PDA

View Full Version : OK, why move FC1 into Fedora Legacy before FC3 is out?



rkl
5th August 2004, 10:41 PM
I was quite surprised to see this appear recently on the home page (http://fedora.redhat.com/) of the Fedora Project:

The Fedora Steering Committee proposes to transfer Fedora Core 1 to the Fedora Legacy Project at the point Fedora Core 3 Test 2 is released. This is currently scheduled for September 13, 2004.

Now I don't run FC1 any more, but even so this seems a complete U-turn of policy to me - they've always maintained that the latest two final releases of Fedora Core (currently FC1 and FC2) would be supported in the main development trees and only older versions would be moved to Fedora Legacy (http://fedoralegacy.org/).

Now they're saying that they won't even wait until the last test release of FC3 is out (remember there's an FC3T3 on the schedule as well) before ditching FC1. My only guess is that FC1 is now the "black sheep" of the Fedora Core family, because it's the only release that doesn't run kernel 2.6 and trying to keep supporting older 2.4 features is straining the project. Even so, it's yet another disappointing move (on top of Fedora Legacy ditching 7.2 and 8.0 support) and I hope they don't repeat it when FC4T2 is due out (i.e. drop FC2 then).

earobinson111
5th August 2004, 10:50 PM
well its a lot of work to mantaion one os let alone 2

and they do it at no cost

why would anyone use fc1 over 2 ne way?

rkl
5th August 2004, 11:00 PM
...probably the very reason the Fedora Project is dropping it - it uses kernel 2.4. This tends to mean that more third party stuff will work with it. For example, Nvidia only recently supported 2.6 with their 3D drivers, Dell's Openmanage Server software (freely downloadable) *still* doesn't work with kernel 2.6, Oracle 9i does NOT install on any Fedora Core release after FC1 (again, a kernel 2.6 issue), I can't get IE to work under WINE on FC2 (but can on FC1) and I bet that's not the end of the "works in FC1, but doesn't in FC2" story either.

The decision to move FC1 to Fedora Legacy in the middle of a test schedule of FC3 just seems, well, very bizarre to me - it's just bad timing. They should only obsolete an older final release when the final release of the latest FC comes out.

It should be remembered that FC1 was the "end of a generation" release really, despite it being the birth of the Fedora Project. If you look at the software that came with FC1, it clearly was just a minor progression on from Red Hat 8.0 and 9 (the biggest effort was probably changing the logo packages to Fedora...just kidding). FC2 was the real groundbreaker (arguably the biggest change in RH/FC's product line since the intro of RH 7) and I think the Fedora Project want to sever the FC1-FC2 divide a bit earlier than expected because of the 2.4 vs. 2.6 issue. I think doing this for the sake of one month less support of FC1 is a bit short-sighted really.

foolish
5th August 2004, 11:01 PM
Core 1 will be moved to legacy about when test 2 is out. This is because the current maintainers (read developers, packagers) will be working full time on Core 3.

If you still want to use Core 1, you have to rely on legacy or buy support. Legacy are doing quite well, but maybe consider upgrading to Core 3 when it's out?

earobinson111
5th August 2004, 11:02 PM
intresting ... i always love the newest ... yet fc3 test dont work for my puter

rkl
5th August 2004, 11:14 PM
Core 1 will be moved to legacy about when test 2 is out. This is because the current maintainers (read developers, packagers) will be working full time on Core 3.
Which would make sense if Core 3 was significantly different from Core 2, but to be blunt, it's clearly not if FC3T1 is anything to go by. Heck, we've even caught up with kernel 2.6.7 via an FC2 kernel update, so what on earth significant is FC3 going to give me that FC2 doesn't?! So "working full time on Core 3" at the moment means the same as "working full time on Core 2" :)


If you still want to use Core 1, you have to rely on legacy or buy support.
Another possible train of thought of the Fedora Project folks might be "everyone knew that FC1 was going to be our last 2.4 release and probably going to be 'killed off' more quickly than FC2 or FC3" and I'd probably agree with that sentiment. If you'd installed FC1 and really thought you're set for life on a kernel 2.4 release, then you'd be a pretty naive user. It's exactly why I skipped FC1 for any of our work systems and have been putting FC2 on them instead, which I think will last me a couple of years (cos 2.8 won't be out until 2006). Then we'll replace the PCs (they'll be 4-5 years old by then) and install maybe the first 2.8-based FC (hopefully on a lovely shiny new 64-bit PC) ?


Legacy are doing quite well, but maybe consider upgrading to Core 3 when it's out?
From FC1 to FC3 ? Er, no, as I said, probably most users who've previously had FC1 would have put FC2 on by now anyway. And if you're on FC2, FC3 is really FC2.1, so little has changed from what I can see and I won't be upgrading my FC2 install to FC3.

Ned
7th August 2004, 06:37 AM
From FC1 to FC3 ? Er, no, as I said, probably most users who've previously had FC1 would have put FC2 on by now anyway.

:confused: Maybe I'm not most users.

I consider FC2 to be very much a test platform. There's way too many things broken in it and IMHO is a lot less viable than FC1.

Let's not forget what the whole Fedora project really is - a huge beta testing environment for Red Hat (I'm sure that's gonna get some comments :) )

Don't get me wrong, I like Fedora a lot. I have two FC1 systems and another two FC2 systems. My FC1 Systems are great - fast, stable and reliable. My FC2 systems still aren't totally where I need them to be but I'm getting there. The thought of having to upgrade my FC1 systems to FC2 or 3 and spend ages getting back to where I am now horrifies me.

IMHO the shelf life is just too short - don't forget that FC1 is actually less than 9 months old :eek: In contrast, WindowsXP is 3 years old.

I can understand the rush to get FC2 and the 2.6 kernel out and maybe FC3 will be what FC2 should have been. Personally, I'd like to see a slightly less aggressive timetable and a shelf life of 18-24 months.

Ned

crackers
7th August 2004, 07:27 AM
Let's not forget what the whole Fedora project really is - a huge beta testing environment for Red Hat (I'm sure that's gonna get some comments :) )
Why should it draw comments? It's the truth - and I think RH deserves more credit than it's been given because they were up-front about it.


Personally, I'd like to see a slightly less aggressive timetable and a shelf life of 18-24 months.
You can't have it both ways - "betas" have short lives. Nature of the beast and all that.

Back on topic, as Ned noted - each FC release is really a beta/test-bed for RHE and RHAS. That means RH has more to gain by keeping developers focused on the newer versions rather than supporting old betas. Nobody supports out-dated betas of programs or OS's - there's no money in it! So you move FC1 from "active" status to legacy and let the volunteer staff maintain it. Personally, I think this is a pretty sound business strategy.

Ned
7th August 2004, 07:35 AM
Back on topic, as Ned noted - each FC release is really a beta/test-bed for RHE and RHAS. That means RH has more to gain by keeping developers focused on the newer versions rather than supporting old betas. Nobody supports out-dated betas of programs or OS's - there's no money in it! So you move FC1 from "active" status to legacy and let the volunteer staff maintain it. Personally, I think this is a pretty sound business strategy.

Agreed :)

I've been with RH since 7.3. I just might find myself looking at alternative distro's that have a slightly longer supported shelf life :(

At the end of the day, it's all about choice, and luckily we have plenty of that as linux users :)

Ned

rkl
7th August 2004, 11:13 AM
I consider FC2 to be very much a test platform. There's way too many things broken in it and IMHO is a lot less viable than FC1.

I completely disagree with this - I think FC2 is not a test platform - it didn't use kernel 2.6.0 (which some distros did!), it doesn't crash on me, it supports all my PC hardware and is working well on several Dell servers we have at work. Could you detail what's "broken in it"? I know firewire was missing from the CD kernel, but that's back in after an update. I guess SELinux may be the major thing you're referring to, but for single user home desktops, you don't really need that anyway.


Let's not forget what the whole Fedora project really is - a huge beta testing environment for Red Hat (I'm sure that's gonna get some comments :) )
It's doing the Fedora Project team a huge disservice calling Fedora Core a "beta testing environment". They do not state this is the case either on their Website or the distro itself and Fedora Core releases have been extremely stable for me. Even if it gives the impression of being a testbed for Red Hat's Enterprise releases, a) is that a bad thing? (i.e. Red Hat consider the final releases of FC to be of enterprise-quality, which I think they are) and b) FC is seriously kicking the butt (as Americans would say) of other free (and paid !) distros out there thanks to the efforts of the Fedora Project team.


IMHO the shelf life is just too short
I don't think anyone could disagree that the gap between FC major releases is far too narrow. I'm particularly annoyed by FC3, which will be out as a major new release but it is blatantly obviously only a minor change from FC2. It should be called FC2.1 or something, but it appears that the Fedora team haven't thought of point releases at all!


In contrast, WindowsXP is 3 years old.
Yes, and it's starting to get to be a pain to install from scratch against the newest hardware (virtually none of it supported out of the box any more by XP and you have to dig out numerous driver discs to fix this!). XP SP1 was released, what, 2 years ago and XP SP2 isn't out for a few more weeks and even then might not include newer hardware drivers. Even something as simple as supporting more than 640x480 on Nvidia cards is beyond XP out of the box - at least Linux has strong 2D support for Nvidia cards built in!


I can understand the rush to get FC2 and the 2.6 kernel out and maybe FC3 will be what FC2 should have been.
Please explain what of significance will be in FC3 that won't be available in an FC2+updates system? I can't see anything at this point myself.


Personally, I'd like to see a slightly less aggressive timetable and a shelf life of 18-24 months.
I'd like to see one major release of FC per year and then no more than one minor update (FC2.1 for example) during the year itself, which should only contain minor updates to packages (i.e. no jump from, say, GNOME 2.6 to 2.8) and bug/security fixes rolled in. The yum update system can handle keeping the system up-to-date inbetween releases. It'll never happen though - they seem to be on a frantic hamster-like treadmill of a release schedule and don't seem to want to slow down!

Ned
8th August 2004, 01:01 AM
rkl - please don't think me rude if I don't repond to each of your points/comments. I don't particularly wish to get into a point by point debate, I was just expressing my opinion :)

I'm sure some will agree, and some will disagree - that's fine. I thought it better to respond in this manner than to not respond at all :)

Ned

imdeemvp
8th August 2004, 01:20 AM
rkl, you do have good points there and i agree with you instead of calling it fc3 they should call it fc2.1 or something similiar to mandrake and slackware (<- which i plan to use in the near future) their releases are very stable and they do minor updates to the OS, it took about a year before the release from 9.1 to 10 that is pretty good i think.

i dont mind being a beta tester as long as the OS is stable...but come on give us room to improve it before another major release :D

crackers
8th August 2004, 05:40 AM
Just one point...


I completely disagree with this - I think FC2 is not a test platform - it didn't use kernel 2.6.0 (which some distros did!), it doesn't crash on me, it supports all my PC hardware and is working well on several Dell servers we have at work.

Just because it works well, doesn't invalidate the fact that it is not a "supported" distribution and that RH does test out newer programs/packages on each release. It is not the fact that it works (which it does, as you've noted), but rather it's the intent to release something that is not as thoroughly tested as a paid-for release.

Yup - FCx works pretty durn well, but if you try to get liability insurance to cover your servers, you'll get laughed at.

cavedweller
9th August 2004, 07:44 PM
In reality it doesn't matter if you call it a beta platform or test bed. The Fedora project is RedHats testing grounds. As far as changing distros, in the price range you can't beet the ease of install or use.

What is the big deal with using legacy support installing yum on RH 9.0 seems to work pretty well can't imagine it not working the same for FC1.

I think this all has to do with the old addage about people not liking change. As sure as you live and die things change. You either except that or end up left behind. I wasn't especially happy when RH dropped support for 9.0 and started the Fedora Project. Quite frankly though RH doesn't base it's business practices on my likes and dislikes, but rather on profit margines.

The revenue they generate from their corperate customers has to far outway the cost of supporting basically two different home editions. The benefit to the Fedora user is a pretty decent distro that dosen't cost a thing, except the time it takes to download it.

I can live with the quick turnaround in releases it means they are attempting to stay on the cutting edge. If your hardware isn't supported anymore it may mean is is time for you to retire that old system or at least upgrade the older components in it.

urquhartia
17th August 2004, 08:11 PM
"I can live with the quick turnaround in releases it means they are attempting to stay on the cutting edge. If your hardware isn't supported anymore it may mean is is time for you to retire that old system or at least upgrade the older components in it."

I have read the above points all raised and think I grasp where each is coming from. The last post seems to hold true as I quote it above. However we probably shouldn't have upgrades pressed on us, now i know from here you could state well change distro. Indeed I would if Fedora et al were not so darn bloody good! Not only is the distro solid *wonders why other vendors final releases aren't so?* But it is a doddle to migrate from one release to another, simply create a separate home partition and backup then switching is easy.

Perhaps I should be clearer, if you want to bemoan the releases ie fast turnaround does this also imply you avoid updates? Aren't a waft of updates essentially a backdoor into the turnaround process? Upgrading is upgrading howeveer you look at it. The developers simply make it a less painful experience :)

Regards Zara....

rmenezes
17th August 2004, 10:44 PM
intresting ... i always love the newest ... yet fc3 test dont work for my puter

And if I got a critical service in a Fedora Core 1, should I trust the new? I don't think so.

David
26th August 2004, 01:25 PM
I don't see what's so strange about wanting to stick with what one has? I use FC1 as my primary OS now. Everything works fine and I'm very happy with it. It's just not practical for me to reinstall every 6 months and fix all the inevitable teething problems that come with an upgrade. If I'd wanted to do that then I'd have stuck with Windows.

It's nice to see that Fedora Legacy will continue support and it'll be interesting to see how long this lasts. I personally don't mind that FC1 is moving there since there's nothing new that I need and I don't suppose security is really an issue.

It does make me wonder about what I might use in the long run though. I wonder if it might be worth my moving to a better supported, longer lasting OS in the future. Or better still, perhaps RH will give the home desktop system another look :)

vinu
27th August 2004, 02:25 AM
Please explain what of significance will be in FC3 that won't be available in an FC2+updates system? I can't see anything at this point myself.

X.org 6.8
Gnome 2.8
KDE 3.3


The X.org update with it's new extensions and the two window managers should be reason enough to update, especially if you're using FC as a desktop system.

crackers
27th August 2004, 03:48 AM
I'd agree with vinu on this point. Having those items fully integrated into the distribution is more than enough for me to do all the machines around here. If that doesn't quite convince you, you'll need to check out what the newer version of Xorg brings - some of the screen-shots are downright amazing! No, I don't have a link handy - y'all can Google as well as I can... ;)