On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 23:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 19:32, Craig White wrote: > > > Yes, but look back at the jump between 7.3 which was a real classic > > > in stability and probably still running in a lot of places (I have > > > a few myself) and 8.0 which was just horrible. > > ---- > > you would no doubt accept that this is/was a matter of opinion and I for > > one, rather liked 8.0 > > Sure, but then I'd bet that you didn't try to run an apache/mod_perl > site on it as distributed. ---- I've yet to see an Red Hat / Fedora release where everything worked perfectly for everyone straight out of the box or installed off iso. One of the hazards I guess of F/OSS software. But yes, I haven't run an apache/mod_perl site on it but I would bet that it got fixed before long after the 8.0 release. IIRC, that was about the time when UTF-8 was introduced and perl still seems to be struggling with it. FWIW - I got killed on RH 7.1 when they released it and it didn't work on the Intel 440_X motherboards. By comparison, 8.0 seemed rather good. ---- > > I thought some users might appreciate the alternative I mentioned, > which is that the k12ltsp distribution is rebuilt with the > updates available at the time it is released - which is > always a bit after each fedora release since the add-ons > need to be tested. (And since this is done by one man whose > real job is in school administration, I think that puts > an upper bound on the 'great lengths' that could be needed). ---- no matter how many times you make this statement/comparison to k12ltsp - it is absolutely meaningless to the general distribution of Fedora - k12ltsp has a specific bent and Fedora is after all a general distribution so what k12ltsp does to update is meaningless to this discussion - i.e. Fedora users. If it's so simple, why don't YOU do it? ---- > I couldn't wait for FC3 to use the machines again - and there was no > convincing evidence at the time that it would be better than the > previous 3 versions. ---- you may be the most negative person on this list - but from where I sit, there isn't much hope of convincing you of much of anything. ---- > Actually, in deference to RH9, the problem machines > had SCSI controllers newer than the release and it was eventually > possible to make it work by adding a driver during the install. > The ones that failed with FC2, on the other hand, went hopelessly > into a loop during video detection early in the install. ---- Not sure what the point is here - that is always the case. Skilled users can almost always get around the driver issues of newer hardware. Craig
