On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 09:44 -0400, Dimi Paun wrote: > And did I mention the time, effort, and _frustration_ of users to > get the system running again? What if they didn't install via RPM? > Screw them, they deserve what they get, no? (in which case they > have a snowball's chance in hell of fixing the breakage without > going through hell and back). I'd choose to place the onus on the developers. If they want their users to have a good experience, let them do the leg work. Right now, I'd argue that Windows is the gold standard of backwards compatibility. Partly because Microsoft tries hard to keep things compatible, but mostly because behind the scenes there are individual application developers bleeding, sweating, crying, and cursing. If you're going to use proprietary software, don't expect anything better better support than you had in the propriety world. If you use F/OSS and the community isn't large enough to support itself yet, start contributing or pay someone else to do it. There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. I'm personally in favor of installing compat libs by default as long as someone it taking responsibility for handling security maintenance. I would also love to see good technical suggestions. A few interesting ideas have been suggested. But complaining isn't helpful. Arguing that Fedora or any F/OSS developer is morally obliged to bend over backwards to please users for free is repugnant. (BTW, if you think my attack and characterization is unfair, so was yours.) -- Stuart Jansen <sjansen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Guru Labs, L.C.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
