I just tried whitebox linux. Seems like a logical (small) step forward from red hat 9. I haven't looked at Enterprise 3 yet but whitebox is supposed to be EN 3 with yum instead of RHN. I basically took my RH9 kickstart config and pointed it a whitebox and up it all came. A few packages have been dropped compared to RH9, but apart from that it all worked fine. Of course if you want to go to a 2.6 kernel then try suse or debian (testing/unstable.) I think suse is more like how redhat 9 used to be: A bit better tested than fedora and a little less bleeding edge. I know part of my success with suse (where FC2 has failed me) is due to the older 2.6.4 kernel. Some bugs were introduced in 2.6.5 or 2.6.6 (according to something I read in this list) that broke things for my hardware. I have tried FC2 on maybe 8 different sets of hardware and had problems on 3 out the 8 systems, that were bad enough and still haven't been fixed to force me to try suse and whitebox. > -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Lofstrom > Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2004 3:24 AM > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FC2 doubtful quality? > > > > This is a debate between the complainers and the excuse-makers. > > The complainers (which include me) want responsible behavior. The > excuse-makers claim that the users who complain aren't worthy. > > I have been using Redhat for years. I still have RH9 on 3 machines. > I am using Fedora Core 1 on two machines, and Fedora Core 2 > on another. > Like my fellow complainers, I am also considering replacing them all > with SUSE or Debian. > > I would dearly love for the fedora model to work; there are some > excellent people contributing here. But there are also those who > get their kicks by abusing newbies and playing power games. They > make the whole fedora and linux community look bad. > > Look at the fedora website - what it actually says, what it does > not actually say. The website sales fluff is very inviting, and > does NOT actually describe what goes on with Fedora - the bugginess, > the hostility, the willful neglect of bugzilla reports, the scorn > for professional concerns (that is, customer-centric, > quality-oriented, > and money-making). Maybe, relative to other distros, Fedora is the > best of the bunch, and I will be disappointed by a change. But > relative to my other, non-software professional concerns, FC2 and > the process that produced it are quite buggy and unreliable. > > An honest description on the website of what to expect - especially > for test releases - would go a long way towards moving complainers > elsewhere. This would leave the rest of the community alone to > pursue the bleeding edge - and beyond - in quiet, happy obscurity. > > This is not what the excuse-makers want to hear. They would like > their irresponsible behavior to actually work in the real world. > Well, here in the real world you must give 200%, suffer enormous > abuse, strain to the limit to satisfy your customers/users, and > even with all that effort you will still sometimes miss your target. > If you don't even try, you will end up planting your flag in a > dungheap and calling it Mount Everest, and never understand why > other folks are complaining about the smell. > > Complainers, if you were using Redhat because of the excellent > support, get over it. Those days are gone. That kind of support > is not available here. It may not be available anywhere. Too bad, > it is what could have made Linux a contender for the average desktop. > > Fedora is not the evolutionary successor of Redhat; it is a highly > experimental distro, and FC2 is just one more pre-beta test distro. > There is a place for that, but it should not be advertised (read > the web page dammit) as anything suitable for average users and > day-to-day use. > > Yes, many average people can use Fedora day-to-day; most smokers > don't die of lung cancer. But until Fedora comes with warnings > ("don't use FC2 if you have an ATI Rage 128 video card", "support > for this version disappears in 8 months" and the time honored "you > get what you pay for") so the average person can make an informed > choice, loading Fedora Core 2 is much like playing Russian roulette. > > FC2 is indeed "doubtful quality". You should be very skeptical > before loading it. That doesn't make it "bad", it just makes it > incompatable with the goals of many users. FC2 is a race car, not > a BMW, and it should be advertised as the former and not the latter. > Again, look at the website! > > Fellow complainers, pay close attention to the excuse makers. An > excuse is a promise to repeat the same behavior in the future. If > you feel that the excuse-to-solution ratio is too high, perhaps it > is indeed time to look for more professional behavior elsewhere. > I have a colo site with bandwidth. Does anyone know how to set up > a mailing list? We could call it "redhat-recovery" and focus on > techniques for moving on. Then we could leave these other happy > folks to quietly enjoy their sandbox. > > Keith > > -- > Keith Lofstrom keithl@xxxxxxxx Voice (503)-520-1993 > KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas > in Silicon" > Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
