On 9/12/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > On 9/11/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> So you don't think there will ever be a Linux distribution that is > >> usable and reliable as a desktop without having to customize and re-test > >> everything before letting anyone use it? > > > > > > One would hope that every sysadmin test at least re-rests every > > software solution to be deployed, regardless of OS - and if that > > solution is modular, remove portions necessary to their situation. > > That's a rather sad commentary on the state of the distributions and the > lack of any framework for sharing QA and configuration work, don't you > think, when every entity that would like to use it needs to have people > on staff with more expertise than the packagers that build it? Testing doesn't require more expertise than the packagers. Nor is the expertise of a package such a high level of attainment. > That > seems equivalent to me to saying that before you use an automobile you > should have an employee take it apart and perhaps replace a few > components to make it suitable for its intended use. So you're saying that big companies that rely heavily on their own fleet of vehicles use stock vehicles without vetting them and putting them on the road? -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
