Puzzling Observation – FC1,2,3 users

[SlowJet]

Puzzling Observation – FC1,2,3 users

I am puzzled at the many software questions still coming in for sound and other small software / hardware settings in the following context.

1.FC1 is not equal FC2 is not equal FC3.
2.Even though supposedly stable off the disto release, each has many updates that fix all areas of the software.
3.An “everything” FC3 install with all the updates applied is still lacking in some areas,
so other than only having modem access or can't afford to buy a FC3 cd set,

why would anyone continue to run FC1 or 2 (other than for a simple server doing some special thing) and expect all the pieces to work as well as in the fully updated FC3 (for desktop applications especially)?

As I understand FC2 original, it had SELinux strict on, so most users of that would have that turned off and possibly the firewall (iptables) – not good.

Even if you had a good chuck of user data on the disk, is could be backed up some how and put back on later. But for most end users, I would guess they have less than a few megabytes.

So why are they NOT installing FC3 with all the updates?
I cannot imagine wanting FC1 or FC2 on a computer, and FC3 original is way old and dysfunctional.

Is it that they just don't know and no one has mentioned it?

Puzzled to the core. :)

SJ

[tashirosgt]

I don't know what fraction of the "audience" for Linux distributions wants something that is stable and "just works" and what fraction wants to fool around with bleeding edge software. I think those seeking stability might do better to work with commercial Linux distributions. The automatic updating strategy won't lead to more stability. It often breaks things. To me, the Fedora series is for people who like to spend hours and hours trying to configure computers. I expect to have problems. (But my view of commercial distributions may not be uptodate. I haven't installed any commercial Linux distributions on wide variety of hardware. Also I don't know if they still say their technical support is limited to installation help. Is it? )

[SlowJet]

Hi tashirosgt :)

Thanks for the input.
I understand what you are saying quite good.
However, the fact of the matter is there has been a computer paradigm shift.
Mainly due to the danger of the Internet to computer OS's.

This brings about the necessity to make a more secure OS on several levels.
This is what SELinux is doing, the newer GNC 4 compiler, etc.

Now one could compare the big 4 or 5 OS' and to see what that means.
Windows XP SP2 – a complete new system on a new compiler with NX (software page checks for code in data pages, less free buffer usage errors – they call them buffer overruns now a days. In my day they called it lazy programming, global variables, slack bytes in data definitions. It all amounts to bad programming.)

MAC OS X – Darwin on the BSD with all the things similar to it as above that Apple has added.

Solaris Unix – well who knows what is really new or old there but it is a major system.

Now we have FC3 – it now has new File Systems with added security attributes, better over all file protection for start up recovery. It even has rollback checkpoints for installs if one were to set that up. Yet to come will be shadow copy backup, snapshot backup and restore.

The old paradigms, of say Win 9x, where you could grab any old program off the net and install and run does not always fit into the new systems. The programs must meet security, driver, install, etc standards.

So we have the old and the new crashing into the end user's mind, and the thinking comes out like you have presented. But from my view, it is not the stability vs. the bleeding edge or security restriction vs. tinkering freedom, it is a leap to a new understanding of how all these need to work together in the new paradigm.

I do not consider FC to be bleeding edge if only using binaries and using up2date. In fact it is quite the opposite, it is the most stable, secure, reliable system on the planet (with the exception of being occasional mishaps with the system software but mostly related to the applications. Even so, these are fixed faster than Microsoft, Sun, or for that matter, other Linux Disto's (especially considering the fact that there is now really only 2 distos, RH-FC, Damian – which is really old, and then BSD = which is really old, too.)

So the confusion for the masses, not the experts or hobbyists, is what happen?

It easy to understand if you just realize that the computer world has made a technological leap, and the base systems need to be adjusted to that paradigm. After that, you can choose you modus operandus. :)

But hanging behind on the new or trying to keep going on the old? Now that is what I call bleeding insanity.

FC3 with all the updates is as solid as a rock. It's secure. It's has applications that work well. I can be fiddled with to no end. And you can always turn on the repros or roll your own.

FC4, FC 5, etc are the growth of the new paradim. I can only imagmine where it will be in 2 or 3 years. But I know where a lot of old OS's and programs will be. In the past.

:)

SJ

[tashirosgt]

I think most people run SELinux in the permissive mode or turn it off. It's hard enough to get things to work, why add one more pitfall. I agree that for a very knowledgeable person FC3 could be made much more secure than FC2 or FC1. But how many people have the talent to do that? FC3 may not be bleeding edge in the sense of computer science but it installs features like fstab-sync and the use of logical volumes that make people's old knowledge obsolete. Xorg is another change, but that's not too big a departure from XFree86. Perhaps "bleeding edge" is the wrong term. A better description would be that it changes in big jumps. At work, all the updates for FC2 and FC3 are downloaded on a local server, so my experience with yum updates is not the same as a person directly connected. But my experience is that after an "install everything", it becomes very hard to update. The updates don't work because they contain internal contradiictions. You have leave some of them out.