Leaving?

[edwardsa]

Sorry to butt in here. I have spent a lot of time using Debian and a
litte using FC. In Debian stable means stable. You don't screw around
with the distribution to make it look cool(er) or even to add
capabilities. It's a promise to the community that you can use this
without fear of finding an update breaks things. In the Debian distro, 
if you want newer things, you use testing. I realize that FC tries to
move new relases of, say, KDE, gnome, and xorg into their stable distribution 
more quickly, so stability is less sachrosanct. At the same time, the
Debian community may be even less sympathetic to third party binary
complaints. However, I think that the disregard of third-party codes is
actually short-sighted. As Linux becomes more widely accepted, it will
encounter more third-party codes. More users will get the attention of
commercial software vendors so that there will be more available. Only
if linux would like to remain a hobbyist's OS would it ignore this
problem. I'm not claiming that there is an easy solution. One of the
great advantages of linux, that it is not monolithic, is also one of its 
greatest obstacles when dealing with commercial vendors. I don't know how 
the governing bodies of various distro's will choose to deal with this,
but arrogance would be a poor choice.

My $0.02

Art Edwards

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006, 08:40:35AM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> On Friday 28 July 2006 08:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi all,
> [...]
> > This is not meant as some kinda blackmail to stop the Xorg 7.1 update,
> > to be honest at this point I don't care about the 7.1 update anymore.
> > And as I said when I started the target audience discussion this was
> > never about the 7.1 update. Its about the principle of not knowingly
> > having a yum update during a stable release breaks peoples systems,
> > especially not with a smile on your face and saying behind those end
> > users backs that will teach them not to use binary crap. Because that
> > _IS_ what is happening here. Sure there are many advancements in xorg
> > 7.1 and I'm not suggesting to leave it out FC-6 even if the binary
> > drivers aren't available at FC-6 launch time, but breaking stuff with
> > TOTAL disregard to a large group of end users, during a stable's release
> > lifetime is IMHO unacceptable. And what worries me is not this single
> > instance of breaking, its the attitude behind it and the ease with which
> > we (you?) step over the all of a sudden minor problem of seriously
> > hurting a significant group of end users.
> 
>   Hans note that what you say about a group of users can be said the same way 
> about the complementary set.
> 
>   In technical terms, people who install third party modules (should) know 
> what they are doing. Either they install them directly, and in this case know 
> how to avoid the updates, or they use a repository who provides these 
> packages and it can be worked to solve the problem as well.
> 
>   In philosophical terms to whitheld the release of any package because of the 
> (in)actions of a third party seems to me a bad precedent.
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hans
> 
> -- 
> José Abílio
> 
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list