Thanks for bringing this up. I, too, am curious about how a review is conducted, and what we can do during the test cycle to get reviewers to notice certain things. I think this is where the truth in advertising comes in, we could do ourselves and others a service in detailing the ups and downs of every release. Hey! We do that already, in something called the release notes. Unfortunately for us, they were singularly lacking new material content until the release. As was pointed out previously, some reviewers base their work on the test releases. If, for FC4, they had only the sparse test release notes to work from, it's not surprising that so much got missed that we highlighted in the notes. Another comment: On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Taking into consideration, the only major criticism, "GUI limbo" as > mentioned in the review, the overall score seems unfair to me even after > reading the comments in the forum from the site admin, who mentions that > the scores have been readjusted in such a way that 5/10 means a average > one which many distributions would get. > > http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=709 This was highly annoying for me. The rating system was changed, but no note of this was made in the key that showed the rating! Regardless of them changing their scoring system, the common n/10 designation has a pre-existing meaning. Even 5/10 reads as a bad score. This is unfair to readers. > A amusing comment from the side admin caught my eye there "On the flip > side, I would never, ever use it as a server distro either, simply > because it doesn't provide a good enough security infrastructure for my > requirements. ". FC4 includes Exec Shield, GCC 4 security improvements > and 91 daemons covered under SELinux targeted policy by default along > with the strict policy as an alternative. I would have thought that > would provided enough of a security infrastructure in comparison to any > other distribution or even operating system out there. Yeah, I was very curious what this sysadmin's security requirements are! - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
