On Sunday 22 January 2006 06:58, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >Les Mikesell wrote: >>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? > >Nobody stopped anyone from doing the work involved. In fact it was >already done before. http://fedora.isphuset.no/ > We ARE well aware of that. As stated above, I have the cd's already burnt. But when asking a question and disclosing that the question involves the unofficial 4.2 release, then the question was summarily ignored, as being off topic I guess. If you are not willing to even discuss something someone has done in the interests of widening the usage, then the whole thing is moot, and we are wasting our collective time with this endeavor called a foundation. You should have welcomed that effort with open arms, and actively pointed folks having trouble with _your_ release to that one as a possible solution to the install debacle 4 was. Instead, this message mentioning it and supplying the link, and the announcement of its availability, are the only 2 messages I recall going by on this list since 4.2 was released. There may have been a few others, but they didn't make a lasting impression if there were others. A quick search shows 93 hits, out of 23201 messages in this folder. Thats pretty slim pickins considering the message volume. I'm of the opinion that fedora folks themselves should have done the respin as you call it, within 3-4 days time when it became obvious that 4 was a wholesale x crasher that trashed the disks as it went away. The take it or leave it attitude has the distinct odor of hydrogen sulfide about it. To me thats ignoreing any 'community effort', and quite frankly I'm less than impressed with this newfound selling of the word community, when its been rather pointedly ignored until now. If you want it to be a community effort, then its time a hell of a lot more credit was given to those that have contributed. And that doesn't by any means include me. I'm not looking for any flowers because I haven't contributed squat in terms of code. It (the hardware AND the software) has gotten far more complex than than it was back in 1978 when I built the hardware and wrote an app for the rca 1802 cpu that was still running at that tv station over a decade later. Or a 2nd app running on a trs-80 coco2, started in 1989, that was in daily use till 2002. They could be ported of course, but the hardware no longer exists in the broadcasting business so its moot. That was then, this is now and I haven't done anything but test new Linus kernels for the last 5 years. Anybody can do that. If there is to be a foundation that we need to support else fedora is going away, then lets see a by-laws draft that will give _us_, the users, a voice. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
