[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 Mon, 2005-04-11 at 01:11, Craig White wrote:

> 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.

Apache 2.0 and the corresponding mod_perl were not even close to
being ready for prime time when included in 8.0.  I think they
started mostly-working in FC2.   And this was after they finally
got the compile options right for the 1.x version in an update
between 7.2 and 7.3 so the dynamically loaded module worked.

> 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 can't recall any major problems in 7.3, except that the apps were
slightly outdated and the official updates eventually stopped.

> 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.

Maybe I'm not saying it correctly.  The ltsp and educational programs
are added as package groups that you can pick or not during the
install.  Anyone who wants a stock fedora workstation/server install can
download the k12ltsp isos and ignore the extra stuff during the install
unless they pick 'everything'.  And they'll get the updates that were
available at the time the release was made.  In other words, everyone
using k12ltsp *is* a fedora user.  Even if you pick 'everything' you can
generally ignore the extra stuff if you don't need/like it.

> If it's so simple, why don't YOU do it?

It is already done.  Just not here.

> > 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.
> ----

Sorry - I don't mean to give that impression.  I'm omitting all of the
things that do work.   I'm the most pro-Linux and generally pro-Fedora
person in my company.  It is just mostly so good that I hate to see
any flaws remain. 

> >  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.

I can't blame RH9 for omitting a driver that wasn't available at the
time of the release.  However, I probably have more than 50 boxes
with the SuperMicro 370DER MB that came with RH9 pre-installed (I
assume that RH gets something from that...) and was surprised that I
couldn't install FC2 due to this bug: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124495 which
would have been next to impossible to work around.   Note the lack
of resolution to the bug.

  Les Mikesell
   les futuresource com

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