Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Dec 2009 20:21 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 397874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No. You have become a Ubuntu fanboy trolling about Fedora and continuously lying about it.
No. The Ubuntu guys have done a very good job with Ubuntu. Ubuntu has been a success for Linux in its particular playing position.
The Fedora guys have done a very good job with Fedora. Fedora has been a success for Linux in its particular playing position.
Where we seem to disagree is that Ubuntu and Fedora have different playing positions. And would you really want it any other way?
Uhuh. I made a statement, and you saw that your could turn the discussion into this blind alley where we could argue whether the Fedora project officially uses the word "bleeding" in their marketing materials. And you jumped on it. I'm not falling for it. I won't accuse you of lying on that point. But there is certainly an element of deception in that.
Is Fedora popularly known as being "bleeding edge"? Yes, it is. Deny it, Rahul.
Is Fedora popularly known as being "bleeding edge"? Yes, it is. Deny it, Rahul.
The statement claimed it was bleeding edge that was the aim of the releases made by the project (it is not) when your statement was shown to be BS you changed the arguement into what the "perception" of it is. You can play word games if you like but no one is buying it.
....... skipping masses of opinion........
And my number one complaint about Fedora is not that it is bleeding edge, cutting edge, leading edge, whatever your marketing sensibilities are comfortable with
Twist away, if you change your language enough times maybe one version will be seen as accurate.
Fedora is, in general, less reliable than other distros. Which is fine, considering what Fedora's goals are. (And being Red Hat's perpetual beta is one goal that Fedora can never get completely away from.) You can't have cutting edge features and cutting edge reliability both at the same time.
That must be why more ubuntu updates have caused the system to become unbootable for all users - in less releases and less kernel updates at that. Damn logic and factual data, that's fine go on, keep ignoring reality.
So all I ask is that Fedora reps be honest about what Fedora is.
And in the interim, I will continue to be honest about what Fedora is.
And in the interim, I will continue to be honest about what Fedora is.
I would reccomend not changing your language every time your arguement is shown to be wrong next time as part of this "honesty".





Member since:
2005-07-24
Uhuh. I made a statement, and you saw that your could turn the discussion into this blind alley where we could argue whether the Fedora project officially uses the word "bleeding" in their marketing materials. And you jumped on it. I'm not falling for it. I won't accuse you of lying on that point. But there is certainly an element of deception in that.
Is Fedora popularly known as being "bleeding edge"? Yes, it is. Deny it, Rahul.
Fedora jumps you from 2.6.23 to 2.6.24 to 2.6.25 to 2.6.26, etc. all in the same, supposedly stable, release. Not many distros do that. They stick with one kernel version. Of the major distros, in fact, Fedora is pretty much the only distro with that cavalier attitude. So you and lemur can just cease and desist with the "everyone does that" mantra. Because it is not true. Although I should make clear that I realize that Fedora has its reasons for doing so.
Fedora is somewhat reckless. And that's perfectly OK, as long as you admit it and users go in well informed. Fedora can be a lot of fun if you don't have a lot of responsibility riding on it. I'd still be using it at home if I could afford to be so happy go lucky.
What I so disapprove of in you lately, Rahul, is that you are not willing to be honest about what Fedora is. Because there is nothing particularly wrong with what Fedora is. Fedora is good to the extent that its advocates are honest. Fedora does a good job of getting new stuff ready for the greater Linux distro community at large.
And my number one complaint about Fedora is not that it is bleeding edge, cutting edge, leading edge, whatever your marketing sensibilities are comfortable with, Rahul... but that it's reps seem to want to deny that it is what it is when it is convenient for them to do so, and then show up to accept any credit when credit is being handed out.
Fedora is, in general, less reliable than other distros. Which is fine, considering what Fedora's goals are. (And being Red Hat's perpetual beta is one goal that Fedora can never get completely away from.) You can't have cutting edge features and cutting edge reliability both at the same time.
So all I ask is that Fedora reps be honest about what Fedora is.
And in the interim, I will continue to be honest about what Fedora is.
Edited 2009-12-04 03:55 UTC