On 29/08/05, Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Hi Karsten, Thanks for yours and other peoples comments on the review. 1. The scoring system. I believe that in the introduction to the reviews section each scoring level is explained so the reader understands that a 5/10 is an average score. 2. As for my review process - well, I tracked FC4 all the way through the test releases as well as running a Rawhide system to track more immediate changes. This gave me about a four month window to get under the skin of FC4. During this time I noted a number of changes and additions to Fedora, but what really got under my skin was the lack of improvement in basic GUI configuration tools - IIRC one of the screenshots I used was that of the singularly unhelpful system-config-language which only displayed one option, US English! 3. Yum - A big shout should go out to Seth and any other Yum contributors. So much improvement has happened with Yum since FC1, and I am looking forward to playing with Pup (when I have the chance!) to see how Paul Nasrat has been getting on. 4. Missing out GFS et al. It is often difficult to cover all the areas even within a two page review - I was commissioned to deliver a two page article, but it could easily have run to three or four pages had I been able to cover such additions as GFS, which I might also argue wouldn't be entirely relevant for the readership of Linux Format. 5. Extras - I whole-heartedly support the idea of moving packages with duplicate functionality out to Extras. However, the impact on the take-up of Fedora must be assessed when doing this. As was pointed out by another poster, not everyone has access to a corporate LAN or broadband connection and can only depend on a dial-up connection. Linux Format has an enviable position of providing at least one distro per issue as well as a wide range of other software - something I think you will find that the other Linux magazines just do not do. If Extras was to be made available as an ISO for either CDs or DVDs then at least it could be bundled with magazines, and also made available through Linux re-sellers. We've got to get away from this mentality that everyone has a decent Internet connection - it's fine for those of us who are fortunate to be able to work at a company with high-speed access, or who can afford DSL or Cable connections. 6. GCC Gambles - As I mentioned in a follow-up post to the forum, the link for which is http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=709 , I perhaps used the wrong word - Gamble is a very emotional word, and I should have used Risk. As everyone is more than aware, the move to any new technology is always accompanied with an associated risk. I am well aware of Red Hat's expertise with GCC and I highlighted on the forum the upside that if Red Hat say that it is worthy for inclusion then it must be OK. 7. Summary - I finally highlighted, in response to criticism as to how I could write a book about FC4 yet still give it a low score, that I believe FC4 to be a stepping-stone or interim release towards FC5, which I am greatly looking forward to. I'm happy to answer any further questions or listen to any other criticism, so feel free to either email me off-list or, if it is on-topic, through the marketing list. Thanks, Andrew -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
