FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

[Richard Kelsch]

John Summerfied wrote:

> Richard Kelsch wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>>> Well, you should read up on what FC is for. It's for testing; if you 
>>> don't like the bleeding edge, get off it. Use a RHEL clone (or even 
>>> RHEL), or 'drake or SuSe or Ubuntu or something.
>>>
>>> I'm running FC3 on a couple of relatively unimportant systems. I'd 
>>> not bet my business on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, maybe you should read as well.  FC4 can't be a very effective 
>> example of bleeding edge in the open source arena if it can't run 
>> open source software without major surgery.  Also, who said I was 
>> using it for production or even a business?  I am using it as an 
>> appliance, and personal software development machine.  Why shouldn't 
>> I use the bleeding edge?  
>
>
> Because you obviously can't cope with the bleeding.
>
>
Bleeding I can cope with, otherwise I wouldn't have spent so much time 
on it.  It's the hemmorraging I can't cope with, nor should anyone 
running what is called a "stable release".  Sure, it's not intended for 
enterprise, but this is the first one that breaks most open source 
software out there.  That's not cool, nor would it be cool if the 
codebase were moved to the RHEL tree.  In fact, subscribers would be 
dropping like flies.

I use FC4 on my laptop because I don't need that other software and FC4 
works out of the box for it.  However, my workstation stays at FC3 
(after failing FC4 usability).  I still stand by my claim that FC4 fails 
the intentions of the project.  Nevertheless, I know it will be fixed 
eventually, perhaps FC5.

Rich

P.S.  Why is it always the fanboys that can't cope with anything 
negative about their favorite computer OS/software/hardware and feel 
they have to insult to satisfy their own pathetic ego, instead of 
understand it's constructive criticism that is part of improving the 
OS/software/hardware?