Shall we fork Fedora?
forkfedora.org
Shall we fork Fedora?
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#2love it.
i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff.
so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no way i'm going back to sysv init, thought i'd give fedora a try, and so far i'm really liking it, everything works, and is upto date enough for my needs
anyway, systemd ftw. if you're against it and you've not used it, then that's stupid. if you're against it and have used it, fair enough, i can't fault that. i hate gnome, you can hate systemd. although the comparison isn't fair, as interaction with the init process if fairly low, but interaction with the de is high
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#3love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
Flakeyness of Arch? What do you mean by this? It seems to be very reliable for me.
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#4I rolled my eyes at the title after watching "Linux Sucks 2014" last night. I was pleasantly surprised to see an example comparison of init files.
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#5love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
Flakeyness of Arch? What do you mean by this? It seems to be very reliable for me.
it is, but every now and then a software update will break something, or something will conflict. it's fine, but i find overall stability is a little bit of an issue, which i didn't use to mind, but these days i do. even simple things like making sure my machines are on the same versions of things, or expecting to install something and it just work™
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#6love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
Flakeyness of Arch? What do you mean by this? It seems to be very reliable for me.
Personally, Arch has been really unstable for me, although I have a newer ATI graphics card and am trying to go it with the open-source drivers, so that's my problem.
In general, what people mean about Arch's flakeyness is the general maintenance involved with staying up-to-date, and reviewing all your pacnews/pacsaves.
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#7love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
So I'll prefix this by saying that I haven't used systemd for anything important yet, but have it running in a VM to see what the impact will be when the distro's force us to switch.
It seems that for the "normal" use cases (i.e. laptop running gnome+vi, server running postgres) systemd will be simpler.
For embedded / single purpose applications, it seems that it will require a chunk more work. I have use cases like a) Only power the 3G module and bring up ppp when I am within certain GPS coordinates. b) switch the wifi between hostapd and wpa_supplicant depending on the state of a GPIO.
The fact there is no general purpose programming language in the .service files makes them simpler, but for anything out of the ordinary you will be writing bash/python anyway. And then it feels like systemd is just getting in the way.
The replacement daemons also seem a bit weak, compare timesyncd with chrony for example.
Sometimes all you need PID 1 to do is run the equivalent of rc.local and get out of the way (almost like slackware's rc.M)
So I guess my point is that not everybody is in the love/hate systemd camp, some of us are just careful and still sceptical.
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#8love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
I've used Arch as my primary OS for over a year now, and I've never had any major problems. What flakiness have you experienced?
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#9It's probably a bad idea to start (another) discussion on this topic, but...
While the original (Debian Fork) made some ridiculous claims, this is not a fair comparison to make. As a neutral party I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that SysVinit is any good, just that some other options may be better, and they should at least be an option.
When you compare systemd with something like OpenRC the obvious choice is less clear: http://pastebin.com/DfAL75Kd
Re: Shall we fork Fedora?
#10love it. i just recently switched to fedora. i was on debian, then i went to arch because debian is too outdated, and i wanted systemd. but i don't enjoy the flakeyness of arch these days, i did when i was younger, but now there's more than just me using my computer, and when i do use it, i want to use it for work, not fiddling with stuff. so when i was looking for a new distro, systemd was a requirement, there's no…
I've used Arch as my primary OS for over a year now, and I've never had any major problems. What flakiness have you experienced?
> I've used Arch as my primary OS for over a year now, and I've never had any major problems. What flakiness have you experienced?
I love Arch. I've been using Arch as my primary OS for over 4 years. I'm even wearing my Arch Linux hoodie at work today[0].
Every time someone mentions instability or flakiness on Arch (on HN or any other forum), I see comments like this, and it really makes me wonder - are we using the same distro?
Arch is great, but there's no pretending that it's the most stable distro. Anybody who uses Arch should be ready to handle unexpected breakages when updating, and be comfortable with addressing them by his/her self. A few miscellaneous problems I've had when updating:
* Haskell packages were moved to their own repository, though due to pacman issues, this meant that I (and a lot of other users) were left with broken packages. Since I used XMonad as my window manager, this meant I couldn't even start X11 properly! This is the sole reason I stopped using XMonad (went back to wmii, though now I use i3).
* Miscellaneous bugs which force me to boot from a USB and chroot to reinstall packages and/or reboot.
* The systemd migration was not very clean. I'm glad Arch switched to systemd, but the migration was tricky, and it also came within a few months of another rather tricky update (/bin) that broke things for a lot of people.
Some of these were mentioned on the Arch mailing list - but not all. And even then, the signal/noise ratio on the Arch mailing list is really poor if all you care about are potentially problematic updates[1].
I get that Arch is a distro that requires you to know what you're doing[2]. But I like to think that I know what I'm doing at this point, and I still run into issues every now and then.
Arch is a great distro, but let's not pretend it's perfect - it's not the paragon of stability, and that's why it's a great distro[3].
[0] http://www.zazzle.com/embroidered_arch_linux_fleece_jacket_e...
[1] I mean, seriously, some of the threads are about meetups at bars in Europe - I'm happy there's a thriving developer community there, but I don't want to have to sift through those messages just to figure out what I need to do in order to make sure my system still boots!
[2] At the same time, people oftentimes recommend Arch as a distro for beginners, which IMHO is really misguided - if you're not already very familiar with Unix-based systems, Arch has a pretty steep learning curve.
[3] I'm running Wheezy on another machine, and shellshock still hasn't been fixed there, whereas Arch had it patched within hours.