On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:22:10PM +0200, Chris Chabot wrote: > > Isn't that what 'releases' are for, major updates & upgrades? I've never thought so. The problem with not releasing 'major updates & upgrades' is that it forces people to wait until a release is actually done to use some of their hardware. We have enough people thinking 'If my hardware is less than 1 year old, it won't work under Linux' that I don't want to add to that impression. > It will be > kind of hard for anyone making software to say "Works well on fedora core 5, > if you exclude these packages, or haven't/have updated before/after > xx-xx-xxxx" Beats "You could be using hardware foo under Linux but we've decided you're going to have to wait until the next release", IMHO. > To me a 'supported' (bad word to use I know :-)) release would mean that its > API/ABI stable, but security fixes are made available, and if something > works with 'FC-5', then it should work with FC-5 :-) Given unlimited ressources, you're probably right. The trouble is that Fedora doesn't have unlimited ressources and our time is probably better spent elsewhere. > though some people might have something of an resentment against binary > applications or drivers, I don't see why we have to be 'against' them either > and go out of our way to break them 'because we can', fedora is a platform > for many things.. Agreed. I'm just not sure that fixing ATI/NVidia's mistakes for them is one of those things. Emmanuel -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
