Fedora review

[Karsten Wade]

On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:15 +0800, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I don't know if this has been posted on the list or not but situations
> like this need to be looked at because it can only hinder the progress of
> Fedora over time unfortunately.
> 
> http://distrocenter.linux.com/distrocenter/05/07/11/2327245.shtml?tid=107&tid=127

I don't think this has been posted, and we definitely appreciate
postings to this list of all review of Fedora.  Rahul, for one, takes
the effort to contact writers and set them straight on the facts.

I can see what directions in that article I think need correction.  I'm
curious what you see?

* Worrying about OOo being beta.  FC is specifically cutting edge.
Mincing words about beta in a release is contrary to the spirit and
history of highly advancing open source.  Beta and release are
subjective terms.
 
   "While I've had no problems with it and no crashes, a beta release in
    what is considered to be a stable operating system feels out of
    place."

* Totally not understanding the story behind patent infringing
technologies.

   "Worse, Fedora Core 4 gets low marks for multimedia. I encountered an
    overwhelming number of bugs in this area. There is no support for
    proprietary formats such as Windows Media, DVD, and MP3, though
    having used past Red Hat/Fedora releases, I would expect nothing
    more. Previously, enabling these multimedia types was not a hard
    task, but this time, it's daunting."

* Not even attempting to understand the difference between what is in
the distro and what is supplied by other repositories:

   "I tried enabling these proprietary media files the same way I did
    this in previous Fedora releases, which was to install Apt4RPM, a
    great package management tool, and use that to install the necessary
    packages. That worked in previous Fedora releases, but not in Fedora
    Core 4."

All in all, a very annoying read.  Thanks for sharing with us. :)

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/attachments/20050718/cc5a5ec1/attachment.sig>