Re: [SLUG] Re: OT: picked up a screw around rig today

From: Chad Perrin (perrin@apotheon.com)
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 22:58:41 EST


Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> (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.

Thanks for the information.

For clarity: I take it that when you refer to switching GNOME to .NET,
you mean by way of Mono. Yes? As I understand it, .NET is the Windows
platform implementation of a development framework specification, and
Mono is the Unix implementation of that same framework spec. Please
correct me if I'm off-base.

>
>
>>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).

Understood. I agree that enshrining misconceptions as commonly accepted
"facts" is an unfortunate reality, but it's not something you can
effectively combat by jumping all over the cases of people that are
discussing the various knowledge (right or wrong) that they've come by.
  Only if someone maliciously propagates lies should he or she be
personally attacked on the matter. Otherwise, the proper approach is
simply to calmly explain where the misconceptions are incorrect.

>
>
>>. . . 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.

You seem to suffer a strange misconception of your own here.
"Questioned" is not the same as "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.

To be perfectly fair, I saw no discussion of how SuSE or Mandrake recent
offerings compared to FC2 as regards the major complaints, though I did
see a great many people discuss having no such problems with Gentoo,
Slackware, or Debian. Unfortunately, I still don't know why that divide
seemed to exist.

While my memory isn't entirely clear on what these issues were, I seem
to remember that one very big problem involved GRUB and dual-booting.
Do you have some brief summation of the issue that would explain what
exactly the problem is, and why this difficulty didn't seem to affect
many users of leaner distributions? Is it perhaps related to KDE and/or
GNOME being present as a default GUI environment? I don't know how it
could be, but I figure I may as well ask, since I don't know exactly
WHAT the problem was.

>
>
>>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+.

Was the combination of Parted, the 2.6 kernel, and a buggy BIOS the
problem, then? I don't happen to recall what Debian, Slackware, and
Gentoo use as their installation partitioning software, off the top of
my head, but that would make sense.

In any case, I heard about as much more complaints about Fedora in this
regard as I typically hear of Fedora discussion and use in general, as
compared with Mandrake and SuSE. The fact that there are more Fedora
users than Mandrake and SuSE users that I hear from probably has some
relation to the fact that I heard a lot of complaints about Fedora's
growing pains in regards to the 2.6 kernel, and little or nothing about
the same problems in SuSE and Mandrake.

>
>
>>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.

If there are more people using Fedora that are likely to comment on it
in general, and Fedora suffers at least as common an incidence of
problems as the others, there will of course be more people complaining
about problems with Fedora. It's a basic statistical truth.

>
>
>>Fedora devotees tend to scoff at how "out of date" Debian can be.
>
>
> Who? Please point me to one?

. . .

You're kidding, right? You expect me to give you email addresses, or
something?

Gentoo, Fedora, and Mandrake users often tend to consider Debian to be
chronically out of date, in my experience. That's just the way it is.
It's possible that your experience differs -- in fact, I'd say it's
extremely likely -- but that makes sense since you aren't (primarily) a
Debian user (these days). You won't hear the "my favorite distro"
arguments in terms of what's "wrong" with your favorite distribution
from Fedora users because your favorite distribution is, apparently, Fedora.

Keep in mind that your experiences aren't universal. You have a narrow
slice of perspective on issues that tend to look very different to
different people, depending on where they stand on those issues. You
are in a position to hear greatly differing relative volumes of
commentary based on various perspectives than others, who aren't
standing in exactly the same place as you, are. Keep that in mind when
you start arguing with someone who says they tend to hear certain things
from Fedora users.

>
>
>>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.

I'm just using Debian as my basis for perspective. I speak from the
direction of that which I know. Rather than make absolutist statements
about Fedora, I just say "This is what I've observed, relative to my
experience with Debian. What are your thoughts?" Don't try to turn
this into a case of me making Fedora out to be the "bad guy". Go back
and re-read all my careful disclaimers about how I'm not trying to say
anything bad about Fedora.

Jeebus Cries, man, you just seem absolutely incapable of reading
anything I say that mentions Fedora without perceiving it as an attack.
  It's not. I have no interest in attacking Fedora. In fact, I
referred to the Debian approach to package inclusion in terms of both
its benefits and its detriments. I'm taking what I think to be a fairly
objective, balanced approach to this.

Don't pick a fight over imagined slights.

>
>
>>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.

Your attitude, as stated here, makes sense. If you're trying to equate
me with someone that says "Fedora must be poorly tested because releases
are so quick," however, you need to reevaluate the matter. I said no
such thing, nor implied any such thing. All I really said is that
Debian apparently sacrifices a certain amount of cutting-edge-ness for
greater stability.

>

[snip]

>>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 know a fair amount of detail about the Fedora approach. Much of it
comes from what YOU have said in this mailing list. Even as some of
what you say might serve to underscore my respect for the Fedora
development process, it also tends to simultaneously support my own
taste for Debian.

You have gone on at great length about how the Fedora revision and
versioning process works and, based on that as well as some information
gleaned from other sources, I prefer the approach of Debian. You seem
to assume that just because I don't use Fedora and don't know as much
about it as you that I am incapable of knowing ANYTHING about it.
That's simply not the case.

If I really didn't know ANYTHING about how Fedora did things, I wouldn't
have any reason to prefer Debian. The fact that I prefer Debian, and am
not a complete friggin' moron, should indicate to you that I at least
know enough about Fedora to be less interested in it than Debian.

>
> 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).

I don't dispute that. Like I said, I'm not claiming that Debian's
approach is "better" (other than in particular areas, just as Fedora's
is surely "better" in other particular areas), only that Debian's
approach appeals to me more than Fedora's.

>
> 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.

I'm sure that's with good reason. I never said there was anything wrong
with Fedora's development model.

>

[snip]

>>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.

No, not "an opinion based on what I perceive about Fedora Core". I
never said anything about Fedora in that paragraph. Please parse again
for instances of "Fedora" appearing, if you don't believe me. That was
a very generalized statement. My reasons for preferring Debian over
Fedora tend to be in other areas than stability, since for the most part
I don't know anything about comparative stability in Fedora.

My reasons for preferring Debian over Fedora, as I've mentioned many
many times before, center around package management, installation
process, and "kitchen sink" versus "lean" approaches to default system
configuration. These are all matters of personal taste, not of
technical superiority. Please stop trying to pigeonhole me as a hater
of Fedora. I don't hate Fedora. I go out of my way to avoid making
slanderous or libelous statements about Fedora. I even recommend it to
people that I think it would serve well.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like what you are
insinuating I have said.

>
>
>>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."

So much for taking what I said in the spirit in which it was offered.

Here you go again. . . .

>
> 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!

I know. I'm not sure I see how that is ironic, though. Fedora and
Debian both seem to be very solid, very respectable, very different
approaches to Linux. Each has its strengths. It's good to have
choices. What's so ironic about that?

Yes, I know you were referring to the fact that there are some on both
sides of that fence that take potshots at those on the other side, and
in that sense I know what you meant in your use of the term
"ironically". I'm just expressing my own opinion on the matter, which
is that, fundamentally, there's no reason (as far as I'm aware) the two
groups shouldn't be mutually supportive.

>
> 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?"

I don't even know anything about Blue Curve. I prefer the KDE interface
over the GNOME interface, but it's for purely non-technical reasons. I
don't know enough about either to be able to make any strong technical
judgments in a comparison of the two. I only know enough to make strong
technical judgments in a comparison between them and the window managers
I prefer over them both.

--
Chad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 20:21:10 EDT