On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:00:01PM -0500, Joe Klemmer wrote: > On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 09:17, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > FC1 is much more reliable and stable than RH8 ever dreamed it could > > > be. And you must be forgetting about the 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, 5.x, 6.x days > > > as well. > > Huh? 4.2, 5.2 and 6.2 were excellent releases wrt stability - that's > > exactly where the old "only use the x.2s from RH!" addage came from. 7.2 > > was an exception but was improved on by 7.3 (which fits nicely into the > > row above). > Lord! That's exactly my point. The older releases needed to get to > x.2 before they were stable while FC1 is almost there now. I expect FC2 > to be even better. Next time read before you reply. I did. You painted those release cycles as bad, which they weren't, as there was always a really good, stable release at the end which had plenty of time to get mature. One could easily ignore all earlier point releases and just got from final to final and always have a stable, reliable system. For FC, there is no guarantee that FC2 will be more stable than FC1, as - contrary to "the olde release cycles"! - FC2 is not only about stabilising FC1, but *also* about adding new features. This was NOT the case for those release cycles. Hence, your comparison doesn't work. The problem is: FC HAS to get it right in one go, as there are no point releases, like there were before. FC2 might be more stable, but then again, it might not, as we don't know what new bugs the new features will introduce. With less time to Q&A (after all, the time between FC releases is shorter than what we had between "x.2" releases), it remains to be seen whether FC will be able to match what the old "x.2" releases delivered in their days. Cheerio, Thomas -- ===> Netiquette - read it, use it: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html <=== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
