On Fri, July 16, 2004 7:28 pm, Timothy Murphy said: > I read this mailing list. > The distribution failed disastrously on fairly common machines. > In my case, the kernel that came with FC-2 failed on my SCSI-only machine > because it did not invoke the (very common) aic7xxx driver. > IMHO this was a pretty basic error, > but it didn't cause me much trouble > because I had an alternative kernel available. That's not my impression at all. There were some specific problems but nothing disasterous. Reading a list like this where you're more apt to just hear problems, can lead to a skewed view of the situation. To me it was more of a case of a new kernel and people having to adjust to the new their expectations from what they were accustomed to with RHL. > I didn't say it was a "stated goal". > I simply suggested that it "could" be a goal. > There is a need for such a replacement, > and Fedora is the nearest to it. > > If I had put together a distribution > I would want it to be used by as many people as possible. You of course are entitled to your own opinion. Maybe you should put together a distribution :o) Just understand that there are many people perfectly happy with the current arrangement and don't want it to be changed. Afterall, you can simply wait for others to install a release and wait until its sufficiently tested for your personal liking. > You misunderstood me. > What I am saying is that more time and energy should be allotted > to simplifying the installation and use of Fedora, > and in fact of Linux generally. Who says it "should"? Every decision involves tradeoffs, the current release methodology is designed to service the needs of a particular group and appears to be working well. As for Linux generally, you have to understand that there isn't one body looking out for Linux as a whole. But if there is truly an unfilled niche, the market will take care of it. >From what I can tell the RedHat products have a lot of effort put into making them simpler to install and use. > I'm actually running FC-2 on several machines, > and wouldn't mind occasional problems. > > To me it is obvious that there was insufficient testing of FC-2, > and therefore it is reasonable to enquire > how more people could be involved in testing. Insufficient for whose liking? Yours? Some other people? Will be interesting to see if more people step up and start testing the FC3 releases or not. That will decide how much testing it gets. > You talk as though the "Laws of Fedora" > were handed down on tablets of stone. > Fedora is a fairly young project, > and should be able to make sensible adjustments to its methods. > You're right things could change, but there is no indication that they will. The current schedule for FC3 is exactly the same as for FC2. Test 1, six weeks; test 2, four weeks; test 3 two weeks and then a release. Fortunately, this time there will likely be fewer problems because there isn't a new kernel. Full speed ahead! Cheers, Sean
