Robyn Bergeron Stepping Down As Fedora Project Leader 53
darthcamaro writes: "Red Hat's Fedora Linux Project Leader, Robyn Bergeron, has announced that she is leaving her role. Bergeron became Fedora Project Leader in February of 2012 and has presided over one of the busiest periods for Fedora ever. Fedora is now moving to a new model for Fedora 21, with separate desktop, cloud and server products. 'The community has now gotten to the point where it's not a one-size-fits-all product anymore,' Bergeron said."
Good luck (Score:3)
"If we're going to be able to do three products just as well as we do one currently, without our tripling our QA [quality assurance] or release engineering workforce, we really have to figure out how to automate more stuff," Bergeron said
Does RedHat plan on hiring that many people, or is that why she is leaving?
Re: (Score:1)
Why do they need three products really?
Now the default installer just seem to dump whatever is on the media you install from onto your hard-drive.
Of course that's not going to fit everyone.
But is it really better to make three different kinds of such media rather than let the person doing the install pick what to install? ..
Maybe some basic ideologies make it inefficient to pick among some "schemes" (mostly security related?) to start with?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like they should just make a distro with everything, and then remove some packages for the people who don't want them (remove openstack from their desktop distro, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it feels like a bad idea.
It seems like they should just make a distro with everything, and then remove some packages for the people who don't want them (remove openstack from their desktop distro, for example).
I've got an idea! Why don't they make a Fedora Core and then build flavors on top of that!
Re: (Score:2)
Like the old installer up to Fedora 12 (or so) enabled you to do before the horrible unintuitive mess that is the current installer replaced that.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure I even got what it would be doing.
Not a fan. I kinda thought the community / amount of packages for Fedora would be bigger than for opensuse but that didn't seemed to be the case. Of course Ubuntu may be even better in that regard.
Also at least opensuse had the decency to not listen on global traffic in sshd even though it was running there too.
Now it may be because I'm coming from the BSDs but I don't really see why shit (especially remote connectivity stuff) should be enabled by default at al
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the *live* installer does - because that's all a live installer can do, really, unless you make a live image with a DVD-size package repository, which not many people really seem to want.
The *non live* installer still lets you choose the deployed package set.
The three product approach isn't simply about the deployed package set, though. It involves really rather a lot more than that. Hard to go into details in a Slashdot comment, but see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... [fedoraproject.org] .
Re: (Score:1)
I have an Internet connection and have installed OpenBSD multiple times using just a single floppy disc.
But yeah, there was other solutions too. I don't remember whatever it was obvious how limited the live discs was.
Google download fedora:
http://fedoraproject.org/en_GB... [fedoraproject.org]
Only live CD listed there, doesn't mention anything about the installer being crippled and limit your options.
Pick desktop and nothing improves:
http://fedoraproject.org/en_GB... [fedoraproject.org]
Formats have both the DVD and Network Install CDs which imho i
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, it may be worth adding a note about that on the download page...but one of the things that'll be done as part of fedora.next is a complete revamp of that site area, so i'll wait till that's in planning to suggest the idea. thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
we really have to figure out how to automate more stuff
Part of this is Fedora adopting a devops platform. I like Puppet (mostly) but we could live with another if it were _the_ standard (I live with RPM for the same reason, "blech, but so what").
RPM and yum are 2/3 of the equation in the modern context. There are so many things in the ecosystem that could be done right with a distro-standard devops layer.
Good luck (Score:2)
Er...no and no? That wasn't a question about her reason for leaving, it was just a general question about Fedora's future.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't a question about her reason for leaving,
I'm really curious what question you are referring to here
Re:Divide and get conquered (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Divide and get conquered (Score:4, Insightful)
There've been both desktop and server users of Fedora for ten years. Giving them separate install images instead of making them choose differently from a single installer is not going to hurt anything, and might make testing and deployment very slightly simpler.
Re: (Score:2)
There've been both desktop and server users of Fedora for ten years. Giving them separate install images instead of making them choose differently from a single installer is not going to hurt anything, and might make testing and deployment very slightly simpler.
Might also allow for different release cycles, too, particularly desktop. It's conceivable that server would be the stable core but as new desktop and application updates are released, they could be packaged and released without disturbing the core. Some Ubuntu derivatives do that, using the LTS as a base and then updating the desktop and apps for in between releases until the next LTS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about the install image, it's actually about building useful stuff into each product (and also allowing the same things to be configured in different ways in the different products, which is another part of why they can't just be package sets). For instance, the 'role' management for Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... [fedoraproject.org] .
Three products? (Score:5, Funny)
"If we're going to be able to do three products . . ."
Three products? Why not five [theonion.com]?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Not THAT many. Some people write in PHP 4 too. (Score:2)
Fedora makes sense for a computer geek's desktop, if that geek wants to play with the cutting edge. For web hosting, not so much. Centos makes more sense if you want it to just work, and keep working. Consider the support lifetime for Fedora.
Some people DO use Fedora on a web server. Since people write software in PHP 4 too - that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is probably part of the thinking behind the new Fedora direction.
With a significantly more stable core, and progressively more changeable library and application layers around it.
(See http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-ii-whats-happening/)
Re: (Score:2)
Fedora makes sense for a computer geek's desktop, if that geek wants to play with the cutting edge. For web hosting, not so much. Centos makes more sense if you want it to just work, and keep working. Consider the support lifetime for Fedora.
Some people DO use Fedora on a web server. Since people write software in PHP 4 too - that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Fedora as a server also makes sense for developing new technologies. Just because there is a server version doesn't mean it is for deployment. One possibility would be that Redhat server vs Fedora server would be like Debian stable and Debian testing.
Yes, I did that when a server NEEDED something new (Score:2)
Certainly, if you want to develop next year's version of your software on next year's version of RHEL, Fedora is appropriate. I even deployed Fedora to production once when the application absolutely had to have a new subsystem that wasn't yet available in CentOS (not without compiling and replacing a bunch of stuff).
Okay, so actually I'v done it more than once. First I did it not knowing any better, than when that bit me I did it one more time when I didn't have much choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: there are quite a lot of web hosting companies which will lease you a physical host or VM with Fedora installed on it. Attempting to run any sort of serious production infrastructure on a distribution with an extremely short support life cycle [fedoraproject.org] is usually a bad idea.
(philip.paradis posting AC from this workstation, as I don't log in on it)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, fedora as a server
Fedora is the proving ground for just about all the stuff that may someday find its way into RHEL servers.
However, the process of getting from one to the other involves considerably delay, so some people will run Fedora as a server. It's not as stable, and doesn't get the maintenance lifespan, but that's the trade-off if you have to have the bleeding-edge stuff.
Good (Score:1)
Since the i* think it's sound to:
1) enable sshd
2) let sshd listen to traffic from everywhere
3) allow root logins over ssh
4) (using password)
by default I think this is a good change.
Now where that should still remain the default? ..
Hopefully definitely not on desktop at least. But who knows?
I'm abandoning it anyway (Score:1)
The absurd release frequency, the unnecessary changes, and the bad quality forced me to air-gap my system and freeze it in an ancient version in order to keep it running (or, better said, in order to reduce the risk of it breaking down). I stopped recommending fedora ages ago. Now that that system fulfilled its original purpose, it will be repurposed and updated with something different, probably CentOS or Mint.
Re:I'm abandoning it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
The absurd release frequency, the unnecessary changes, and the bad quality forced me to air-gap my system and freeze it in an ancient version in order to keep it running (or, better said, in order to reduce the risk of it breaking down). I stopped recommending fedora ages ago. Now that that system fulfilled its original purpose, it will be repurposed and updated with something different, probably CentOS or Mint.
I think you're rather missing the point of Fedora. The whole point is a Free, rapid release cycle distribution to track the (b)leading edge technologies. The good stuff that drops out of this goes into RHEL a few years later, whilst the bad stuff is abandoned. If you wanted a long-term-support distro, why did you choose a rapid release cycle one in the first place? RHEL, CentOS or Scientific Linux are much more sensible if your're not interested in the latest features; but you can't have both - you can't have the latest stuff that was only developed last month unless you go with a rapid release cycle distro.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed I should have gone with CentOS in the first place. It was a bad decision on my part, but it also turned out to be much worse than expected.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I did something similar purely for laziness reasons. My laptop was on FC16 until a couple of weeks ago (because it did everything I needed it to). The online update facility was long-gone, and I had to really search to find the FC17 install media, but once found, upgraded to a very broken FC17 quite quickly. I got it working by manually setting up a wired network connection and running "yum update" which fixed everything. From then on, 'fedup' took me through 18, 19 and onto 20 in a matter of hours.
I agree
Re: (Score:2)
Unstable?? My Fedora 20 install with KDE have been rock solid and even pulse audio is working nice. And having a per-program audio volume is nice :}
rob bergendy (Score:1)
Excuse me for this but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Robyn [fedoraproject.org] doesn't look like a "he" to me.
Re: (Score:1)