On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:53:59AM -0300, Ted Gervais wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:42, Scot L. Harris wrote: > > > > FC1 was pretty much just RH9 with only a few changes. > > > > FC2 was a major upgrade for the kernel and window manager as well as a > > few other items. I expect FC3 to be much more what everyone is looking > > for in regards to the various issues that arose with FC2 release. > > > Yes! I believe that too. Maybe FC2 came out too soon. Possibly a > delay of maybe a month or two might have been a better way to come out > with an upgrade to FC1. I think FC2 came out when it was supposed to. The problems that were found after release were fixed much quicker than they would have been in testing. I'm not sure how you can expect FC2 to be more stable than FC1, especially with all the changes. I don't know of any OS that does a new release that's more stable than a version that's been in production for a while. Feel free to give an example. I think maybe the problem isn't that FC2 came out too soon, it's that you upgraded before your critical issues were fixed.
