Craig White wrote: >> and if an "improvement" is known not to work on some machines >> it should be eschewed. > let me see now... > new kernel version > new X server > a stated goal for fedora "It is also a proving ground for new > technology" > > and you expect it to work at least as well as the previous version on > all systems or it should be eschewed. > > Let me suggest that those who are frustrated with their perception of > the quality of the FC-2 release familiarize themselves with the > 'Cathedral and the Bazaar' by Eric Raymond. A bug is a bug, and should be acknowledged as such, instead of trying to excuse it with all this philosophical stuff. If someone thinks they have improved the X driver for ATI (which is what I was talking about) they should at least have tested it on existing ATI machines. As far as I can see, there is only one guy working on this driver, and he does not seem to read bug-reports on it. Everyone makes mistakes; it's what they do about it that matters. As far as I can see, Fedora moved over to Xorg from XFree86 because of some quibble about licences. I'm not sure if Xorg has the resources to maintain the X servers, let alone improve them. Incidentally, I think one should apply exactly the same criteria to software whether it is free or not. It is seriously damaging to Linux if you reply to complaints by saying, "But it's free" with the implied addendum, "What do you expect?". -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
