Arthur Pemberton wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to
install additional software which is why I have an operating system in
the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS
software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly
philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the
additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly
about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or
its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would
be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide
all repos in yum by default.
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break"
in every case where something that worked in one version does not work
in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who
just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should
be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules. But every fedora
version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down,
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device
names would break from one version to the next, CIPE hasn't worked since
FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions
continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
