Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Thread beginning with comment 380844
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Meh.
by Wrawrat on Thu 27th Aug 2009 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Meh."
Wrawrat
Member since:
2005-06-30

Off-topic from the main article, yes. off-topic from the parent post, no.

Yeah, I know. I guess it's better drifting from the main article than feeding the trolls. ;)

And I wouldn't say that upgrading dozens of computers every six months is "just out of the question" in and of itself, kinda depends on the situation. For large deployments with exotic configurations and old software/hardware, it probably would be out of the question to do something major like a distro upgrade every 6 months. But not every distribution pushes radical changes down the pipe every release, and not every distribution even cares much about releases, like the previously mentioned Gentoo and Arch.

Sure, there is no problem to update your personal network every six month. However, it's quite risky to adopt such schedule in a production environment as there is always a possibility to break something for someone. In this case, I believe it's better stay with the devil you know until there is enough incentive to upgrade, hence why some people might want to stick with older releases.

As for distributions with rolling releases, I cannot count the number of times my system was left broken after an "emerge" or "pacman" on the stable branch. My opinion: these distributons are quite great for hackers wanting the complete control of their system... but I question the sanity (and the accountability) of somebody deploying one of them in a production environment (esp. if it's a desktop deployment)! Of course, YMMV.

Edited 2009-08-27 04:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Meh.
by OddFox on Thu 27th Aug 2009 08:14 in reply to "RE[5]: Meh."
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

About the rolling releases I would have figured that making use of portage to mask package versions you do not want changed would be a good method of keeping things in order. I don't have experience actually trying to get all that going, but I would have figured the tools had capabilities to allow oneself to strictly manage the software installed. I do hear a lot though from various users that Gentoo and the like suffer from problems in such deployments.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Meh.
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:48 in reply to "RE[6]: Meh."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Long post cut short: count me among the people who have had terrible, terrible experiences with Gentoo. Like, system-is-unbootable, weekend-sucking experiences. Like, "screw this, Slackware 10 time" experiences. I really, really wish that emerge would, you know, tell you, or, God forbid, halt the operation, if the thing you try to do is known to break systems.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Meh.
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Meh."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

We've got a number-crunching cluster at work. It's using the now-really-old-and-feature-poor Red Hat Enterprise 4. We've had a RHEL5 site-license for a long time. Why haven't we installed it yet? We're busy, we can't afford the cluster down-time, and nobody will pay for the man-hours to perform the update. It is kinda ridiculous on our part, but it isn't completely for no reason. Updates take time, cost money and carry risks: corporations don't suffer them gladly, in general. I think, anyway. So far as I know.

So... yeah. Companies expect OS's that they can get a few years out of. They do not like OS's that make major architectural changes every six months. Or maybe even every year or two years.

Reply Parent Score: 1