Arthur Pemberton wrote:
That mission statement says nothing about unnecessarily breaking
previously working code. That's the part that is a problem for me,
which is why I'd suggest that they either point out the strong
possibility of that happening in their statement or make it happen less
often.
You do realize that almost every month now you're arguing against
otherwise standard fedora behavior right? This is just another month,
anther argument.
Yes, but I'm not so much arguing against fedora being a testbed and
labeled that way as that there is a need for a distribution that uses
RH-style administration and is suitable for desktop use (and I believe
that requires both a stable OS and current applications).
Fedora did not break anything else in Fedora by an incompatible
update. A Fedora update broke something outside of Fedora.
That was last week - this week it would be all of your disk device names
changing so everything you used to put in /etc/fstab would be wrong.
But for the person whose device no longer works with the OS, there's not
much practical difference in whether it was caused by breakage within
fedora or by fedora's refusal to cooperate with anything else even at
the level of understanding an interface to be a contract among programmers.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
