On 2/20/06, Kaimano <haydude@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is exactly the reason we decided to exclude eclipse from our RHEL 4 WS kickstarts. Engineering will want their own specialized version of eclipse anyway...
Although I do like having it avalible as a rpm install for my own personal use.
This is why we went with RHEL instead of Fedora. I really miss my FC4 desktop from my last job but we're asking our users to work with RHEL so I'm using it as my desktop...
Yeah, we have to get Red Hat to supply patches for the existing 2.0 branch. It isn't optimal
If I seriously need eclipse, I will go an get the latest JDK from Sun and
the latest eclipse from eclipse.org and run them as such, they install in
minutes and I can update them whenever available. FC5 has created a
massive and unnecessary overhead of work essential to keep up with the
latest releases.
This is exactly the reason we decided to exclude eclipse from our RHEL 4 WS kickstarts. Engineering will want their own specialized version of eclipse anyway...
Although I do like having it avalible as a rpm install for my own personal use.
Assume an hipotetical scenario of an organization that rolled out Linux
desktop to 35000 workstations. The roadmap includes a desktop refresh in
no less than five years due to costs implications.
This is why we went with RHEL instead of Fedora. I really miss my FC4 desktop from my last job but we're asking our users to work with RHEL so I'm using it as my desktop...
The core e-Mail application is evolution 2.0. A bug is found on evolution
which requires upgrading to the latest 2.4. But ... evolution 2.4 requires
python 2.4, our installed base is on a distribution based on python 2.3
(like FC2) which is...
Yeah, we have to get Red Hat to supply patches for the existing 2.0 branch. It isn't optimal
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
