[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC2 to RH9

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:07, Jeff Ratliff wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:53:59AM -0300, Ted Gervais wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:42, Scot L. Harris wrote:
> > > 
> > > FC1 was pretty much just RH9 with only a few changes.
> > > 
> > > FC2 was a major upgrade for the kernel and window manager as well as a
> > > few other items.  I expect FC3 to be much more what everyone is looking
> > > for in regards to the various issues that arose with FC2 release.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes!   I believe that too.  Maybe FC2 came out too soon.  Possibly a
> > delay of maybe a month or two might have been a better way to come out
> > with an upgrade to FC1.
> I think FC2 came out when it was supposed to. The problems that were 
> found after release were fixed much quicker than they would have been
> in testing. I'm not sure how you can expect FC2 to be more stable 
> than FC1, especially with all the changes. I don't know of any OS 
> that does a new release that's more stable than a version that's 
> been in production for a while. Feel free to give an example.
> I think maybe the problem isn't that FC2 came out too soon, it's
> that you upgraded before your critical issues were fixed. 



Ted Gervais
Coldbrook, Nova Scotia

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]