On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 09:54, David Mandala wrote:
> Sorry the truth bugs you, Since I've used Red Hat since they became a
> company I do speak from experience. They have a history of trying to
> force the latest cutting edge packages they deem necessary and the hell
> with the havoc.
>
> They've done it with compiler versions, gnome versions and other things.
> His problems are VERY Red Hat specific, they could have shipped stable
> code that worked or choosen to ship known unstable code, they choose
> unstable. Nothing wrong with that, except that unless you have
> experience with Red Hat and know never to use a x.0 release you tend to
> expect it to work, which when it does notit tends to give people bad
> experiences.
>
> While many parts of the Red Hat x.0 releases work they have NEVER
> shipped a fully functional x.0 release, not even close to it. It is
> always borked up and requires waiting for months for it to become stable
> or you need to wait for the x.1 release.
>
-----
1 - to say hell with the havoc is bad form since Havoc Pennington
(
hp@redhat.com) is one of the primary packages.
2 - for the most part, redhat doesn't do major changes in the .1 and .2
and .3 etc releases. Putting Gnome 2 in the 8.0 release assures that the
future upgrades will stay on the path.
3 - unstable is not fair - unfinished is fair - gnome 2 as was shipped
in RH 8.0 is unfinished to be sure but I can't think of anything except
for the rpm version that was included which was unstable. There are a
number of packages that are unfinished but only 1 that I have seen thus
far which can be called unstable.
Craig
(text/plain)