On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 12:15, Gene Heskett wrote: > IMO the project should demo that its responsive to the users wishes in > matters such as this. To show that, we'd need to see support for the > eye candy of our choice by rpms instead of being forced into a > konstruct build, and a release install that actually worked, unlike the > "official" FC4 debacle. I'd imagine you would have many more running > FC4 if the users could bring FC4.2 install glitches here, but we've > been told pointedly we're on our own, so those cd's are still in my > carry case, unused. Very good example. What kind of community is it that can't be bothered to respin the official isos once in a while so the known-broken install on certain hardware gets fixed and the user that manages to install isn't immediately faced with a gig of update downloads just to get started? > In the meantime, I serve > mainly as a canary in the coal mine, squawking about things that make > me itch. And considering a jump to debian if FC5 final won't install, > and this is after 8 years of running nothing but RH. And I don't have > a 'sacrificial box' other than the one that runs my small milling > machine useing emc2. The free vmplayer program from www.vmware.com makes a great test platform since it is non-destructive to the host install. It would really help people evaluate FC5 if someone maintained an installed image with current updates that could be downloaded as you can with ubuntu, suse and many others at: http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/vm/community.html -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
