Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
From: "Gordon Keehn" <gordonkeehn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[Snip]
Failure to have drivers for a major video card in time for a release is another.
Absolutely wrong. Check NVidia's site. They refuse to put out drivers for test releases for distros. This means that *NVidia* was unwilling to work on their FC2 driver until after its final release. There may or may not be a fault with NVidia here (depending upon philosophy), but it's definitely *not* with the Fedora Core team.
I can accept the fact that the blame does not lie with the Fedora group. Sorry if I maligned anyone on the FC team unjustly. Perhaps this statement should have been used in support of my contention that the Fedora philosophy is flawed. I would be willing to wager that M'Squat has no difficulty getting NVidia to provide drivers for test releases of their signature product.
I see this pointing up a basic flaw in the philosophy behind the Fedora Project. In a completely free (in the "Free Beer" as well as "Free Speech" sense) environment there is no incentive to compete, and therefore no reason to strive for excellence. I would rather pay a few dollars (as I did until Redhat got greedy) for each upgrade, expecting that it would work out of the box, and knowing that, if it didn't, I had someone smarter than I to call.
Okay, I've had my issues with FC, as I'm sure that all on the list realize. However, I think you're completely wrong on this. FC may have its problems and may have a hard time keeping up with its published release cycle, but (from an outsider's perspective) they sure as hell are doing their best to compete and to put out a quality product. In spite of my frustrations wth RH for their business direction, and in spite of my frustrations with getting FC to be my only desktop environment, I have no doubt that FC is the best free distro available. Just because the project's goals don't meet your needs (and sometimes mine) is no reason to make baseless accusations.
I won't debate whether FC is the best free distro available (OK, it's the only one I've tried), but based on what I've seen on this forum, that doesn't change my opinion that FC2 was rushed into distribution before it was ready. Nor does it change the fact that I think (skill of the current maintainers notwithstanding; I could never do what they are) there is a basic flaw which will prevent Fedora from being anything but a toy for the technically competent few who can work around the kind of glitches that appear to exist in the latest package.
I know that Fedora is by design a bleeding edge distribution, but the impression I have received from this mailing list since the release last week is that FC2 has hemorrhagic fever. I upgraded from RH 9 to FC1 two weeks after release and have not had any problems since. So far everything I've read tells me I don't want to touch FC2.
LOL...I had the same impression of FC1 that you've had of FC2. Sure, some things are broke, but the problems that *I've* had have to do with the kernel, not the FC team.
If you want to go back to RH, there's always RHEL WS...
That's true, if I could afford it. I said above, "a few dollars"; $179 is a bit rich for my blood. (Which is why I installed FC1 in the first place.) All of which again supports my contention that you get (most of the time) what you PAY for.
Cheers, Gordon Keehn
