On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:07:20 +0100, Jonathan Rawle wrote > Dan Thurman wrote: > > > I would have expected that SOMEWHERE that GNOME or respective > > upgrades programs should have taken care of installation issues > > like this so that less geek people can continue their business > > without grief. Do we ALL have to become linux experts to fix things > > that otherwise could be taken care of? I don't have TIME to read the > > RTFM's to get a CLUE where I should start when things go wrong. > > > > I agree that these things should be taken care of by Gnome or KDE > the first time you log in after an upgrade. (In fact, I think Gnome > does move the old contents of your desktop etc.) This is an issue > for Gnome and KDE developers, I guess. I note that updates to KDE > aren't distributed in the normal Fedora update channels, despite > there being official packages. This is to avoid such issues - > experienced users can download the packages and sort them out. > > At very least, the Fedora release notes should warn that certain > files need to be removed after an upgrade. > > > I would *expect* linux to be a *PROFESSIONALLY* built product with > > performance tuning, sound configured *automatically*, etc., etc., > > but hey... someone has to get paid to support the otherwise lack of > > professionalism? Don't get me wrong. This is my wish list. If Linux > > is ever going to replace M$ as the desktop, then professionalism should > > be expected and required. That is why M$ wins hands down (never mind > > the other well-known secret OS hooks, secret snooping, or vaporware > > program promises or other "sins" M$ did and perhaps continues to do.) > > > > I'd like to know how well Windows works after an upgrade, > particularly if there are lots of users on the system with non- > standard configurations. Most Windows users NEVER install or upgrade > their operating system - they just buy a computer with it pre- > loaded. If your computer had been supplied like that, and you hadn't > tried to upgrade it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I know for a fact that upgrades are handled VERY WELL. M$ is to be commended for this in fact. I have done complete updates with M$ MANY times and it works well. However, there are times that reinstallation of the application programs have to be reinstalled. I had to do this because the .exe and other files were virus corrupted. But for the most part, M$ did a DAMN GOOD JOB in regards to updates and upgrades. The only thing I *hate* M$ for is their licensing and pricing structures (and other things) but that is fairly understandable when YOU have to PAY :-p ** DISCLAIMER: I can only vouch for myself for my opinions about M$. Note: I do NOT work for M$, do *not* have any connections/affiations with M$, directly or indirectly and my opinion are based on my personal experiences. Kudos for M$ and Kudos for Linux/FC as they both have their plusses and minuses. > > There are already more commercial Linux distributions that you could > try if you don't feel sufficiently "geeky" to handle Fedora. The > idea of this project is to develop a stable operating system that > will one day form RHEL distributions, and probably a new RH consumer- > oriented product. > > But at present, if you use Fedora you have to be prepared for a > little bit of tinkering. The best way to find out how to do things > is to read these lists, and to contribute yourself. You can also > help by submitting bug reports when something doesn't work - how > about listing the fact that Gnome config files aren't sorted out > after an upgrade? They will get fixed eventually - the same can't be > said of Microsoft. > > Linux gets better all the time. FC2 is the most stable yet in the RH > line in my opinion, and will only continue to grow. Just be patient! > > Jonathan > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
