Verily I say unto thee, that Geico Caveman spake thusly:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:5065187.GCm6LyeI5H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Goodbye, Fedora
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | * From: esr thyrsus com (Eric S. Raymond) To:
>>> | * fedora-devel-list redhat com
>>> | * Cc: lwn lwn net, editors newsforge com, sjvn vna1 com,
>>> | editors linuxtoday com
>>> | * Subject: Goodbye, Fedora
>>> | * Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:03:50 -0500 (EST)
>>> |
>>> | [...]
>>> |
>>> | This afternoon, I installed Edgy Eft on my main development
>>> | machine -- from one CD, not five. In less than three hours'
>>> | work I was able to recreate the key features of my day-to-day
>>> | toolkit. The after-installation mass upgrade to current
>>> | packages, always a frightening prospect under Fedora, went off
>>> | without a hitch.
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html
Alan Cox has responded ...
Verily I say unto thee, that Alan Cox spake thusly:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 03:03:50AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> * Failure to address the problem of proprietary multimedia formats
>> with any attitude other than blank denial.
>
> That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the
> right thing (a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is
> time the term "open source" also did the decent thing and died out
> with you.
>
>> I'm not expecting Ubuntu to be perfect, but I am now certain it
>> will be enough better to compensate me for the fact that I need to
>> learn a new set of administration tools.
>
> I'm sure they will be delighted to have you
>
> Alan
> --
>
> "That was said by Eric Raymond who belongs to another movement"
> - Richard Stallman
Also Michael Schwendt, one of the primary maintainers, confirms that
none of the *official* FC6 repos have any broken deps.
So ESR uses some unofficial repo, gets stuck on a dependency, abuses
the power of root to delete a file in /usr/lib, which subsequently
turns out to be a dependency for RPM itself, then he complains that
RPM is broken.
Idiot.
IMHO he was just looking for an excuse to do a drive-by on Fedora,
something he has done before. ESR is a devout libertarian capitalist,
and the Fedora project is rather too anti-capitalist for his warped
tastes, so he took a pot-shot, and moved to a more capitalist-friendly
distro.
Good riddance.
>> I don't think anyone would argue against the claim that ESR is
>> a Linux advocate, and probably a very experienced Linux user. But
>> if even ESR is afraid to perform an upgrade of his Fedora
>> distribution... This simply shouldn't be the way a user perceives
>> his own software, nevermind a power-user!
His comment was pure melodrama. I doubt if someone experienced enough
to install an LFS (Linux From Scratch) system would *genuinely* have
difficulties with something as (comparatively) childishly simple as a
broken RPM dependency.
>> He writes about Fedora:
>>
>> <quote>
>> The proximate causes of this failure were (1) incompetent
>> repository maintenance,
Again, Michael Schwendt confirms this is *not* a Fedora repo problem.
>> (2) the fact that rpm is not statically linked -- so it's possible
>> to inadvertently remove a shared library it depends on and be
>> unrecoverably screwed.
FUD. Melodrama. Lies. Nonsense.
ESR knows *damn* well that *no* /software/ problem is *ever*
unrecoverable under Linux. In the case of his mind-buggering stupidity
in deleting files he must have *known* were essential to the operation
of RPM, they can be *very* easily replaced using rpmdev-extract on the
original package (booting from the install disc in rescue mode if
necessary).
ESR wants static binaries does he? And he claims to be a "developer"?
Wow. Hope he has plenty of RAM ... and plenty of time on his hands.
>> But the underlying problems run much deeper.
But then he fails to elaborate ... or give any real details of this
mysterious broken dependency.
Maybe ESR should meet flatfish, I'm sure they'd get on like two
fairies on a Christmas cake.
>> This was my experience with Redhat oh-so-many years ago, and I was
>> told that things have changed since then, but I was very hesitant
>> to try Redhat (now Fedora) again
No package management system is without flaws, indeed no software of
any kind is, but ESR is just being a drama queen here. I've been using
RH/FC since 5.1, and the very few RPM problems I encountered were
easily dealt with. No those problems shouldn't exist, and yes repos
should be properly maintained, but I seriously do not believe that any
of this is an inherent problem with RPM, or anything especially unique
to that packaging system. I would personally welcome a move to,
e.g. SMART, but even SMART cannot compensate for human error,
especially where repo maintenance is concerned.
>> and now that I've discovered Ubuntu (as ESR has), there's almost no
>> reason for me to bother trying Fedora again.
I've tried Ubuntu several times, usually under virtualisation, and I
liked it a great deal, but it just isn't what I'm familiar with. That
does not mean there's anything wrong with either one of those
distros. A distro is whatever the contributors make of it, and there
has been a recent (in comparative terms) upsurge in Ubuntu users, and
hence a lot of noob enthusiasm. It happens with all new distros. It
happens with all new ... anything. The novelty *will* ultimately wear
off.
Once again, that's not to say that there is anything wrong with
Ubuntu, other than (IMHO) it is pandering to the whims of the
proprietary world, rather than striving for a world without
proprietary inhibitors. For those who think software is about, and
*only* about, productivity ... no matter what the cost, then Ubuntu is
probably a sound choice. For those who believe that Free software
needs to be part of a proactive response against the proprietary world
of closed sources and closed standards, Debian and Fedora are more
natural choices.
ESR has made *his* position *crystal* clear ... on several occasions.
>> Now I bring this up, because sometimes someone will claim that
>> Linux is difficult to use (by which they mean, of course, that
>> they've had difficulties in using Linux). Assertions that Linux is
>> no more difficult than Windows, or that the "someone" is obviously
>> a WinTroll, etc. aside, sometimes a Linux advocate will ask "What
>> exactly is it that's so difficult about Linux?" and this isn't an
>> attack, but they genuinely want to know. Well, here's an example of
>> something which makes Linux difficult. If ESR has trouble
>> installing or removing software via the built in repository
>> manager, how do you expect a non-technical, casual Window user to
>> figure it out?
As I said above, it is inconceivable that a man of his experience
*genuinely* has difficulty with something as simple as replacing a
missing file. ESR has taken pot shots at Fedora before ... and Debian.
He has a disturbingly Windows-Troll like attitude towards *truly* Free
software. He may be a Linux advocate, but he is *no* Freedom advocate,
believe me.
>> Now this problem is (probably) exclusive to Fedora.
Actually, as far as anyone on the list can tell, it seems to be a
problem with an unsupported third-party repo, since the maintainer of
the *official* repo has double checked the dependency tree, and found
nothing. Not that ESR is very forthcoming with details - typical Troll
activity.
>> I've never had problems with Ubuntu,
I've never had a problem RH/FC ... that wasn't trivial to solve.
In fact I remember posting a message to this group, over five years
ago, describing how, despite my best "efforts" to "destroy" (through
ignorance) my Red Hat system, I failed ... it kept going ... the
problems were trivial to fix, etc.
Ah, here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/3dd9bn (Google Groups)
>> for example. Even when I accidentally interrupted the install
>> (basically, a power failure in the middle of an install), rather
>> than simply telling me something went wrong (e.g. "Error:
>> Repository database corrupt.") it actually went above and beyond my
>> expectations and told me how to fix it (it was something like
>> "Broken packages. Run 'apt-get --configure all' to repair").
If packages or repos are broken (missing files, corrupt manifest,
etc.), due to human error, there's ultimately not much you can do
about it other than to fetch the source package and fix it (or notify
the maintainer and get *him* to fix it) ... or probably both. I would
imagine that condition applies equally to deb as it does to rpm,
unless deb has some Gentoo-like "emerge" property I'm not aware of.
This article seems relevant:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/12/1952217
AFAICT the best apt can do in the event of broken packages, is to
suggest alternative versions for which those dependencies *can* be
met. If I've misinterpreted this then please let me know.
>> This made a huge difference in end-user experience, and I'm very
>> grateful and impressed with Ubuntu for providing me with this
>> information. While some distributions are not-so-good (Fedora),
>> some distributions are really great (Ubuntu).
Depends how you define "good".
Purely in terms of the daily running of a system, to me Linux is Linux
is Linux ... be it Ubuntu, Fedora, or anything else. In terms of
system maintenance, the only difference between one distro and another
is various helper programs ... and as stated, the package maintenance.
Since I administer virtually everything from the bash shell anyway,
then other than packaging (and small differences such as initscripts)
I rarely notice much difference between one distro and another,
There are *political* differences of course (e.g. stance on
proprietary software), but that's another issue.
As far as packaging is concerned, I'm perfectly happy with RPM. Any
given RPM package is only as good or bad as the maintainer who creates
it, and the same can be said for repos. I would imagine the same could
be said for deb.
>> I know that. You know that. But the clueless Window user doesn't
>> know that. He has one bad experience with Linux, and he assumes
>> that all of Linux is like that. He may be incorrect, but it seems
>> that it's simply human nature to make assumptions like this.
Given the fact that most Windows users have to endure a continuous
stream of problems on Windows, they should be well used to it, one
would think.
I think this idea that "there must be zero problems, or it will cause
irreparable damage to our reputation" is a bit OTT. I'm all for
perfect software (in a Utopian alternate-reality) but really it's more
a question of degrees. And by the degrees, Linux (and pretty much
*any* distro of Linux) is so far ahead of the game, that any talk of
"scaring" noobs with issues is just pure paranoia. They get it
... they know there's a process ... they've been well trained by
Microsoft.
>> So this user has a bad experience and complains about it. What
>> happens then? Well, if you start calling him an Widiot or a troll
>> or something like that, he'll have two bad experiences, and be
>> further driven away from Linux.
If this were a help forum, that would *not* be my reaction, but "help"
posts to an advocacy group are not only OT, but usually flame bait by
nym-shifting Trolls. ESR's "drama queen", melodramatic exit, is just
another variation on a theme. He's old enough, and wise enough to know
better ... he's *no* noob ... but he *is* an anti-Freedom Troll.
>> Keep in mind the next time that someone says they found Linux
>> difficult to use, they may not be trying to deliberately offend
>> you, but may simply be overgeneralizing their experiences without
>> realizing it.
In the correct forum, I am, have been, and will continue to be helpful
to *genuine* pleas for help. This is *not* the correct forum, neither
is the Fedora Developers List ... certainly not for that kind of
fake-noob post.
> However, if someone suggests a different distro (in this case, it
> would have made a difference), they would be accused of playing the
> distro shuffle.
That's flatty's game. It doesn't work, not on me anyway. More choice
will *always* be better than less choice, no matter how he deploys his
warped sense of logic.
> Sorry, Oliver, with Wintrolls, you cannot be ever right. They will
> latch on to something else to complain about.
That's because they're not looking for solutions, they're looking for
problems. The motivation is sabotage, not scientific curiosity, or
genuine political debate.
> I have used Debian for years, and used to be a loyal Redhat user
> before then. Now, I cannot imagine why anyone would even want to use
> an rpm based distro, but each to his poison.
I have little experience with Deb, so I'm not really in a position to
pass judgement, but I spent many years mastering packaging on RPM, and
now to me the whole process seems trivially simple. I cannot imagine
any end-user having a problem with it, unless the packager has made
mistakes, and under those circumstances that package should fail QA
review and never enter the repo tree. It *has* happened before,
unfortunately, but it is a *very* rare occurrence ... these days, at
least.
> Nice to see a prominent Fedora / Redhat user coming to his senses
> and joining the Debian world.
I like the politics of Debian, esp. Debian Legal, without whom many
infractions would slip under the radar. But you should understand that
ESR is *not* "joining" the Debian world, ESR despises Debian probably
more than he despises Fedora. He chose *Ubuntu* not Debian, and he
chose it because of its *compromised politics* on issues like closed
sources, and collaboration with the enemy, much like Novell. He did
this because ESR's politics are *also* compromised, or IOW he is
corrupt. Period.
I've had, and continue to have, political issues with Fedora, but my
motivations are the complete *opposite* of ESR's. I'm striving for
*more* Freedom, *more* openness, the annihilation of the proprietary
world, the destruction of corrupt and evil forces. ESR is a member of
the same Club as Torvalds, AFAICT. They've both paid their 30 pieces
of silver membership fee.
Oh and FYI other than the previously mentioned political issues, I
stand by Fedora's technical merit, integrity, robustness, and
bleeding-edge functionality. Frankly I think SuSE has considerably
more problems, both politically and technically, right now.
> For a few things, the distro makes a huge difference. The most
> prominent of this is the package manager. If our ideas about
> evolution are right, rpm will go the way of tgz as a package
> management idea and major distros today like Microvell Desktop,
> OpenSuSe, Redhat, Mandriva are living on borrowed time.
Maybe, but bear in mind that Fedora (like Red Hat) has already spawned
a multitude of forks. DistroWatch is littered with them. I don't think
Red Hat's influence will disappear into the Ether any time soon.
> Redhat will probably stick around for the longest among these
> because it has a massive presence on servers, and server updates
> generally do not involve frequent changes like desktop / laptops /
> palmtops do, so their largely boxed set based model will survive
> (since rpm updating is such a hell, even now), but the average
> consumer is going the apt-get way. Ubuntu, Mepis, Debian, DSL,
> Knoppix, ........ take your pick.
I really don't see where this "hell" is coming from. The only issues
I've typically had is with considerations pertaining to binary blobs,
such a VMWare modules, which may, or may not work with changes to
things like the kernel, or glibc. In more than 7 years with Red Hat
systems, I can count the number of downstream package dependency
issues I've experienced, on the fingers of one hand, and still have
two fingers left over.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
.----
| "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade
| Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the
| Green Party.
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.19-1.2288.fc5
04:42:59 up 2 days, 16:08, 3 users, load average: 3.97, 4.17, 4.10
|
|
