Good bye

[Les Mikesell]

Arthur Pemberton wrote:

>>>>>> But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to
>>>>>> install additional software which is why I have an operating system in
>>>>>> the first place.
>>>>> Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS
>>>>> software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly
>>>>> philosophical reasons against closed source.
>>>> My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the
>>>> additional software meets your religious beliefs or not.  It is strictly
>>>> about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or
>>>> its inability to provide stable interfaces.
>>> You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would
>>> be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide
>>> all repos in yum by default.
>> OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break"
>> in every case where something that worked in one version does not work
>> in the next or after an update.  From the perspective of a person who
>> just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
> 
> Got any examples of that?

Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should 
be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.  But every fedora 
version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down, 
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device 
names would break from one version to the next, CIPE hasn't worked since 
FC1...  What other OS forces you to go though these contortions 
continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com