On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Albert Graham <agraham@xxxxxxx> wrote: > You get out of it what you put in it, this guy clearly could not be > bothered to look into issues that he was having or why things had > changed - which is called progress. If something "changes" and that change breaks something badly should it be called progress? > I have installed hundreds of servers using Fedora and I have to say I've > had very few problems, kernel issues are not really the fault of the > Fedora team, sometimes you hit quirks but these do get sorted out. If you haven't already, go read the fedora-list or fedora-devel archives on the 2.6.24 kernel. > I find the path / progress and choices Fedora makes are "natural > progression" and indeed ahead of the pack. I find that a opinion is just an opinion. > this guy should be using RHEL if he does not want anything to change. So RHEL is the only way someone might want to have a desktop linux that can in some capacity act as a server. Noted. Does not want to break is independent of does not want to change. > My 2c. Which is probably the same value as the rant on that webpage. -Mauriat -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
