IS FC3 stable?

[Pete]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 16:04, Pete wrote:
>  
>
>>Rahul, please step back a moment, how would 
>>you like to buy a new car, and have to rewire it, move things around, 
>>etc, before you could drive it off the dealers lot.  We've come a long 
>>way, but whether you want to admit it or not, we have a long way to go.  
>>Let's start walking, instead of claiming we don't need to go.
>>    
>>
>
>The last thing everyone needs is a sendmail that accepts and
>forwards email without any configuration.   I would hope that
>Windows exchange server also requires some configuration before
>it does that. Likewise, a package like Cyrus that does not
>assume that email users match local unix users can't possibly
>work until you tell it how to authenticate these users.  If you
>can suggest a working default, please do.  I'm all in favor
>of good defaults that work as-is for most users.  I just can't
>think of one that would work for sendmail or cyrus.  Maybe
>they could be built to require pam authentication with the
>same system stack for pam that everything else uses.  But then
>you lose the cyrus advantage of not needing a unix login.
>
>But, I have to ask: if you want something that works with the
>default install, why are you using Cyrus instead of Dovecot?
>
>  
>
Les, I'm sorry, but the configuration involved requires more than adding 
users to sasl and cyradm.  Also, does dovecot handle pop?  Have you guys 
seen the front-end for Samba, very nice and clean, although yes it has 
some things that aren't working also, but it's very easy to configure 
Samba, no editting files, no running make by hand, is it too much to 
expect that from Cyrus?  I think not.  I suspect that if you're in the 
"industry", you'd know it doesn't matter how well the software works, if 
you can't configure it easily.