On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 19:56, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Is GNOME an acronym? I've always referred to it as Gnome, but I'm
> beginning to notice that GNOME seems to be more "officially" correct.
> Why is that?
(from memory)
GNU Network Object Modeling Environment
GNOME 2 is a full-up CORBA system that seconds as an integrated
session+file+window manager. But it is far more flexible with
non-Metacity window managers than say KDE is without KWM.
GNOME 3 is making the switch to the .NET development system. Not
speaking for him, but Miguel deIcaza seemingly considers Microsoft's
.NET framework more appropriate for desktops than CORBA. I agree with
him. GNOME 3 will still maintain some CORBA capability, but .NET is
clearly the future of GNOME 3.
> That's to be expected from what has been the corporate Linux flagship
> for years. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the limelight-gathering
> example of something SHOULD be the most critically examined, so long as
> it is done with precision and accuracy. Thus, I tend to find critiques
> by reasonable Linux users to be more desirable and informative than the
> FUD presented by pretty much every Windows-only user that has a critique
> to offer.
The problem is that I see the same repeat as I see with Microsoft.
Common assumptions about Red Hat turned into fact. For example, the
change in "corporate strategy" with Fedora. That change was made *2*
_years_ earlier, when SLAs for SuSE Linux Enterprise Server were
massively outselling SLAs in Red Hat Linux 6.2"E" (Red Hat's attempt to
sell SLAs for its single product line). That's when Red Hat "gave in"
to the "separate Enterprise product" model that SuSE introduced, because
its consumers told it to with its dollars.
The Fedora Project was just the final end to a series of issues of a
split strategy -- one that ultimately solved everything for the best.
It's biggest proponents are the ones who called for it -- 80% of Red Hat
itself (the developers ;-). Personnel-wise, understand Red Hat is one
big, huge GPL community development project (note _GPL_ always ;-), who
are living off of IPO dollars. At the same time, they've managed to
break even ever since they purchased Cygnus, who was operating heavily
in the red (and had more in _profit_ than _all_ commercial Linux vendors
put together had in just _revenue_ at the time of acquitiion).
> . . . but every piece of information should be examined on its own
> merits, and not simply discarded or otherwise devalued solely based on
> the vector of its introduction to a discussion. That, I think, is the
> point here. It was certainly one of my points of contention with you.
The problem is that no matter how I say something, people start
questioning it. I can be short and sweet, and say I've installed Fedora
Core in as little as 24MB, but it is dismissed.
I _regularly_ install Fedora Core on 64MB systems with 0 existing swap.
> I seem to recall two issues in particular that arose where the problem
> only seemed to present itself when using Fedora Core 2 with kernel 2.6.
> People doing similar things in other distributions didn't seem to have
> this problem.
Everyone *I* saw plagued Mandrake Linux 10 and Suse Linux 9.1 too, and
still do in Mandrake 10.1 as well. But because people tend to only look
at Red Hat, because it's not "as fun" to point at Mandrake or SuSE, they
are considered "Fedora Core" bugs.
> Granted, that might only be because of the software being
> used in the Fedora Core 2 examples being different from the software
> being used in other distributions, but if that problematic software
> combination was default installation behavior for Fedora Core 2, there
> is a legitimate concern regarding use of Fedora Core 2 that needs to be
> addressed.
If you're referring to issues with buggy, non-compliant Enhanced Int10h
BIOS services, _both_ Mandrake Linux 10.x _and_ SuSE Linux 9.1 use both
kernel 2.6 and parted and have the _same_ issues as Fedora Core 2+.
> I'm not saying this makes FC2 any less valuable, though. Don't
> misunderstand this as an attack on FC2, especially since (based on the
> relative quiet since the initial barrage of complaints) it would seem
> that the problems have been rectified in some manner.
The problem is that far too many people complain about it, and call it a
Fedora Core problem, even after people like myself (who support _many)
distros) note Mandrake, SuSE, etc... have the exact same issues.
> Fedora devotees tend to scoff at how "out of date" Debian can be.
Who? Please point me to one?
> Problems of the significance that arose eary in the FC2 release don't
> seem to present themselves with Debian, though.
Fedora Core 2 is a ".0" revision. Red Hat _always_ changes things up in
a ".0" release. Fedora Core 1 had far fewer issues than Red Hat Linux 9
and, especially, 8, because it was a ".2" revision, whereas the other
two were ".1" and ".0," respectively.
One thing you seem to keep missing is that I am _not_ comparing Fedora
to Debian, but _you_are_! I will discuss Fedora when it comes up. But
I will _not_ discuss Debian, because I haven't used it seriously other
than installing Xandros (Sarge-based) in the last year.
> Both of these characteristics of Debian (relative to Fedora) are, I
> believe, a direct result of the very thorough testing that all
> packages go through before inclusion in the Debian distribution.
Debian has a 3 step release cycle.
Fedora Core, like Red Hat Linux before it, has a 3 step release cycle.
Heck, so does Mandrake.
People will differ on their views of how "well" this is done.
I don't comment on Debian because I'm not involved with it anymore. But
it _is_ very sound. I don't deny that.
But I really _dislike_ Debian users who do _not_ use Fedora talking
about "Fedora must be poorly tested because releases are so quick."
They said the _same_things_ back when Red Hat Linux was around.
Heck, there are still people talking about Red Hat Linux 5.0 and 7.0.
GLibC 2 (RHL5.0) only through the _biggest_ wrench into Linux and GCC
2.96/3 _forced_ ANSI C++ compliance for the first time. That's why Red
Hat _continued_ to support Red Hat Linux 4.2 _throughout_ the _entire_
Red Hat Linux 5.x series, and Red Hat was _still_ supporting Red Hat
Linux 5.2 when Red Hat Linux 7.0 was release (as well as all Red Hat
Linux 6.x releases).
For a company "all about the money," that's pretty good. It continues
today, although Fedora Legacy _only_ supports Red Hat Linux 7.3 and
Fedora Core 1 (as well as Red Hat Linux 9, although that might end soon
since Fedora Core 1 is the same version, but a more stable revision).
I stopped supporting Mandrake after 8.1/9.0, so I have even curbed my
comments on its as of late.
> There are drawbacks to both approaches, to be sure: I just happen to
> prefer the Debian approach to that of Fedora.
How can you say that when you don't even know what the Fedora approach
is? That's my problem!
I'm not chastizing Debian either way. I'm not one to comment on the
"release frequency" of Debian either. But I think there's something
_good_ to be said about Red Hat's over _8_ year _proven_ model of 6
month community release with 3-4+ years of community updates. It dates
back all the way to Red Hat Linux 4.0 (1996Oct08).
At any time, there is a fully 6 month cycle, with 2 months stages, of:
Development (fka Rawhide) -- Individual Package Testing
Test (fka Beta) -- Distribution Integration Testing
Core (fka Linux) -- Release
It's well respected. After 18 months, by the time ".2" hits, its _very_
stable. In fact, I rather tire of people not recognizing this fact --
that Fedora Core 1 (community) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
(commerical) are currently the "most stable releases."
The existence of Fedora Core 2 and, now, Fedora Core 3 shouldn't be used
"against" Red Hat as "hey, you are unstable." If you want the ultimate
stability, stick with the last ".2" (or ".3") release. There are still
updates being made to Red Hat Linux 7.3 too! ;->
> Once the initial learning curve for Debian use is overcome, Debian tends
> to be hassle-free in comparison with (most) other distributions. That
> being the case, I prefer a reliably working computer over bleeding-edge
> bragging rights. I understand that this statement is oversimplified: I
> don't intend it as an accurate representation of all the applicable
> facts. I only intend it as a summation of my own opinion on the matter.
An opinion based on what you perceive about Fedora Core, not actual
usage and support of the product. That's the problem.
> In any case, I welcome your opinion and knowledge when well-presented.
> I don't even mind tangents, as they at least are reasonable branchings
> of the discussion at hand. What bothers me is your tendency to be
> contentious when simply being informative is a simple option, and your
> tendency at times to go one step further than a tangent and simply
> appropriate a thread for something effectively off-topic.
> I'm trying to be polite, respectful, and helpful here. This is intended
> as constructive criticism. Please take it as such.
Fedora users keep on using Fedora, no matter how much people say they
shouldn't, or the various "Fedora-only" bugs or other so-called "common
knowledge."
Ironically, some of the biggest followers and supporters of Fedora are
those in the Debian camp, and vice-versa. The Progeny guys, including
Debian Prime Ian Murdock, are great!
Same goes for GNOME and KDE. There is so much GNOME v. KDE crap stirred
up, especially when Red Hat's Blue Curve theme came out, that 90% of the
community didn't seem to care to listen. I don't know how many times I
got a sigh of relief from someone when they said, "You mean Blue Curve
is just a theme and that's all?"
It's funny, but all this "versus" in the community actually does one
great big _disservice_ to those developers who _do_ work together.
I call myself a Fedora bigot, but it's almost is sarcasm compared to how
much I _only_ comment about Fedora because I support it mainly, and not
other distros, while others seem to be experts on "all" distros --
especially anything Red Hat. ;->
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:19:57 EDT