Mark
Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is imposed, one is often negative, but when one chooses, then one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs. I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or perhaps even more, given your explanation.
Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in Fedora-list. :)
Leslie
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org wrote:
From: Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org Subject: Re: WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!! To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 4:14 PM
Mike Chalmers wrote:
As I said above I am sorry for the initial RANT. Thank you to all for your patience and help.
I have been looking into ARCH, which someone, mentioned above, and I think their philosophy towards Linux is, quite good, a rolling release. It is harder to work with initially seeing as it does not have a graphical install process. It is a minimal installation, which I like, and you install only what you want after the minimal installation. It also releases the latest packages usually in 1 day or 2. Didn't know that there was a distro like ARCH.
For the question above, I do like to stay up to date, and the GUI matters a pretty good bit to me. I love the changes that KDE made, with their GUI, when they went to 4 and now to 4.2!
I have to throw my 2 cents worth in. I have to agree that doing a full upgrade every 6-8 months gets tiresome when you have a dozen or so machines running it. However, preupgrade does seem to help that a lot and it's getting better with oddball setups like some I have.
That said, rolling updates are the way to go. No need for continual upgrades to 'releases' just update to the latest version of a package and be done with it. I'm just not sure a 'major release' design is the way to go any longer. With internet access the way it is, why not just do rolling updates?
Personally this is why I use gentoo more and more. No need to download an ISO or anything of the sort, just switch to a new profile, update the needed packages and you are at the latest 'release'. Then, update packages as they are released as stable. (or as ~arch in the gentoo world).
Nothing else makes as much sense to me in the open source world that isn't a 'paid' or 'enterprise' edition.
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com Subject: End of Saga WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!! To: " encouragement and advice for using Fedora.Community assistance" fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 7:04 PM Mark
Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is imposed, one is often negative, but when one chooses, then one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs. I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or perhaps even more, given your explanation.
Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in Fedora-list. :)
Leslie
Not even close :(
Not even the KDE* flames/RANTS were that long :), this one is the thread to beat --->
http://www.nabble.com/Why-is-Fedora-not-a-Free-GNU-Linux-distributions--td18...
Yes, you can thank me for reminding you :)
How can I forget it? I saw somewhat a smaller version of it in Distrowatch Weekly comments section, but nowhere the glamor, glory that can be found here :)
Regards,
Antonio
On Monday 09 February 2009 23:37:43 Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com Subject: End of Saga WHY I WANT TO STOP USING FEDORA!!! To: " encouragement and advice for using Fedora.Community assistance" fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 7:04 PM Mark
Be happy with your eventual choice. When some software is imposed, one is often negative, but when one chooses, then one is happy, and the complaints are about bugs. I am sure that your choice is as bug free as is Fedora, or perhaps even more, given your explanation.
Regards and thank you for I guess is the longest thread in Fedora-list. :)
Leslie
Not even close :(
Not even the KDE* flames/RANTS were that long :), this one is the thread to beat --->
http://www.nabble.com/Why-is-Fedora-not-a-Free-GNU-Linux-distributions--td1 8426601i760.html
Yes, you can thank me for reminding you :)
How can I forget it? I saw somewhat a smaller version of it in Distrowatch Weekly comments section, but nowhere the glamor, glory that can be found here :)
Regards,
Antonio
oh wow, that's one big huge fat immense enormous thread!
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST) Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
With internet access the way it is, why not just do rolling updates?
Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the package you want to install.
Charles Crayne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST) Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
With internet access the way it is, why not just do rolling updates?
Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the package you want to install.
One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora. A ridiculous number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous. But, again, what's it like when a new release comes out? It's 500+MB of updates. With rolling updates it's possible to scale that down, I think.
Mark Haney wrote:
Charles Crayne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST) Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
With internet access the way it is, why not just do rolling updates?
Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the package you want to install.
One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora. A ridiculous number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous.
You are in error. These deps aren't there for fun, but for technical necessity.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Mark Haney wrote:
Charles Crayne wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:04:16 -0800 (PST) Leslie Satenstein lsatenstein@yahoo.com wrote:
With internet access the way it is, why not just do rolling updates?
Sounds good, until the day when yum identifies 473 dependencies for the package you want to install.
One of those other buggers I don't like about Fedora. A ridiculous number of dependencies that (to me, mind you) seem superfluous.
You are in error. These deps aren't there for fun, but for technical necessity.
Ralf
Oh? And how come I can install the same set of software in Gentoo and not need an extra 50+MB of dependencies? I wish I had an example at the moment, but I don't. However, I'm sure one will pop up sooner or later.
2009/2/10 Mark Haney mhaney@ercbroadband.org:
Oh? And how come I can install the same set of software in Gentoo and not need an extra 50+MB of dependencies? I wish I had an example at the moment, but I don't. However, I'm sure one will pop up sooner or later.
Because gentoo builds from source on your local machine, building in support for componenets as specified by your USE flags, whereas Fedora is a binary distribution, and dependencies are generated during the building of those binaries.
Now, why don't my apples taste like oranges?
Jonathan.
Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Because gentoo builds from source on your local machine, building in support for componenets as specified by your USE flags, whereas Fedora is a binary distribution, and dependencies are generated during the building of those binaries.
Now, why don't my apples taste like oranges?
Jonathan.
Bollocks. I am quite aware of the differences between the two distros. Do not insult my intelligence. The point I'm making is that some dependencies seem unnecessary. (Again, I'm unable to come up with a specific example at the moment, since I'm at work, but I'm sure there will be a post shortly that says 'why do I need this to install this?')
Adding all those dozens upon dozens of dependencies in just result in bloated binaries and lowered performance because of that. Surely, NOT including the 'kitchensink' dependency will cut down on the size of binaries. Not to mention lowering the bloat on a system.
Mark Haney wrote:
Bollocks. I am quite aware of the differences between the two distros. Do not insult my intelligence. The point I'm making is that some dependencies seem unnecessary. (Again, I'm unable to come up with a specific example at the moment, since I'm at work, but I'm sure there will be a post shortly that says 'why do I need this to install this?')
Adding all those dozens upon dozens of dependencies in just result in bloated binaries and lowered performance because of that. Surely, NOT including the 'kitchensink' dependency will cut down on the size of binaries. Not to mention lowering the bloat on a system.
I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.
You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when you are installing the GUI.
If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other programs to perform a specific task...
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.
My point is that including virtually every compile option in every package means the system links to many more libraries than are probably needed. I know some compromise for 'desktop use' has to be made and I understand that. But including dependencies for every media player out there seems silly. Does that make a little more sense with where my train of thought is going? If not, don't worry, my wife doesn't understand me either.
You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when you are installing the GUI.
If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other programs to perform a specific task...
Personally I like the 'one task and do it well' philosophy. We've seen the fun that is M$ and it's joke of an OS in Vista. trying to be everything to everybody and doing none of those things particularly well. But that is for another thread, methinks.
Mikkel
Mark Haney wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.
My point is that including virtually every compile option in every package means the system links to many more libraries than are probably needed. I know some compromise for 'desktop use' has to be made and I understand that. But including dependencies for every media player out there seems silly. Does that make a little more sense with where my train of thought is going? If not, don't worry, my wife doesn't understand me either.
I have not seen that. What I have seen is several media players having the same dependencies, so you only have to drag them in when you install the first medial player. On the other hand, I have seen GUIs that require more then one CLI media player - usually because the GUI will work as the front end for more then one CLI media player. I am not sure how to handle installing the GUI first, but installing it after the CLI program(s) should let it install without requiring the other ones. I think it can be built that way. (Like you can have Sendmail or Postfix installed, and fill the requirement for a MTA.
You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when you are installing the GUI.
If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other programs to perform a specific task...
Personally I like the 'one task and do it well' philosophy. We've seen the fun that is M$ and it's joke of an OS in Vista. trying to be everything to everybody and doing none of those things particularly well. But that is for another thread, methinks.
I do as well. But that may be because I started with the CLI and I am still comfortable with it. Shell scripts are fun!
Mikkel
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:10:04 -0500 "Mark Haney" mhaney@ercbroadband.org wrote:
It's 500+MB of updates. With rolling updates it's possible to scale that down, I think.
Your post makes it seem like Fedora does not do any rolling updates. I haven't been keeping an exact count, but since F10's release, I'm pretty sure that I have installed several hundred updated packages, totaling over 500MB in size. By the time that F11 is released, I expect that more than half of the original F10 packages will have been updated. In addition, many of the F11 packages will be subsequently repackaged for F10, which will still be supported for about another six months.
Having said that, however, I agree that there is still room for improvement