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

Re: Attn : Dave Jones Re: I just want one more option in the FC Kernels (Dave Jones)

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 23:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 19:32, Craig White wrote:
> > > Yes, but look back at the jump between 7.3 which was a real classic
> > > in stability and probably still running in a lot of places (I have
> > > a few myself) and 8.0 which was just horrible.
> > ----
> > you would no doubt accept that this is/was a matter of opinion and I for
> > one, rather liked 8.0
> Sure, but then I'd bet that you didn't try to run an apache/mod_perl
> site on it as distributed.  
I've yet to see an Red Hat / Fedora release where everything worked
perfectly for everyone straight out of the box or installed off iso.

One of the hazards I guess of F/OSS software.

But yes, I haven't run an apache/mod_perl site on it but I would bet
that it got fixed before long after the 8.0 release. IIRC, that was
about the time when UTF-8 was introduced and perl still seems to be
struggling with it.

FWIW - I got killed on RH 7.1 when they released it and it didn't work
on the Intel 440_X motherboards. By comparison, 8.0 seemed rather good.
> I thought some users might appreciate the alternative I mentioned,
> which is that the k12ltsp distribution is rebuilt with the
> updates available at the time it is released - which is
> always a bit after each fedora release since the add-ons
> need to be tested.  (And since this is done by one man whose
> real job is in school administration, I think that puts
> an upper bound on the 'great lengths' that could be needed).
no matter how many times you make this statement/comparison to k12ltsp -
it is absolutely meaningless to the general distribution of Fedora -
k12ltsp has a specific bent and Fedora is after all a general
distribution so what k12ltsp does to update is meaningless to this
discussion - i.e. Fedora users.

If it's so simple, why don't YOU do it?
> I couldn't wait for FC3 to use the machines again - and there was no
> convincing evidence at the time that it would be better than the
> previous 3 versions.
you may be the most negative person on this list - but from where I sit,
there isn't much hope of convincing you of much of anything.
>  Actually, in deference to RH9, the problem machines
> had SCSI controllers newer than the release and it was eventually
> possible to make it work by adding a driver during the install.
> The ones that failed with FC2, on the other hand, went hopelessly
> into a loop during video detection early in the install. 
Not sure what the point is here - that is always the case. Skilled users
can almost always get around the driver issues of newer hardware.


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