Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: The Future Of Fedora Gets Debated, Again

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Reverting is impossible at this point, I brought that up with AdamW during one of the "Fedora Delayed again" threads. The installer affects too many other packages to just be switched out at random (probably bad design on the devs part since that doesnt seem too Modular but maybe thats just me). The installer is here to stay for better or worse for F18 and up.

    Though yes, it can be fixed in a few ways. Its honestly a little confusing at first.
    Well, no, it's exactly because it _is_ modular that you can't just switch it out. If you want to be able to just switch things out they have to be free-standing. anaconda uses various other bits of the distro, because then we don't have to write things twice. But as a consequence, you can't just throw in an old anaconda build and expect it to work at all.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Research and development, in general, usualy work towards a goal of producing functionality in stages. Why is the current Fedora approach of "When it's done" so bad in this regard? Development itself is 'rolling' upstream, all the time.
    There's nothing wrong with it. It's just that the cycle has come up as a debate. I'm just saying I think a semi-rolling release would probably be a good solution. But if there's nothing wrong with Fedora's current cycle, then by all means they should keep it!

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tancrackers View Post
    There's nothing wrong with it. It's just that the cycle has come up as a debate. I'm just saying I think a semi-rolling release would probably be a good solution. But if there's nothing wrong with Fedora's current cycle, then by all means they should keep it!
    I prefer to think of it more as 'there's something wrong with every possible release cycle' - which is why this debate always goes around in circles and never gets anywhere. There are several things 'wrong' with the current Fedora cycle, but then there are several things 'wrong' with any conceivable replacement as well.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    I prefer to think of it more as 'there's something wrong with every possible release cycle' - which is why this debate always goes around in circles and never gets anywhere. There are several things 'wrong' with the current Fedora cycle, but then there are several things 'wrong' with any conceivable replacement as well.
    What can you say about Chakra Linux development model? It's the closest to "perfect", imho.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtKun View Post
    What can you say about Chakra Linux development model? It's the closest to "perfect", imho.
    I'm not familiar with it, but if I find time, I'll take a look. Thanks for the pointer.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    i've got a solution to the http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/b...ceddeathmarch/.
    it's called bundles and chakra uses it. why can't all the other mainstream distros.
    Colin Walters has been working on something similar called OSTree. IIRC he used some ideas from chakra along with a number of other systems that do similar things.
    I know he's got it working to some extent (that is he has the multiple roots that allow for rollback) but i dont recall where he is with regards to the overall features he is wants.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    I'm not familiar with it, but if I find time, I'll take a look. Thanks for the pointer.
    It is the same as Fedora, only the base system gets freezes, and apps on top of the frozen base are rolling.

    Seems good to me, but then again, why not just fix it with an extra repository?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    tancracker I ment to write "your average newbie user is not using fedora... he is using mint/ubuntu"


    a fedora LTS release would only make sense if fedora was more widely adopted and more newbie friendly.

    enterprise and professional users will go for rhel centos debian, whatevers...

    And I suppose the hardcore will go for arch gentoo whatevers...


    that's what so interesting about fedora, it is clearly the superior linux distro but it doesn't quite know that

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    It is the same as Fedora, only the base system gets freezes, and apps on top of the frozen base are rolling.

    Seems good to me, but then again, why not just fix it with an extra repository?
    Like *BSD ports?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    It is the same as Fedora, only the base system gets freezes, and apps on top of the frozen base are rolling.

    Seems good to me, but then again, why not just fix it with an extra repository?
    The difference is that they update base system once a ~3 month, so the upgrades go smoother and more transparent to users than in Fedora.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •