FC2 doubtful quality?

[Jim Cornette]

Dexter Ang wrote:

> Andy Green wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 09:51, Dexter Ang wrote:
>>
>>>> Realibility will depend on the number of people testing "test" 
>>>> releases.
>>>> If you want a quality release, you should help out by testing and
>>>> reporting bugs. If you can't afford to use your machine for testing,
>>>> your best hope is to report bugs and wait for fixes. There really 
>>>> is so
>>>> many hardware to test on, that the chances of certain 
>>>> configurations not
>>>> working is very high.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To be fair  this is not the only factor: witholding the release until 
>> the nastiest known bugs are squished is as critical.  This is a pure 
>> RH decision.
>>
>> I thought you made a good answer Dexter, but I have seen a lot of 
>> posts lately blowing off all criticism of FC2, when there clearly 
>> have been serious troubles.  Acknowledging the problems and going on 
>> in a way to avoid them next time would be the right solution.
>>
>
> I see your point. Unfortunately, as far as I understand, Fedora Core 
> is to be released on a schedule basis (dated deadlines) as opposed to 
> "squish all bugs" schedule. As stated on the main fedora.redhat.com page:
>
> "The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 
> times a year with a public release schedule."
>
> So I guess developers were "pressured" to release on a deadline, 
> hoping to fix most bugs through updates. As much as I'd personally 
> love to help test and test until all bugs are stamped out, you can't 
> avoid the fact that a lot of other people simply won't test until a 
> "final" release is out.
>
> I think everyone acknowledges that there are major problems. But it 
> seems the only way to avoid them is to have more testers, have more 
> bugzilla reports logged in, and have fun along the way.
>
> dex
>
>
I have noticed a lot fewer problems with the RHL to FCL change. The 
major improvements seem to be from either picking up information from 
"distress calls" from changes to certain software that went rabid 
because of a seemingly mild change to one program. Also, if a problem 
with a program or hardware interface were broken, things were corrected 
when knowledge and resources were adequate to snuff the bug, either 
through regression or advancment to the other inflicted programs or 
hardware.

Since RHL moved away from supporting chancy things like mp3, ntfs or 
other programs with restrictive or "McDonalds hot coffee" attributes. I 
think that the move to release RHL into Fedora Core was a worthwhile move.

Except for the cow on the trampoline not working on FC2 with an S3 based 
video chip, I see way more advancements to FC2 compared to earlier RHL 
or other Linux distros that I've tried out.

The point, if any, RHL was in a too restrictive environment. FC is in a 
seemingly more progressive state and is softly linked to repositories 
that can provide more to what was restricted by copyright/patent related 
issues.

Thanks for help from both the community and to those of the community 
that develop the software that go into the core distribution.

Good points Dexter,

Jim

-- 
Be security conscious -- National defense is at stake.