Sadly, To Not Much Surprise, Fedora 24 Alpha Has Been Delayed

[bug77]

I can only speak for my experience regarding the upgrades of Fedora. I had a computer which hat Fedora 18 on it and it upgraded without problems to 19, then to 20, after that to 21, to 22 and to 23. That was the First distribution where upgrades worked for me (debian 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 and (k)ubuntu at around the same time always ended with a non bootable system. I cannot speak for arch though.

Though it would really be good if Fedora would add something like ffmpeg, mpv, obs-studio and other such free stuff to their repository (atleast for the workstation version).

You must be doing it wrong. I've been upgrading Kubuntu for about 10 years without issue. Granted, that doesn't mean it was a flawless experience for everyone, but you having so many issues isn't right either.

[andre30correia]

for some reason, nobody wants fedora in pre-installed machines, they never know when the distro ships, no big news,

and since when arch is stable? it always breaks everything when a big upgrade come to DE, arch is not faster then, it's only a myth and a ilusion

[Mystro256]

What niche does fedora fill in 2016? It's not a bleeding edge distro anymore when you compare it to things like Arch linux. It's not as stable as Debian, and not as user-friendly as Ubuntu.

Also not as fast as Arch (rpm-dnf-slow vs pacman) and not as stable either: I've never had so many things broken due upgrade in Arch as when I did Fedora upgrade, and more, upgrading script broke itself :P

For me, it's security choices are a big one, as Fedora feeds upstream Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and the fact it contributes actively to upstream projects pretty regularly. I generally like their policies more than Debian, or Ubuntu, or Arch.

I also like how it's very vanilla and it's "bleeding edge enough" for me. Arch can be a hard setup, which turns off people, while Fedora tends to make "whole" experience right out of the box. It's probably one of the best for a GNOME user, like myself.

I also like RPM better than the others. dnf still needs work, but its a big step up in performance from yum.

I'm not sure what makes Ubuntu more "User Friendly" than fedora, aside from probably non-free software installation, which something like Korora could be a better fit.

I guess it's worth noting that distro upgrades are probably easier on Ubuntu, but I couldn't say, as I always just distro-sync instead of using whatever GUI method might exists.

[Mystro256]

I can only speak for my experience regarding the upgrades of Fedora. I had a computer which hat Fedora 18 on it and it upgraded without problems to 19, then to 20, after that to 21, to 22 and to 23. That was the First distribution where upgrades worked for me (debian 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 and (k)ubuntu at around the same time always ended with a non bootable system. I cannot speak for arch though.

Though it would really be good if Fedora would add something like ffmpeg, mpv, obs-studio and other such free stuff to their repository (atleast for the workstation version).

Fedora would never add them as its against policy, but that's what RPMFusion is for.

[andre30correia]

For me, it's security choices are a big one, as Fedora feeds upstream Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and the fact it contributes actively to upstream projects pretty regularly. I generally like their policies more than Debian, or Ubuntu, or Arch.

I also like how it's very vanilla and it's "bleeding edge enough" for me. Arch can be a hard setup, which turns off people, while Fedora tends to make "whole" experience right out of the box. It's probably one of the best for a GNOME user, like myself.

I also like RPM better than the others. dnf still needs work, but its a big step up in performance from yum.

I'm not sure what makes Ubuntu more "User Friendly" than fedora, aside from probably non-free software installation, which something like Korora could be a better fit.

I guess it's worth noting that distro upgrades are probably easier on Ubuntu, but I couldn't say, as I always just distro-sync instead of using whatever GUI method might exists.

more easy to setup non free software, nothing more
in other hand arch is nightmare to maintain stable if we use gnome 3

[devius]

Serious question; When was the last fedora release that wasn't delayed?

Technically the whole planning of the entire release schedule beforehand only seems to have started with Fedora 11, so I guess all the others before that were "on time", mainly because there was no schedule.

I can't find a "fedora releases delay overview", but am i right in guessing that there was never a Fedora (since it's named Fedora) release on schedule?

That's right, starting with Fedora 11 no release was ever released on the initial anticipated date. There are a few that were only delayed 1 week, and then there's the Spherical Cow, or Fedora 18, which was delayed 2 months and 1 week, being by far the worst of them all. The usual delay seems to be 1 or 2 weeks, according to the release schedules available here.

[pal666]

What niche does fedora fill in 2016?

it is THE linux

[pal666]

The rest of us are looking at how Canonical does it (i.e. they set some dates and stick to them) and

release piece of shit

[AdamW]

That's what you call it. The rest of us are looking at how Canonical does it (i.e. they set some dates and stick to them) and then decide you're just delaying

Would you prefer we close up the development process and do all the scheduling meetings in private, then only publish the schedule publicly when we're totally sure of it? Because the reason you even know the schedule is changing is that we do it all out in the open so Phoronix can read our IRC logs and then talk about how we're 'delaying' things. We don't *have* to put all this stuff out there, if all we're going to get is rotten fruit for doing it.

[bridgman]

It seems to me there are three options:

1. Be really conservative up front so you can always make your initial goals (ship less than you could have or release early half the time which is almost as bad as releasing late)

2. Operate on a fixed-time basis and adjust features/quality as needed

3. Operate on a fixed-content basis and adjust schedule as needed

From a user perspective I like having some distros operating on fixed-ish-time and others operating on fixed-ish-content, although from a vendor perspective it makes things a bit more complicated.

Ideally we would have better schedule alignment between all the upstream components that feed into distros, and at that point it would probably make sense for most distros to operate on the same model, but until then it's really a matter of choosing between devil A and devil B.