Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

• Previous message: John Summerfied: "Re: Batch creation of PDF files"
• In reply to: Scot L. Harris: "Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support"
• Next in thread: Rahul Sundaram: "Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:48:24 -0700
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>

Scot L. Harris wrote:

> [snip]
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>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 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.
>
>
If I'm using a test-bed OS, then consider that I can offer test
feedback, no matter what my intentions on using it are.

>Because FC4 is a test bed for many bleeding edge changes there will be
>lots of problems that have to be sorted out.
>
>
Problems can't be sorted unless they are known. Fair enough?

>If you are testing FC4 and find problems the proper thing to do is file
>a bug report so the maintainers of the various packages can verify and
>fix such problems. Reporting the problems on the list will not
>necessarily get the problem report in front of the programmer
>responsible for that program or module.
>
>
The problem of bug reports is that being able to file a bug report at
least requires a basic idea where the bug is. Unfortunately a lot of
the troubles I mentioned did not specifically point to a single area,
except that gcc4 was probably the root.

>If you understood the nature of FC4 then you should understand there
>will be a certain amount of time that you will "spend hours working out
>problems in getting it to work." It is the nature of the beast. :)
>
>
Hmm, I thought that was part of the pre-release process. Otherwise why
bother having the wait for the release? There is a terrible flaw in
that reasoning.

>And if you have specific problems or questions there are many many
>people on the list that are willing to try and help. You just have to
>ask. :)
>
>
I did ask, quite nicely in fact, and was summarily ignored. I didn't
dare ask again for fear a still living with his mother, single-handed
(typer), never been outside or on a date before fanboy, might
indignantly accuse me of committing a "social" faux pas for submitting
the same question twice. I'm sure you can understand my frustration.

What may be a better approach is to just address the problems as they
are brought up, by either asistance in tracing it down or by offering
steps to fix it. Just playing the "broken record" of the "intentions of
the OS" is a waste of effort and counterproductive to the OS'
improvement, and seems more like a cop-out than following the original
intentions of the project in the first place. I don't expect sunshine
to be blown up my backside, but I do expect at least a minimum
functionality for a release. It's only logical, and I pointed those
criteria out.

Thanks for the reply nevertheless.

Rich

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• Previous message: John Summerfied: "Re: Batch creation of PDF files"
• In reply to: Scot L. Harris: "Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support"
• Next in thread: Rahul Sundaram: "Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]