Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 21 Has Been Delayed Yet Again By Another Week

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

  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by kmare View Post
    They usually wait for the first or second point release of the latest stable release. I think it's working out pretty good overall for a desktop/laptop (at least with my experience).

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases
    thanx for the clearification, been only since a year a fedora guy

    Leave a comment:


  • kmare
    replied
    They usually wait for the first or second point release of the latest stable release. I think it's working out pretty good overall for a desktop/laptop (at least with my experience).

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    Yes thx, 3.16.2

    But did I just feel it wrong or did it took longer than the previes kernels till they gave it free? But ok whatever
    It did "seem" to take a while, but I dont think it acctually took all that long. They only switched the rawhide kernel to 3.17 a little while ago too. So the timing seems about right.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    I did an update yesterday to Fedora 20 and it upgraded to 3.16 give it another try.
    Yes thx, 3.16.2

    But did I just feel it wrong or did it took longer than the previes kernels till they gave it free? But ok whatever

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    If the support for this less releases would be better, I could live with that, then they need a mesa-copr and even longer kernel updates, dont like to be on kernel 3.15 still.

    I am not shure what to think of that, fedora is not supposed to be rocket stable, its the most bleeding edge distro of all, not that is thatfor bad or unstable for everyone, but it has the most aggresive update strategie of any linux I know even arch is more conservative.

    So I dont know if longer releases would help that much. Again on the other hand with getting kernels and firefox updates very aggresive (till 3.15 at least) I dont NEED so much a new version. And yes it has advantages to have less upgrading maintainence time.
    I did an update yesterday to Fedora 20 and it upgraded to 3.16 give it another try.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    Honestly I'd like to see Fedoras move to annual of longer release cycles. On of the reasons I got a Mac for my main system is that system updates are a good year apart and reliable. The constant updating was just getting to me and it isn't always practical to stay on older releases. Pretty much (too much ) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather see them concentrate on good stable releases that have staying power.
    If the support for this less releases would be better, I could live with that, then they need a mesa-copr and even longer kernel updates, dont like to be on kernel 3.15 still.

    I am not shure what to think of that, fedora is not supposed to be rocket stable, its the most bleeding edge distro of all, not that is thatfor bad or unstable for everyone, but it has the most aggresive update strategie of any linux I know even arch is more conservative.

    So I dont know if longer releases would help that much. Again on the other hand with getting kernels and firefox updates very aggresive (till 3.15 at least) I dont NEED so much a new version. And yes it has advantages to have less upgrading maintainence time.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Honestly I'd like to see Fedoras move to annual of longer release cycles. On of the reasons I got a Mac for my main system is that system updates are a good year apart and reliable. The constant updating was just getting to me and it isn't always practical to stay on older releases. Pretty much (too much ) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather see them concentrate on good stable releases that have staying power.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by maslascher View Post
    That is good decision. This whole Wayland thing including new Gnome is working better in Arch, tested myself.
    I cant agree to that, except u mean only gnome under wayland I cant say much about that, but gnome it self worked better in fedora, when I tested it. was way less buggy and more responsive in fedora 20 than in archlinux.

    To the news:

    I dont care to much, because I am not using gnome anymore, and also no other broken desktop that need wayland to get fixed. (3d stuff). as a i3wm user I really dont see any advantages archlinux or even fedora 21 bring for me. I get the newest kernels (at least till recently, that stopped now, maybe they should release newer kernels for fc20 now when fc21 takes longer) So what would I miss? I am using emacs 24.3, 24.4 is not out yet (will it ever get released ).

    The current gnome release is there in a copr for fc20, so who would miss it? Wayland testers? there I think waiting only can help because its not very likely it never got announced that it would be production ready. If they maybe suprisingly get production ready, in the meaning that here and there are some small rugh edges but still for many a improvement and usable for their production systems, that would nearly a wonder and if they use this few weeks to pull that off, great for them.

    I am a bit biased in direction of time-based releases, but if u dont be so strict like ubuntu is with basicly no automatic updates of components like firefox or kernel, u dont need it that much.

    The other 2 packages I care a bit are mesa and xbmc, xbmc get also updates from rpm-fusion, and the newer mesa look pretty boring for amd apu users. Yes for people that want to use it for their gaming grafics card maybe this mesa was more important, but then first I would try to pinn the new mesa version from fc21 into fc20 if I need not more, and if that does not work just update to fedora 21.

    The Version numbers are primary important for the installers, but the upgrade mechanism should be working I think? At least I never had big issues upgrading to ubuntu alpha versions.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 12 September 2014, 11:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • justmy2cents
    replied
    Originally posted by Anvil View Post
    might s well go over to OpenSuse, least 13.2 will kinda be on time this year, dunno if F21 will cme out this year or next , BE PREPARED FOR ANOTHER SLIP GUYS
    i couldn't care less if they slip 5 or 10 more times as long as fedora won't pull FC2. FC2 pulled big move on time and look how it worked out. ever since then i don't care how many times they slip as long as they finally deliver the same quality as it was in most releases.

    Leave a comment:


  • maslascher
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Working better than what?
    Gnome on Wayland and Weston IMO works better on Arch Linux than on Fedora Rawhide. Now understandable?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X