On Tuesday 27 January 2009 03:02:53 Martin Kho wrote: > On Sunday 25 January 2009 06:28:35 Eli Wapniarski wrote: > > Why is Fedora partially to blame. It has been plagued with, IMHO, with a > > bad case of jump on the "latest must be greatest" bandwagon and releasing > > as final, software that is clearly not ready for prime time. The latest > > round of this started with Fedora 9 and Xorg 1.5 BETA. KDE 4. And this > > group think problem has on and off plagued Redhat releases since version > > 8. If the software isn't ready then it isn't ready. > > In the early days when Fedora still was Redhat - I'm speaking of Redhat 4.x > - there was a unspoken rule that uneven number versions were unstable and > even stable. Compare this with the kernel development in the old days. I > ever used the stable versions :-) With Fedora the sub-numbering was gone. > Maybe now we have it back. Fedora 9 unstable, Fedora 10 stable. What will > bring Fedora 11? > > P.S. EOL of Fedora 8 is less then a month - 2009-01-07 - ago and we now > have a very stable KDE desktop IMHO. > That's a good option also. But Fedora would need to ensure that updating between stable version with Yum or Apt works. A lot of us rely on 3rd party repos as well. Eli -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
