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

Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

--- "Christofer C. Bell" <christofer c bell gmail com>

> On 6/29/05, Scot L. Harris <webid cfl rr com> wrote:
> > 
> > I must have missed the part where you said you
> were testing things.  I
> > read your statement above "I like and want to use
> Linux, not spend hours
> > working out problems in getting it to work." to
> mean that you wanted a
> > stable release to run your software on.  I
> recommended Centos as a
> > viable option to that end.
> While the rest of your post is not in the same tone,
> I feel this sort
> of "if you want stability go somewhere else"
> responce disappointing
> from many members of this mailing list.  It seems
> there are a lot of
> folks who like to  take the "Fedora as testbed"
> stance to an extreme. 
> The operating system is not advertised as "unstable"
> and it shouldn't
> be viewed as such.  The recent selinux mistake is
> understandable as
> all previous patches are nominally understood to be
> applied before a
> new one is (and under these conditions, the selinux
> issue doesn't
> occur in my understanding).
> The Fedora "Objectives" page[1] does state:
> * "Provide a robust development platform for
> building software,
> particularly open source software." - Implies some
> modicum of
> stability.
> * "Establish and implement technical standards for
> packages to ensure
> quality and consistency of the operating system." -
> A clear nod to
> stability.
> * "Create an environment where third party packages
> are easy to add
> and positive encouragement and support exists for
> third party
> packaging." - Stability is required for this goal to
> be met.
> * "Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially
> supported operating system
> products." - Poor quality assurance in Fedora
> implies poor quality
> assurance in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so poor
> quality assurance in
> Fedora better not be happening (and I don't think it
> is).
> * Fedora does not want to be "a dumping ground for
> unmaintained or
> poorly designed software." - This also implies a
> robust quality
> assurance process.
> Yes, Fedora is "the basis of Red Hat's commercially
> supported
> operating system products" and thus it's a moving
> target -- but this
> does not imply that a given release is to be viewed
> as unstable or
> that people who experience problems should be told
> to go elsewhere for
> their Linux experience or to "suck it up and deal."
> As for the person that said it's advertised on
> Fedora's page that
> users can expect to run into show stopping issues
> with regularity, I'm
> hard pressed to find that anywhere on the site.  Do
> you have a pointer
> to it?  (Hint: It's not there because it's not in
> Red Hat's interest
> to discourage people from using their software).
> [1] http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
> -- 
> Chris
> "With the way things are starting to go in this
> country, if forced to
> choose between being caught with a van full of
> pirated DVDs or heroin
> you'd actually have to pause and think about it." --
> Michael Bell,
> drunkenblog.com
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list redhat com
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

As I told before, I migrated from Suse 9.1 to Fedora
core 4. The reason was that I didn't like that
'comercial' distro. It was not so stable as they
promissed. Up to now, (in my case) FC4 has been much
better than Suse. At least for me, this is a 'proof'
that FC4 is a great linux distro and, in my opinion
much better than some 'comercial' distroes elsewhere.
I just think that a new version every 6 months
wouldn't be necessary. Well, I am not part of the
'Fedora staff'. Probably the way as new cores are
released should be correct as it is. 
In summary: I am enjoying Fedora a lot!

Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 

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