On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 17:16 -0700, Kim Lux wrote: > I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that keeping production boxes > current is time consuming with FC3. The sentiment is valid, complaining is not. > > What really peaves me off is having to build ndiswrapper and nvidia > drivers every time the kernel changes. This means that I can't remotely > administer machines after a kernel change because the kernel breaks the > networking and then I must log into the machine itself to build a new > network driver. YUCK ! > This problem with ndiswrapper is all the more reason we should be pushing for all network adapters to have drivers available for Linux, and even more evidence that you should vote with your $$ by purchasing devices that already have support. I don't consider this a problem with kernel updates, I consider this a problem with the choice of hardware to install and within your control to fix without blaming the developers. BTW, The choice to use Fedora is also yours, and implies a willingness to spend the effort needed to keep pace with development. It is the stated goal of the Fedora Project that FC is bleeding edge software and they plan 2 to 3 updates per year. You knew (or should have known) that the development pace is fast, and keeping current will match that pace. It is your choice to use a slower development paces distribution such as RHEL, Debian, Suse, or similar; or to use Fedora which has a rapid change rate. You have no basis for being upset with a condition that existed at the time you made your choice and is certainly not hidden from view as a factor used to make the decision. Cheers. Jeff > btw: I fixed my problem by using kernel 2.6.10-1.727, which is supposed > to be an -AC ized 2.6.10 patched 2.6.9. Someone stated it had 4000 > fixes over a 2.6.9 kernel, but don't quote me on that. (See the devel > list for a discussion.) > > -- > Kim Lux, Diesel Research Inc. > >
