Slashdot Mirror
Revealed: How Fedora And The Community Interact
bakwas_internet writes "Konstantin Ryabitsev sent a funny
message in form of a irc chat log, revealing how Fedora and the Community Interact, to the development discussions mailing list related to Fedora Core.The story also appeared at lwn.net
and OSnews."
I really think their quality is improving. FC2 test3 is a nice system, and I think adequately simplified for most home users. It's great that they're almost right on the edge of the major stuff (KDE, kernel, GNOME, X, etc), most distributions seem to lag pretty heavily. In additon, the access to ISOs has been pretty spectacular, not something I could say for RH8, RH9.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
The fedora test list is very much a bug reporting list. Mainly heaps of uers chime in and beeyatch about how some feature doesn't work or how some hardware isn't supported. Then it is expected that whoever is listening does something.
I doubt most of the regulars actually do any coding.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Actually, what else could a software company want? Think about it, they're basically developing a product that has features that will eventually be sold to generate revenue. But the best part (for redhat anyway) is that they have a huge and completely free testing and bug-fixing population. What a deal.
Score +5
Insitful 70%
Funny 30%
In all seriousness, although the article had a humerous slant, it was true in all the important ways. Redhat really fumbled with the whole fedora thing, and I think this is opening up the way for other distrobutions
I have since migrated to other distrobutions and realize how much I was missting (gentoo level 1 install on the servers, SuSE on the desktop).
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
What would have been nice is some good examples of why Fedora isn't the project it was touted as. Of course, since I have no involvement in the development process (end user), I'm not sure that the community really is being excluded as a whole.
Yeah, it's a funny commentary on the problem, but without real subsequent features it makes it hard to get a full grasp on the situation.
Obviously, it looks like there is some contention with CVS access of any sorts. Still, there are other means of involvement. Again, a rather lack luster article for those who are uninformed of the situation.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
One has to ask oneself, here, why one really expects to be part of a community of open source developers when the project in question is run by a for-profit company and there are thousands of people who want to help and think they can.
What I'm saying is, with the decision to split Fedora from the core product lines, Red Hat essentially removed their own motive for expending huge amounts of time in evaluating user input, particularly user-submitted code.
It's simple economics: where's the money in it? "User loyalty," you say. Really? Aren't Fedora users the ones who don't need RH Enterprise or just don't want to pay for anything? Seems to me that they're the same ones who, if they convince an employer to go OSS, will also try to do it all themselves, to avoid "evil" licensing fees.
It seems to me that Red Hat is just looking out for number 1 by not spending huge amounts of time with non-paying users; even when those users have valid input, the time involved in building a trusted developer base makes it prohibitive.
Comments?
-Ed
Web Design & Software Development
I do wish they would put the FC2 stuff on an apt-for-rpm server, as they did with the FC1 stuff.
I really like the combination of Synaptic, apt-for-RPM, and Fedora, but as yet I've not seen any of the FC2 stuff avaiable via apt (yum yes, apt no).
The combination of the meta-data fetching of apt, the transaction rollback of RPM, and the avaiability of UIs like Synaptic is really great for system admin.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Ok, for one - filing a bug using reportbug is going to tag it with the exact package version, you can't get more detailed.
Another thing - comparing Debians release schedule to RedHat is like comparing apples to oranges - that is, ripe apples to rotten oranges. Debian has a *VERY* firm concept of a release - that is, a Debian relase is *STABLE*. It is rock solid. No holes, no bugs, nothing. They will test and test the release, and delay it if necessary, until done.
RedHat et. al need to meet release deadlines because they have to shove out "the latest and greatest" to make $$$. Debian has no such problems - that's why Debian Stable puts all other distros to shame when it comes to reliability and stability. It may not have all the whiz-bangs, but it is *_rock solid_*.
Aside from that, you're obviously trolling with this comment "and at this point it's not even clear they are EVER going to have another release: the current "release" has been delayed *years* already". Debian Stable was released July 2002. They are not "delayed by years". There is no fixed date when the next release will be out - it will be out when it is out.
That said, this is why most people in the know *do* run Debian Unstable and apt-get update && upgrade daily, because it is desktop where stability is not as mission critical. Hell, when there is a bug, it's usually fixed by the next day I find.
I am just confused by the state redhat is in over fedora.
One day no one in redhat gives a damn about their free distro, wanting to put all the focus on advanced $erver. The next day they want to hit deep in the community again.
With the time spent generating a fake (and, yes, amusing - don't get me wrong) IRC chat, this seems to be more of what a typical /. poster would write in response to an article.
This, as of itself, isn't really article material...
Just a comment:
My company buys Red Hat Enterprise licenses (because I advise them to). Personally I use Fedora. The good will Red Hat has built with me over the years is why I keep buying Red Hat licenses at work rather than Suse.
Your only mistake is in assuming that users of Fedora and RH Enterprise are different people. In many cases they are the same.
This is a dead serious comment.
/.?
Whats with all the talk about Fedora on
As a professional software developer, I know a lot of people in the industry.
I don't know *anyone* who is using Fedora.
I don't know *anyone* who wants to use Fedora.
So who exactaly are these people who are using it? Who are these people who are advocating Fedora? Why in real life are they nowhere to be found?
Time to put on your tinfoil hats. Redhat is Astroturfing a huge community behind Fedora. Seriously! Fedora is stillborn but hyped by a few people as if its the next messiah of OSes.
Well sorry Redhat, I ain't falling for it! Seems you have tricked plenty of suckers though. Hopefully I can educate a few of them here.
For those of you who don't know what Astroturfing is, it is faking a grass roots movement.
> I run testing on servers and unstable on desktops
> because stable is just so damned old that it's
> almost useless. A six-month release schedule like
> GNOME's would solve this, IMO.
A couple of points:
By using testing for your servers, you are giving yourself the worst of all possible worlds. Testing has no security updates, and new versions have to go through unstable for several weeks before they can trickle into testing. Testing is the "please root me" version of debian.
Also, for servers, a 6 month release cycle for your operating system is far, far too frequent. Assuming the number of services on the system are kept to a sensible minimum, leaving the base os stable while tracking new versions of the important services is the most manageable way to go.
backports.org is a great way to keep a stable base with newer key items. Backporting your own packages is pretty straightforward using source packages too.
-Mark
I hate you.
I've now wasted 3 straight hours of my life at bash.org and I still can't stop laughing. Now I'll NEVER get anything done.
At one point I was considering using Debian. I liked the idea of a totally community-based distro, and I also liked how Debian stuck to using only free software.
But now, after using Fedora Core and liking it, I haven't wanted to switch. Still, Debian has been tempting. Until now.
I realize now that the Debian community has a few too many loud-mouthed zealots for my taste. Way too much left-winged "down with the big man!" for me, thanks. Red Hat/Fedora Core seems to have a much more mature community than Debian does.
And if I was to ever consider switching to a different distro which is completely community-based, then I'd probably go for Gentoo anyway.
I think enough people know that RH/FC and Debian have different places in the Free Software community, and that they both can peacefully coexist together in the community. It's just seems there are a few who feel a need to push their distro so much as to start spreading FUD about other distros. Childish and distasteful.
Oh but I did RTFA ;) I guess we need a new anacronym... RTFT (the final word being thread)
Indeed, I understand the problems as they are pretty much the same problems any corporate environement would have.
I'm really interested to see how the solutions come about.
The kernel is a fine example. As I understand it, Linus used to accept patches, review said patches and apply them if he so deemed. Eventually, if the person was reliable and proven they were given access. (Someone correct me here or feel free to add detail).
Now... stop for a moment and lets look at a bit of something different.
AOL used to give free access to channel moderators and other such content managers in exchange for their services. Tax laws or some other regulation later decided it was time to count these barter personal as employees. Thus, some expenses began coming AOL's way and a great portion of this program was whisked away. I can't quite remember what it was, but I do remember reading about it in a slashdot article.
So in any event, I suspect the same doesn't apply as the individuals are not rewarded. Then again, I would suspect there would be something in the form of liability contractual agreements or something along the lines that says "you will not insert stolen code in these products." Probably something very similar to what employees are made to sign.
It is all probability a non-issue, but I'm just wondering if anyone has considered it.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
But that irc log was hilarious. Just thought I'd point out that Manrdrake Club includes things like community RPM voting, so if you really think application/feature X is the best thing since sliced bread you can add it, then the other users will vote on it and finally SOMEONE (maybe Mandrake Soft, maybe community member) will put it through the paces (testing > release..possibly). Mandrake seems to be a lot of what Fedora wants to be, only it is, already. And don't forget they release ALL their software under the GPL. Thats pretty amazing for a commercial project.
Quack, quack.
Offical support and direction was difficult to come by. "Read the docs," they said, but there was precious little written about how we were to proceed. Common questions were: how should we communicate, where should we host the project, how do we best get our product to integrated into the RH environment. All the "offical" Fedora components were hosted on RedHat's own CVS server and had entries in RedHat's official Bugzilla site. What about our project? We're writing for Fedora, for RedHat. We were even given the go-ahead by RH staff. Now when do we get CVS and Bugzilla? We want to start building here.
RedHat staff has been "very busy" trying to answer our questions and satisfy our reasonable requests. Apparently there's red tape everywhere--legal and logistical issues enough to make a man cry. Stuff can be fixed, but it takes time.
We sit and twiddle our thumbs hoping for some answers. Status updates are few and generally cryptic. RedHat is still "very, very busy" and is apparently making progress.
In the mean time, other commitments have commanded my time and I've had to abandon my post as a Fedora developer--at least for now. Now I look back and wonder how much I actually got to contribute.
It was a wonderful environment. Your work was almost guaranteed to be included in the distro (assuming you were filling a posted need). And I, a nameless nobody in the Linux world, had on multiple occasions asked questions and gotten prompt, insightful answers from both Eric Raymond and Alan Cox. I really felt like I was doing something important.
But the delays and disorganization, good heavens. What frustration is was to try to get any offical assistance or direction from RedHat. Their developer support infrastructure was nonexistant at best. To borrow an old metaphor, they were building a passenger jet in the air with Fedora, and we the passengers expected to be joining something a little more ..erm.. functional than we experinced.
Fedora's not a bad idea. It's a great idea. I was (and still am) fairly excided about the whole prospect. But it would have been nice if RedHat had prepared itself and built some sort of support system before bringing the rest of us on board.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
The main thing that I'm not comfortable with about SuSE is that they're about the least open of the major distros. I remember reading an interview with their CEO about how "people shouldn't expect everything to be free". SuSE does not provide free ISOs of their product for download, unlike Red Hat and most other Linux vendors (they do have a "live" version that only runs off the CD for download -- effectively a demo version). RH is one of the most open distros (aside, obviously, from Debian) -- RH has moved to "open" versions of software well before they're ready (like Mozilla), eliminated MP3 support due to patent concerns at one point, provides ISOs of their product for free, provides a public Bugzilla server (unlike SuSE) that lets end users see the same thing that Red Hat developers do and input their own bugs, and donates vast amounts of money (funding of many open source projects), developer time (two major areas of RH patches are gcc and the kernel), server space and bandwidth, and political oomph to the open-source community above and beyond the bare amount of effort required. I'd much rather see Red Hat stay the dominant Linux vendor (though I'm not sure if they're capable of doing so -- seems that the folks that are less nice tend to win out).
May we never see th