On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:07, Jeff Ratliff wrote: > 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. Agreed!! Thanks. -- Ted Gervais Coldbrook, Nova Scotia Canada.
