Fedora's mid-life crisis [LWN.net]

Fedora's mid-life crisis

Posted Jul 26, 2007 11:41 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Parent article: Fedora's mid-life crisis

Rather than a very broad "What is Fedora's goal" question, how about a more specific one: "Why would I run Fedora instead of Debian or Ubuntu?"

I know why I do the opposite: sane package management that works. I started out on Red Hat, which had an "easy to install" reputation, and Debian had a rather forbidding reputation. But "easy to install" and "easy to administer" are different things. I wish I had learned sooner that RPM hell was unnecessary. In those days nearly everyone except Debian used RPM -- but "nearly everyone" meant Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake. Today five of the top 10 distros on distrowatch (Ubuntu, Debian, MEPIS, Mint, DamnSmall) use debian packages, as do Linspire, Xandros and others; while there is only one "new" RPM user (PCLinuxOS) in the top 10 (which, one should note, uses Debian's apt). Clearly there's a reason everyone didn't go with the market leader of the time.

So, what would be the reason to choose Fedora instead?

(Log in to post comments)

Fedora's mid-life crisis

Posted Jul 26, 2007 12:15 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

(Disclaimer: I work at Red Hat, but these are not the views
of Red Hat or Fedora, but solely my personal views).

You mention "RPM hell", but RPM hell (ie. trying to choose
compatible versions of RPMs that work together) hasn't existed
on Fedora for many years now. Fedora chose yum for package
management, in the same way that Debian chose apt to manage debs.

However, there are some very distinct problems with yum (speaking
myself as a former Debian & Ubuntu user).

(1) It's slow as hell. Operations which are near-instant
in apt such as solving dependencies take many minutes in yum.

(2) It gives out opaque error messages which don't help to solve
the actual problems.

On the other hand, RPM itself is a very sane package format compared
to debs, and creating RPMs is considerably easier IMHO (and I know
because I've created both on many occasions). Also creating yum
repos is much much simpler than the equivalent apt repositories
for Debian.

Fedora are working hard to fix the more egregious problems in yum.

It's important to note also that counting distros which use deb or
apt vs. rpm or yum isn't very helpful. Distros differ in many other
ways which means that just because they may happen to use (say)
deb files, does _not_ in any way mean that debs can be transferred
between them, any more than you can take an RPM from SLES and install
it on Fedora. In this sense, whether deb or RPM is "winning"
really doesn't matter at all. Whether particular distros are
winning mindshare on the other hand is more important.

Rich.

Package management

Posted Jul 26, 2007 14:19 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

Well, I'd rather not see this topic get any farther into the package management wars... by contributing to this discussion... BUT... I do think your "many minutes" is an exaggeration. The only time I've had yum take more than a minute was when I was building an OS Template with OpenVZ... which is akin to a complete distro install. For normal, day to day operations, yum usually only takes a few seconds. I run my own repos and it is impressively fast sometimes... although yeah, apt would shave off even more of the install time. I think a lot of the lags that people have with yum are related to the mirror sites being slow... but I don't really have any data to support that.

Regarding the apt vs yum thing... and the term "rpm hell"... it is mostly about the packages themselves rather than the package manager. No one has really been relying directly on rpm for some time (just as Debian users don't use dpkg too often) with up2date, yum and others layered on top of rpm. I do give the Debian package maintainers credit as I think their packages have less problems... not that Fedora packages have lots of problems... but Debian has so many packages that Debian users don't go outside of the distribution provided packages as often as Fedora (or other rpm based distro) users do.

There was an article in LWN weekly a while back talking about some new package management system on some distribution, I forget which... but it was claiming that rpm development was dead because there hadn't been a lot of activity... but somehow he totally overlooked yum and the plugins for it that seem to be multiplying... but I didn't want to reply to that at the time because I didn't want to sound like I was an apologist. It just isn't cool when people use an article about one subject as a platform to advocate or slam another.

Ok, so if something I've said urks whoever reads this... don't take the bait... talk about the topics of the article rather than engaging in package management wars. :)

Package management

Posted Jul 28, 2007 22:10 UTC (Sat) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346) [Link]

I wrote that article, and I was talking specifically about the RPM format. It's great to hear that higher-level managers like yum have an active ecosystem, but in the end, they're limited to what's expressible by RPMs.

Fedora's mid-life crisis

Posted Jul 26, 2007 16:19 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Upgrades using yum are still not recommended on fedora, because of risk of breakage. On debian/ubuntu the worst that may happen is some third party packages may need manual removal and reinstallation. I've done apt-get dist-upgrade for 3 years, knoppix to debian sid to ubuntu, without breaking anything (though hotplug etc didn't work smoothly on ubuntu initially).

Taking more bait?

Posted Jul 26, 2007 17:57 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

Have you seen the upgrade troubleshooting guide (or whatever it is called) for Debian 3.1 to 4.0? It goes on for pages and pages. I don't think that is a flaw... and is reasonable.

I have upgraded many minor versions of RHEL and CentOS with up2date and yum and have had no problems. Those distros have minor releases. Fedora does not. Fedora only has major releases. One way Fedora makes up for that is they have a ton, Ton, TON of updates during the lifecycle of a release... and yum is used for those.

Fedora has been much more aggressive with global system changes from version to version and with such a rapid release cycle... trying to make a flawless upgrade path from version to version would be a considerable headache... not impossible but would require a lot of work.

As previously mentioned, a typical Fedora user (probably) has more out-of-distro packages than a typical Debian user... putting more bumps in upgrade road.

The Fedora project has chosen to make yum based distro upgrades a low priority.

If doing a fresh install has a significantly less failure rate compared to a package manager based upgrade path (on those systems where it is available), some would argue that the fresh install option is the most prudent... but I realize it isn't for everyone.

For a home user, having /home on a separate partition and retaining that partition from fresh install to fresh install isn't seen as a problem... or at least I don't consider that a problem.

You have to also understand that even retaining stuff in /home can be problematic at times... especially when Gnome and KDE (and other apps) don't necessarily do a good job of migrating their older settings into later versions. Just because there weren't any errors during the upgrade and the system boots doesn't mean everything is fine. The only way a perfect upgrade system could be built would be if it were aware of all configuration files for all applications on the system on both a system and end user level, parse all of the config files, knowing all of the changes between versions, fixing all inconsitances... and then writing modified configurations. Debian's system tries to do that for the major server applications (which is good) but there is often an interactive dialog box that wants user input on which way to go (which is good)... but given the fact that there are way more apps where that process doesn't exist... you can see that there is a potential for problems. Debian does limit this to a certain degree by being less aggressive with version upgrades from release to release... and they have much longer release cycles.... so with regards to this, I think both distros have taken the upgrade path that makes the most sense for them.

Why did I take the bait?

Taking more bait?

Posted Jul 27, 2007 12:49 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Why did I take the bait?

Actually, I didn't get any answer to my question: why would I consider switching from Debian/Ubuntu to Fedora, or recommend Fedora to a newcomer?

Perhaps rpm/yum is now as good, or nearly as good, as deb/apt. I doubt anyone would claim it's better. So what is better?

The question also applies to SuSE, Mandriva and others -- what do they offer? I can see what other distros do offer: Linspire and Xandros offer a Windows-like experience, Slackware offers a barebones experience, Gentoo is for ricers, the BSDs offer clean well-thought-out systems with readable source code and (depending on flavour) high performance / support for obscure hardware / paranoid security.

Why use distro X or Y?

Posted Jul 27, 2007 17:15 UTC (Fri) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

I could simply reverse the question and ask, why would I want to switch from using Fedora to Debian or Ubuntu? It is all about choice and personal preference.

For me, I like Fedora because of the design, philosophy, project, and people...the rapid development/release cycle... and the fact that they update packages like mad during the lifecycle of a release. I like principles on using free software... and their unwillingness to compromise those.

I prefer using yum and rpm simply because I'm more familiar with them.

I like the various things I've stated before... about them willing to take more risks and use bleeding edge software (advancing development of them and maturing them faster by getting them into the hands of the user), advancing new technologies... like SELinux, Xen, KVM, etc. I like that Fedora is considered somewhat of a kernel testing platform because their kernels are usually very close to latest Linux kernel releases... and that gets the kernel tested by more users.

I like the fact that it is sponsored by Red Hat and all of the people that they employ to work on various GPLed products such as the Linux kernel, Xorg, gcc, etc. Red Hat really gives back to the community with the vast amount of development work they sponsor.

Those are just some reasons I came up with in short order so it isn't a comprehensive test. Perhaps they'd work for you, perhaps not.

For servers, I prefer RHEL and CentOS (more stable, longer support, more conservative, backed by the large server OEMS) and using Fedora on the desktop helps me get a glipse of what is coming... basically from every third release of Fedora.

There may be people who prefer the Fedora properties on a server, but I'm not one of them.

Bait taken

Posted Jul 28, 2007 8:46 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Your message reads like a lot of excuses about why Fedora upgrades do not work and why it is so hard to do. But it sidesteps the real issue, which is that in Debian and in Ubuntu it works, so it can be done both by volunteers and by paid professionals. And Ubuntu doesn't have long release cycles. And Debian has major updates.

Sure, it is not a trivial problem, and every time I upgrade my debian-based machines I am amazed that it works. And it is probably a lot of work. We already know that. But it works, while in Fedora people are complaining about it. To me it looks like poor engineering, and it reflects badly on Red Hat.

Bait taken

Posted Aug 2, 2007 7:38 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link]

> in Debian and in Ubuntu it works

I'm sorry, this is just propaganda. I have upgraded between Fedora releases with yum update many times, and it always worked, possibly with a few packages requiring manual handling. Whereas when I upgraded Ubuntu, it was one-click, proceeded smoothly -- and the system did not boot afterwards. So, as everything, it works for someone, sometimes.

Bait taken

Posted Aug 2, 2007 8:38 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

It is not just propaganda; at least dowdle said above:

The Fedora project has chosen to make yum based distro upgrades a low priority.

And that does not happen in Debian land. Of course it will have flaws, but if it does not work, it is considered a serious bug.

Maybe that is not the official position anyway, and that would be nice. I don't know, I have never installed or upgraded Fedora or RH.

Bait taken

Posted Aug 2, 2007 14:33 UTC (Thu) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

man_ls,

I am not am not an official Fedora representative... just a user and community member since like... Red Hat 3.

Just ran across a posting by Kevin Fenzi on the Fedora People site where he talks about his recent experiences upgrading three machines from FC6 to F7 via yum... so I thought I'd pop back here and post it and I see that there have been a couple of additional comments added since I last checked.

Yeah, I considered mentioned the fact that (according to one source I read a while ago) the failure rate for one Ubuntu upgrade was 40%... but I didn't previously mention it for two reasons:

1) I didn't feel like hunting down the article I read

2) It was from release before last I think

3) Unlike you, I don't get pleasure from ripping on things

4) Since you've been in the Ubuntu/Debian community, I'm sure you were familiar with it already... and I didn't want to have to listen to your reason it failed... because it is a past release anyway... and who cares... they've done better since and will continue to do so

You seem to think that if Fedora doesn't recommend yum based upgrades that it is a major flaw... and say that the Fedora community is clammering for it. Hmmm, I'm like... a member of the Fedora community and I really haven't heard a lot of clammering. I've considered doing yum based upgrades (because it is possible) but the last few releases, I've not bothered... because doing a fresh install is a lot quicker and easier for me (can't speak for others).

Oh, almost forgot... here's Kevin's posting about his recent upgrading via yum:

http://www.tummy.com/journals/entries/kevin_20070801_113809

Whoopie. Who cares... some people do like to upgrade via yum.

I do think it is rude of you to invade this topic with your negative message. I do NOT go into Ubuntu related stories and talk bad about it... but there seems to be a pattern where Ubuntu people invade Fedora topics and post anti-Fedora stuff. Oh well, I'll get over it.

Bait taken

Posted Aug 2, 2007 15:24 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Sorry if I have bothered you, I can assure you that it was not my intention in the least. I don't expect anything at all from any distribution that I may or may not use; I don't even pay for them, so I am grateful for what I receive in any case.

Bait taken

Posted Aug 3, 2007 1:32 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

Thank you for exposing the Ubuntu propaganda. I have a metric
called 'mean time to command prompt' when installing or upgrading a
distro. Ubuntu was second to Gentoo.

Suse was quite good, although the end result was quite heavy. And the rpm
management was glacial. I didn't try Redhat or Fedora.

I'm not suggesting that others have not had easy or flawless upgrades. I
consider myself outside of the Ubuntu user profile. Obviously, because
they wouldn't have released it if my experience was common.

Derek