[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora vs RedHat



On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson
<mikkel infinity-ltd com> wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> Are you working simply to improve your computer?  I thought the machines
>>>> were supposed to work for us.
>>>>
>>> Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
>>> rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
>>> "tinker", would we have Linux?
>>
>> Tinkering or not isn't quite the point.  Of course things can always be
>> improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are
>> going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs.  The question
>> is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better
>> stability or usability or an end to itself.  If you are working to get
>> something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with
>> major differences through their useful productive lives with
>> considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test
>> copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production.  If you
>> don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't
>> matter.
>>
> And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under
> the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
> mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is
> was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase
> one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover
> would indicate the opposite.


Just to add --nowhere I read in the Fedora docs or release notes
that a particular release is to serve as a testbed for anything. It
appears that
simply Fedora users have come to terms that that is the case.

~af


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]