Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 18 Isn't Looking Too Good, Anaconda Problems

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora 18 Isn't Looking Too Good, Anaconda Problems

    Phoronix: Fedora 18 Isn't Looking Too Good, Anaconda Problems

    The release of Fedora 18 has already been delayed five times and it's still uncertain when this next Fedora Linux release will actually ship...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIxODk

  • #2
    Nothing new, Fedora must target less new features. Don't byte off more than you can chew, end of story.

    Comment


    • #3
      IMO 6 month release schedules are just silly in the first place, I wish fedora (and ubuntu) would consider having longer time between releases, and more post-release updates/support for existing releases.

      Comment


      • #4
        On the bright side, while Anaconda holds the release the distribution packages actually get into shape. I've been using Fedora 18 and it's rock solid so far.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
          IMO 6 month release schedules are just silly in the first place, I wish fedora (and ubuntu) would consider having longer time between releases, and more post-release updates/support for existing releases.
          This is exactly what Canonical and Red Hat do with Ubuntu LTS and RHEL. Things are often backported to the LTS/RHEL releases. You don't have to use the newest Fedora/Ubuntu... that's your own choice :P

          Comment


          • #6
            Will be interesting to see if Red Hat will put this new anaconda installer also onto RHEL 7. Maybe that's the reason why they hurry this anaconda revamp into Fedora 18. It's likely that RHEL 7 will be based on F18. I read that somewhere but have no idea if this was rumor or for sure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Is this similar to the issues openSUSE were having post 12.1? They started slipping behind schedules and it eventually led to some soul searching, and then procedural changes within the distro's release management.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Newfie View Post
                This is exactly what Canonical and Red Hat do with Ubuntu LTS and RHEL. Things are often backported to the LTS/RHEL releases. You don't have to use the newest Fedora/Ubuntu... that's your own choice :P
                They need to further though, using ubuntu as an example, their LTS releases are too slow with he hardware enablement updates, and you often get stuck with old software, having to use a bunch of ppa's to keep things up to date.

                For example I have ivybridge graphics, so ubuntu 12.04 isn't really an option with its old kernel/drivers. At least fedora is usually decent about updating those.
                Last edited by bwat47; 10-31-2012, 04:27 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Anaconda problems?

                  That's what she said

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                    Na na na na na naaaa Fedora is going to shit. Ubuntu is the king! Fedora is clearly inferior to Ubuntu and less usable. Now they can't even ship. Good times for debian though... I always felt there were too many distributions. At least 90 percent of them should just die and the devs put effort in the few viable ones. Too many people doing the same thing.
                    Ubuntu is based on Debian and Debian developers are retards.
                    http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/05/1...keys-guessable

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                      [...]Ubuntu is the king! Fedora is clearly inferior to Ubuntu and less usable. [...]
                      Look on the corporation behind it. Which corporation is more successful Red Hat or Canonical? Which is more involved in Open Source advancements? Which has more employees, a bigger business volume, which is in the Top10 of this Forbes list http://www.forbes.com/innovative-companies/, etc.

                      Not Canonical.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ahh... The memories!!!

                        Is like Fedora 5 all over again!! LoL

                        What if a deemed current release lived longer than its stated 12 months due to an increased inter-release cycle? I certainly don't care much about it. Like before, release when it's ready, not before... And if Anaconda is not ready and they need to ship, ship with the previous version instead! Hold off Anaconda for a mid-term release with F18 updated images, if necessary.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                          IMO 6 month release schedules are just silly in the first place, I wish fedora (and ubuntu) would consider having longer time between releases, and more post-release updates/support for existing releases.
                          There is nothing wrong with a 6 months release schedule. Please, do not confuse it with a 6 months development schedule.
                          A 6 months release schedule only means you're supposed to release whatever you have ready every 6 months, including stuff that's been in development for 2-3 years or more. In fact, this separation is crucial. The moment you say "I want this feature in this release", you can have 6 years release schedule and it will still go down the drain; you've essentially made sure you won't ship until the feature is done.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by cbamber85 View Post
                            Is this similar to the issues openSUSE were having post 12.1? They started slipping behind schedules and it eventually led to some soul searching, and then procedural changes within the distro's release management.
                            not really. it's very much the result of a single specific feature: the new installer UI and related changes.

                            what the experience makes clear is that the processes we have are fine for less disruptive features, but weren't really capable of smoothly handling a feature this large and disruptive.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Canonical vs Fedora

                              Canonical has 50 people working on Ubuntu
                              RedHat has 3 working on Fedora.

                              And for everyone else there is Debian?

                              Bad credit card analogy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X