FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

[Richard Kelsch]

Scot L. Harris wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 04:52, Richard Kelsch wrote:
>  
>
>>Ok people, I'm not trying to be a bummer here, so please read this as if 
>>it was meant to entertain, not insult.  Think of me as a whining comic.  
>>However, there is a seriousness to the root of this message:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>I like and want to use Linux, not spend hours working out problems in 
>>getting it to work.  BAD!  BAD!!  It's like buying a hydrogen powered 
>>car.  Sure, it's new, clean, and neato-keen with all the nerds out 
>>there, but your screwed being to actually fill it with fuel.  Shame on 
>>you if you live outside of Seattle or San Francisco (Fanboy capitals of  
>>the continent).  Your new, bitchin' car is a brick.  The same goes using 
>>FC4 outside it's core software, your PC is a brick as well.
>>    
>>
>
>Understand that FC is a test bed.  Red Hat is using it as a rapid
>development platform.  They will take the things that work and
>incorporate them into RHEL.  FC is a time based release, it will have
>problems, guaranteed.  It says this on the main fedora web site.
>
>If you want a Red Hat like system that is more stable you should try
>Centos.  It is a rebuilt version of the latest RHEL.  Currently it is
>roughly equivalent to FC3 at the moment.  You will get a longer period
>of support with it and in most cases it should be more reliable.  The
>next version will have many features of FC4 in it, and since those using
>FC4 will have sorted out most of the problems you won't have many of the
>issues you listed or the problems people are reporting here.
>
>If you just want to use Linux that is probably a better path than trying
>to use the latest and greatest Fedora release.
>  
>
What part of "test bed" did you not understand?  You even said it 
yourself.  I tested it and found flaws.  What?  Could it be you don't 
want to know about these issues?  How good is testing if you can't 
handle it when someone finds something wrong?  Think my friend.  This is 
me testing FC4 and finding what I consider problems.  Learn from these 
problems and understand the word "test" more thoroughly.  When you 
"test" you are looking for problems.  When a problem is found, it is a 
good idea to fix it.

I'm completely sure RHEL users must use software out of the tree on 
their systems as well.  If RHEL is going to have the incompatibility of 
FC4, then you might want to rethink that strategy.

>And I have to ask, what prompted you to upgrade to FC4?  If you had a
>perfectly working FC3 what features of FC4 did you want/need that
>prompted the upgrade?
>  
>
Ahem, FC4 is a test bed, and I was TESTING it to see if it would run my 
software.  I tested it, it failed.  In fact, it wouldn't run a lot of 
software out there.  The test was a failure.  Also, I wanted to see if 
there was anything new I might be able to incorporate into my software 
and the usage of my system for the future.  Isn't that one of the goals 
and intentions of the Fedora project?

>IMHO upgrading just to upgrade is not a good reason unless that is your
>thing.  :)
>  
>
I'm not in a production environment.  I can afford to.  If "A" is better 
than "B", then why not use "A" if you can?

Thanks for the reply.

Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20050629/c360ba59/attachment-0001.htm>