FC2 doubtful quality?

Wed Jun 23 00:48:36 UTC 2004

I just tried whitebox linux. Seems like a logical (small) step forward
from red hat 9. I haven't looked at Enterprise 3 yet but whitebox is
supposed to be EN 3 with yum instead of RHN. I basically took my RH9
kickstart config and pointed it a whitebox and up it all came. A few
packages have been dropped compared to RH9, but apart from that it all
worked fine.

Of course if you want to go to a 2.6 kernel then try suse or debian
(testing/unstable.) I think suse is more like how redhat 9 used to be: A
bit better tested than fedora and a little less bleeding edge. I know
part of my success with suse (where FC2 has failed me) is due to the
older 2.6.4 kernel. Some bugs were introduced in 2.6.5 or 2.6.6
(according to something I read in this list) that broke things for my
hardware. I have tried FC2 on maybe 8 different sets of hardware and had
problems on 3 out the 8 systems, that were bad enough and still haven't
been fixed to force me to try suse and whitebox.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedora-list-bounces at redhat.com 
> [mailto:fedora-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Keith Lofstrom
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2004 3:24 AM
> To: fedora-list at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: FC2 doubtful quality?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a debate between the complainers and the excuse-makers.  
> 
> The complainers (which include me) want responsible behavior.  The
> excuse-makers claim that the users who complain aren't worthy.
> 
> I have been using Redhat for years.  I still have RH9 on 3 machines.
> I am using Fedora Core 1 on two machines, and Fedora Core 2 
> on another.
> Like my fellow complainers, I am also considering replacing them all
> with SUSE or Debian. 
> 
> I would dearly love for the fedora model to work;  there are some
> excellent people contributing here.  But there are also those who
> get their kicks by abusing newbies and playing power games.  They
> make the whole fedora and linux community look bad.
> 
> Look at the fedora website - what it actually says, what it does
> not actually say.  The website sales fluff is very inviting, and
> does NOT actually describe what goes on with Fedora - the bugginess,
> the hostility, the willful neglect of bugzilla reports, the scorn
> for professional concerns (that is, customer-centric, 
> quality-oriented,
> and money-making).  Maybe, relative to other distros, Fedora is the
> best of the bunch, and I will be disappointed by a change.  But
> relative to my other, non-software professional concerns, FC2 and
> the process that produced it are quite buggy and unreliable.
> 
> An honest description on the website of what to expect - especially
> for test releases - would go a long way towards moving complainers
> elsewhere.  This would leave the rest of the community alone to
> pursue the bleeding edge - and beyond - in quiet, happy obscurity.
> 
> This is not what the excuse-makers want to hear.  They would like
> their irresponsible behavior to actually work in the real world.
> Well, here in the real world you must give 200%, suffer enormous
> abuse, strain to the limit to satisfy your customers/users, and
> even with all that effort you will still sometimes miss your target. 
> If you don't even try, you will end up planting your flag in a
> dungheap and calling it Mount Everest, and never understand why
> other folks are complaining about the smell.
> 
> Complainers, if you were using Redhat because of the excellent
> support, get over it.  Those days are gone.  That kind of support
> is not available here.  It may not be available anywhere.  Too bad,
> it is what could have made Linux a contender for the average desktop.
> 
> Fedora is not the evolutionary successor of Redhat;  it is a highly
> experimental distro, and FC2 is just one more pre-beta test distro. 
> There is a place for that, but it should not be advertised (read
> the web page dammit) as anything suitable for average users and
> day-to-day use. 
> 
> Yes, many average people can use Fedora day-to-day;  most smokers
> don't die of lung cancer.  But until Fedora comes with warnings
> ("don't use FC2 if you have an ATI Rage 128 video card", "support
> for this version disappears in 8 months" and the time honored "you
> get what you pay for") so the average person can make an informed
> choice, loading Fedora Core 2 is much like playing Russian roulette. 
> 
> FC2 is indeed "doubtful quality".  You should be very skeptical
> before loading it.  That doesn't make it "bad", it just makes it
> incompatable with the goals of many users.  FC2 is a race car, not
> a BMW, and it should be advertised as the former and not the latter. 
> Again, look at the website!
> 
> Fellow complainers, pay close attention to the excuse makers.  An
> excuse is a promise to repeat the same behavior in the future.  If
> you feel that the excuse-to-solution ratio is too high, perhaps it
> is indeed time to look for more professional behavior elsewhere. 
> I have a colo site with bandwidth.  Does anyone know how to set up
> a mailing list?  We could call it "redhat-recovery" and focus on
> techniques for moving on.  Then we could leave these other happy
> folks to quietly enjoy their sandbox.
> 
> Keith
> 
> -- 
> Keith Lofstrom           keithl at ieee.org         Voice (503)-520-1993
> KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas 
> in Silicon"
> Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs
> 
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> 