /is/ free... you pay for support only.

> - If it was free, the CentOS folks could start directly
> contribute to Fedora

No...

> or RHEL.

They do (funnelling bug reports and patches upstream to RH).

> Right now, it's them wasting time to
> workaround on RHEL being non-free.

As I told earlier, RH is going out of their way to make CentOS /easy/, not
hard.

> > > > >> 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?

Define "better"... "Good Fedora" is bleeding edge, not fully stabilized
software, experimental stuff that may pan out (or it might not, being
replaced by something else), changing APIs (literally and sysadmin-wise),
fast turnaround. "Good RHEL" is rock stable, unchanging (even in details)
for years. What is good for one is terrible for the other.

> > > > > 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.

Definite proposals that can be discussed?

What does "trademark policy" have to do with anything, BTW?

> E.g. right now, the tools being in use are a heterogenious mixture of
> separate tools,

Unix...

> are often broken,

Fixing hands are presumably wellcome...

> are far from easy to use

Concrete proposals on what to change how?

> and aim at
> implementing a highly bureaucratic process/work-flow.

Again, proposals, please?

> > 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 ...

"Agitating" doesn't help much.

> > 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.

So?

[...]

> > > > 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.

That is "testing an OS with server workload", something different entirely.

> 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.

Those /are/ the "server" use cases you want so badly! And that is at
fundamental odds with Fedora's goals, so it won't happen.

> ...

> 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.

Again: "stability" is /not/ "when run on 10 thousand machines only one
crashes a day", it is "runs for thousands of days before crashing", and
/that/ is as un-Fedora as it gets.

> 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.

Sure. Test upgrading for a few months until everything is A-OK, and here
comes the next release, before we finished testing the last one. Nice idea.

> > > then this
> > > people should start working on improving the situation

> > Which one?

> Lack of stability,

Design objective.

> lack of usability,

Do the work of usability testing, feed it back. Many thanks will flow back.

> deficiencies of the
> infrastructure,

Ditto.

> bureaucracy,

Ditto.

> short-livedness

Design objective, won't change.

> ... tools

Huh?

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

Is there /really/ a lack of people? Are any statistics of contributors (and
contributions) at hand?

> > 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.

It is true (sad or not) for /all/ "leading edge" endeavors, the more
"leading" the more "bleeding". Live with it, as you can't do without.

> > > or (better) quit
> > > Fedora.

> > Do so, then.

> I haven't given in, yet.

Great!

> 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.

Just whining that everything is wrong and in bad shape doesn't help, does
it. Come back with concrete proposals of what to fix how, and volunteer
doing the work. Run for office in Fedora on your proposals.
--
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 10-14-2008, 03:39 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 17:42 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > 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.

> > > > > 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
>
> It /is/ free... you pay for support only.
Wrong. RHEL is opensource, but it is not free. You can't get RHEL
binaries anywhere.

>
> > - If it was free, the CentOS folks could start directly
> > contribute to Fedora
>
> No...
Why not? CentOS would go out of business, because RH binaries could be
used instead => their resources would be freed.

> > > > > >> 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?
>
> Define "better"... "Good Fedora" is bleeding edge, not fully stabilized
> software, experimental stuff that may pan out (or it might not, being
> replaced by something else), changing APIs (literally and sysadmin-wise),
> fast turnaround.
Yes, this is what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately this doesn't
apply.

Current Fedora isn't much more than a single-user desktop-focused RH
development/rawhide snapshot.

> > > > > > 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.
>
> Definite proposals that can be discussed?
>
> What does "trademark policy" have to do with anything, BTW?
A lot.

> > E.g. right now, the tools being in use are a heterogenious mixture of
> > separate tools,
>
> Unix...
My point is: Lack of integration and them being over-loaded with
features.

> > are often broken,
>
> Fixing hands are presumably wellcome...
Well, ...

> > are far from easy to use
>
> Concrete proposals on what to change how?
Many, many tiny details. In fact, there are tons of usability issues
with all of them.

One pretty obvious example: bugzilla.
IMO, it has never been less usable than it is now. It isn't possible
anymore to reopen bugs, automatic CC:-adding when commenting to BZs,
many lists are hidden in dropdowns, tags have changes (assignee), FTBS
activities have rendered bugzilla "unsearchable", flagged review stuff,
etc.

> > and aim at
> > implementing a highly bureaucratic process/work-flow.
>
> Again, proposals, please?
E.g.: Work-flow: branch fc11 early (discussed and shot down last week).

> > > 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 ...
>
> "Agitating" doesn't help much.
Of cause it does. It help making people aware about problems.

> > > 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.
>
> So?
Examples: NetworkManager, PulseAudio, setroubleshoot, SELinux-policies,
PackageKit, defaults ...

> > > > > 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.
>
> That is "testing an OS with server workload", something different entirely.
Just because some piece of hardware is labeled "server" or caged into a
rack, doesn't make it a "server".

A server is a use-case of software, the hardware doesn't actually
matter.

> > 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.
>
> Those /are/ the "server" use cases you want so badly!
NO! I am talking about file-, yp/ldap-, nfs-, print-, streaming-, audio
(mpd etc.)-, video-, VCS (CVS, svn, git, etc.)-, http-, SQL (postgres,
mysql, etc.)- servers and similar.

> > 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.
>
> Again: "stability" is /not/ "when run on 10 thousand machines only one
> crashes a day", it is "runs for thousands of days before crashing", and
> /that/ is as un-Fedora as it gets.
Again: server is a use-case of SW. Like on desktops, I can live with
rebooting once a week due to kernel updates and don't need 1000hrs of
uptimes nor do I have 1000s of users nor machines.


> > 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.
>
> Sure. Test upgrading for a few months until everything is A-OK,
No, rolling release, respun distros.


> > Lack of stability,
>
> Design objective.
No, mismanagement, lack of QA

> > ... tools
>
> Huh?
koji, bodhi, bugzilla, packagedb ...

One detail: The amount of administration emails I am receiving from
koji, bodhi, packagedb: Often, several 1000s per month.

> > The lack of people to me is not a cause, it's a consequence of mistakes
> > in Fedora's history.
>
> Is there /really/ a lack of people?
Yes, all over the place.

Examples:
* reviews
* Fedora infrastructure "wining" on "lack of people"
* Fedora infrastructure "signing" issues.

> Are any statistics of contributors (and
> contributions) at hand?
None that I am aware about.

Ralf




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 04:18 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> It isn't possible anymore to reopen bugs

It is. Just set the status dropdown from CLOSED back to ASSIGNED.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 05:39 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 17:42 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:

Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:48 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:

Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:

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

It /is/ free... you pay for support only.

Wrong. RHEL is opensource, but it is not free. You can't get RHEL
binaries anywhere.


You are confusing non-free and commercial. They are not the same.
Non-free is a well established term for proprietary software. FSF,
Debian and even RPMFusion is using that term as such.


RHEL is commercial but not, non-free. The complete source in the form of
SRPMs is available in the Red Hat public ftp server. The free
availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
open source licenses.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 06:09 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 11:09 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 17:42 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:48 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> >>>> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >> It /is/ free... you pay for support only.
> > Wrong. RHEL is opensource, but it is not free. You can't get RHEL
> > binaries anywhere.

> The complete source in the form of
> SRPMs is available in the Red Hat public ftp server.
Did I say something else?

> The free
> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
> open source licenses.
This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.



--
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 07:21 AM.

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