No announcement yet.

Alan Cox Calls Fedora 18 "The Worst Red Hat Distro"

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
    Its only stupid if you think everyone is an idiot. Thankfully there are distros that don't treat their users as idiots.

    Again logging in as root is not stupid or horrible.
    Logging into the desktop as root is never correct, as it causes all kinds of processes which are not intended to run as root and do likely do not have proper protection against running as root to run as root. Logging into a console as root is of course fine, though some would argue sudo is a superior model.


    • Originally posted by tomato View Post
      Sorry, but it does make sense to have a log out, always, it means: close local applications, leave computer ready for remote access. (Also: restart X server gracefully)

      If you have read carefully, no logout applies for the case where there is a single user and a single desktop environment.
      What you described above means testing yourself and see if there is no logout when starting from console mode.


      • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        I just fucking love the justification level this guy reaches: look! Others have problems too! Look at Ubuntu! They have bugs too! We have bugs in previous releases so why shouldn't we have bugs in this one? Bugs are perfectly normal! I mean what is so wrong with having bugs? You should learn to cherish your bugs! Learn to live with them, learn from them, accept them! They are OK! You are OK! See? You are both OK! Marry your bugs! Love them! Learn to be patient and solve your bugs instead of doing your work! Everybody has bugs! Why should we be below them and have less?
        If that was the only thing you got out of his post you clearly were not reading it well enough.

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        There are billions of combinations of hardware! Why do you think it should work? It shouldn't! If the last past 3 releases it didn't work it's because you weren't lucky! Not our fault at all! Why should we be expected to actually test code on different machines? It's insane, think of the billions of combinations!
        They do test their code on different machines. That is why they put out Alphas and Betas. That is why AdamW actually does work for QA. But even that will only cover a small fraction of the machines the system is likely to be ran on.

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        And in a different note: You rewrote the installer? Bwhahahaha! RULE NUMBER 0: NEVER REWRITE APPLICATIONS FROM GROUND UP! I thought you knew this stuff! They teach this shit early when you learn coding for christ sake. Everytime there is a new idiot thinking that he is better and starts to rewrite an application thinking this time it will be better, and in the end, after trillions of bugs and frustrated users that leave his product, he ends up where he was before he begun!
        I somehow doubt that this was done completely from the ground up, but even if it was, they posted a very lengthy and reasonable rationale as to why this was necessary and followed a very strict and cohesive road-map. It was not like, as you assert, some kid came in and brashly claimed they could do this better. That kid sounds a bit like you though.

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        That maintenance thing is just bullshit. Learn to use interfaces so that when implementations change you can still have your old functionality. I wonder how incompetent can you be. Then I realize this is Red Hat we're talking about....
        I thought it was explained that it was because of the way that the old Anaconda used it's interfaces that it became problematic to maintain. Maybe I got that impression because I actually went through all of his posts?

        BO$$ - always grabbing on to one easily demonstrated false assumption and running with it.


        • Now he got mad and quit his job. At least Greg H found out this wonderful distro called Archlinux, smart man!


          • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            Oh yes, it is.
            I want to see your bugreports to prove it.

            You are somewhat right in that Fedora may be a bit more flakey then Ubuntu, but my experience is that that is because Fedora actually fixes teir bugs in between releases. Sometimes that introduces new regressions. But they are pretty fast on resolving those IF you report them.
            That said, Fedora may not be what you want to run at your company productivity 24/7 server unless you know what you are doing. But most Fedora people I meet tend to run CentOS there if they do not have a reason to pay for support.
            Fedora is the more "set up a test server and see how you may handle that migration lurking on the horizon".


            • What ever happens to Fedora (and for all Linuxes), it's still 1000000000000000000000 times better then BSD


              • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                So a couple of reasons...

                1. the oldUI code was not cleanly separated from the backend, they were pretty much tied together.
                2. the old UI kinda sucked. I mean, it wasn't good. Re-doing it has been on the table for a while. Just because the new UI has some teething problems doesn't mean the old one exactly cured cancer - tell me http://media.if-not-true-then-false....ation-type.png is a great screen, for instance (lots of people got *used* to it, but take a step back and tell me it's an awesome screen). Or the screen you got when you clicked on 'Change device' on http://media.if-not-true-then-false....oot-loader.png (sadly not pictured in that walkthrough), that was awesome. Or my favourite giant ball of win, and pretty much where Mo started seriously looking at the installer design: .

                If you read through the archives of Mo's blog at , which I really highly recommend doing, you can see where a lot of the newUI design came from, and a lot of the problems Mo identified in the old design. It's not just redesign for redesign's sake. The post on creating a RAID /home is particularly interesting when it comes to the new partitioning approach - .
                Hah, well, I have the benefit here in that I have never actually seen the old Anaconda (Well, I suppose I have, but it was so long ago I forgot all about it). So, looking at the screens of the old UI you showed here, I can see how they would be sub-optimal, but by no means impossible to understand. The installation type selection screen is pretty clear, if not for those checkboxes at the bottom, and I would never choose anything else than custom partitioning, anyway (because you can never be sure what the automatic options would do). The warning is quite severe though, I'll agree with that.

                I read through that post, and urgh. The solution feels like demolishing a building and rebuilding it anew, just because the door was too small. Even in those mockups, the design is completely counter-intuitive... If I want to have a partitioning scheme, I would like to see partitions. Not buffets in an RPG. The selections there feel a lot like the old installation type selection, except that it has no "manual" button. It's hard to tell what exactly will be done. Now the part with RAID options is pretty good, that's true, but everything around it contains no useful information... I'd say that the ideal approach should have been fixing the suboptimal choices in the old UI, without throwing the whole concept out. Make it an evolution of the UI, not a revolution. But I suppose nothing can be done about it now. Well, except for making it intuitive again, of course, and I think there will be plenty of ideas on how to do it now, since the first version is out.

                Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                Logging into the desktop as root is never correct, as it causes all kinds of processes which are not intended to run as root and do likely do not have proper protection against running as root to run as root. Logging into a console as root is of course fine, though some would argue sudo is a superior model.
                The superior model is polkit. And I'd really like to see it implemented into YaST, actually. There was that time when Linus said that it was crazy that you needed root privileges to set up a printer, and he was right, but then it's the whole root privilege model that is flawed to begin with. When opening YaST (or Mageia control center, or any equivalent configuration tool), you usually need to give a root password in order to get to the needed options - and that's again silly, because you are not yet doing anything that requires any privileges. Viewing options should not be restricted like that. It's only applying the options that should require them. And even then, only specific privileges, not privileges to do whatever the tool may please.

                So I see the optimal workflow as opening the setup tool, selecting all the needed options, and once that's done, hit a big "Apply" button which then gives a summary of what you changed and what privileges will giving the password grant the program. If you have not changed partitioning, the program should not be allowed to make changes to the partition table, that's only natural. If you see it requiring more than that, then the application must be malfunctioning or compromised. So in the end you need to enter the password only once, and you know exactly what the program will do.


                • Originally posted by eliac View Post
                  Remember: logout by default is not shown if there's a single user and only the Gnome shell session is available.
                  At least one poster in this thread has confirmed that this is not the case.

                  Originally posted by eliac View Post
                  Really, that's what this silly fuss is about: a default that makes sense for the less techincal user and that whoever needs differently can override in about 30 seconds. The computer version of "first world problems", I'd say
                  What users point out is things that used to just work are now hidden behind obscure configuration options. The continued dumbing down of the interface until it is useful for exactly nobody. Hiding complexity from the user in a way that makes the system actually more complex and less predictable (remember the disappearing shutdown option issue from the dedoimedo review).

                  Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                  "Fedora 17 had an installer that worked just fine. So you could have continued to use that, and optionally provide your new installer to those who want to test it."

                  That's not how things work in practice at all. You are by all means free to confirm this for yourself: take the Fedora 17 installer, plop it down in the Fedora 18 package set, and try to build an installer image. Ten to one it won't even compose, but on the offchance that it does, the composed image will _certainly_ be entirely busted. It won't work at all and will probably eat babies.
                  Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail.

                  Of course past a point where the old installer was abandoned and unmaintained you cannot just go back to it. The backup plan needed to be in place and made sure to work during the whole development cycle. The lack of backup plan meant that you were now out of options and stuck with the new installer.

                  Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                  "You could have recommended users to ditch the installer altogether and link to a document instead which describes manual partitioning + febootstrap as the preferred install method (Gentoo does it like this, and Arch has recently adopted this way too)"

                  That's...interesting, but really not in line with how Fedora rolls, I don't think. It would have been just too drastic for a single release.
                  I don't agree. Admitting that you cannot recommend this installer because it does not yet meet the quality that users expect, and promising to deliver something better in the following release would have certainly been met with understanding rather than rants and angry critiques.

                  Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                  newUI really isn't that terrible, you know; quite a few people have been saying 'it worked fine for me, I don't get the fuss'.

                  "You could have labeled Fedora 18 as "Forever Beta" and not make it an official release, just something for the interested."

                  That again would have been a valid approach, but I'm not sure it buys us a lot. At this point we have the same product and it's just about massaging the messaging. That's something we already tried to do with the release announcement and other release documentation, and see how much slack that's bought us.
                  I do think that some psychology is at play here.
                  newUI is bad enough for some high-profile users to switch to another distro. How is that not terrible? Remember these are not users who are indifferent towards the distro they use, they have chosen Fedora and put trust in your releases. Now they feel that their trust has been betrayed.

                  And that people don't read the release documentation should not come as a surprise. Look, says "Fedora 18" in large letters so they think that is what you want them to download and install. The release announcement is not even linked from that page afaict.


                  • The privilage model is not flawed, but not perfect either. That is why Fedora has SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux), that implements MAC (Mandatory Acces Control).

                    You should not even have to run anything as root, except some commands, in which case "su" in a terminal is better than "sudo", because with sudo you either constantly have to type the damn sudo command, or automatically get root rights for a period of time, so the user looses track of what commands run as root, and what runs as user. Better just have a root terminal where one can be sure what commands will run as root and what commands run as user.


                    • And what the hell is a "high-profile user"? Someone who uses his computer for a lot more than just simple avarege tasks? I would expect that 'power users' would know how to get around a simple fscking installer... :S