William Hooper wrote: > You can't have it both ways. If you want newer packages fast you have to > do fast releases. That is why Fedora does time-based releases, so that > newer packages get integrated faster. I don't really agree with this. You are making a principle out of what was really an error of judgement. FC-2 was not sufficiently well tested. If in fact it is not possible to test FC-n properly in the time allotted. the time between releases should be increased. Personally I haven't found FC-2 too much trouble, and I will stick to Fedora, and continue to upgrade unless it becomes much more difficult. I think Fedora could and should try to develop as a replacement for RH-9 for as wide an audience as possible. It's important in my view to keep a balance between adding new features to Linux and at the same time ensuring Linux is as easy to install and use as possible. I've said before, and will say again - you would get many more testers, and therefore more reliable distributions, if it were stated that test releases should in principle be upgrade-able. I'm sure there must be many people like me who would be willing to run test releases but who don't have a spare machine to devote to this purpose, or the time or inclination to re-install every 3 months. -- 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
