Perhaps another article comparing Fedora to Redhat 9 would be a better goal for this list rather than this one that may have had a similar tone if Redhat 9 was being reviewed I think many agree that Redhat has made significant improvements in the user friendliness of the gui but I am not one to say that there still isn't room for improvement. Simple desktop task criteria such as printing still need uniformity (may be finally on the way with CUPS but still is not used by some programs). Other more minor things/annoyances like saving window states on logout, taskbar icons for IM clients and such still need a uniformity to their operation Please don't try to explain the reasons for these problems to me, I understand them, I'm referring to a desktop user who is just not interested in why or how something works or not, they just expect it to work and criticise it if it doesn't. We may not like it but that is the way it is. I tend to agree that reviews of reviews need not question the person's intelligence or experience. Those criteria only influence what the article means, not it's validity. Yes I know there are errors, but have you ever looked into the time frames these reporters are given to write reviews? This may have been a one day assignment (which would be difficult for a proper article even for a linux guru) Could I be so bold as to suggest that other reviews will be written, and a wise move would be to consult a few in order to form a balanced opinion. Also, I think all experienced linux people expected some bumps in this change, so is not exactly a surprise that there might be some problems H M Kunzmann (herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> This is sad. No more Redhat Linux, outside of the enterprise version, and >> here is the first release of fedora getting poor reviews: >> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/12/2323256 >> Where to turn? > >There are a lot of comments claiming that the author of the article >lacks the ability or intelligence to give the review any credibility. > >The tasks she had difficulties with seem to have been simple ones, and >this you take as evidence that the article is useless. > >Apart from the Linux hippie intellectual supremacist statements I would >normally expect to come rolling in after any form of criticism of the >OS, perhaps the point is exactly that she reviewer was struggling with >simple things. Fedora targets the market of normal users, while RHEL >moves on to capture the big bucks. That means fedora is the Linux that >people who aren't whiz kids or back street geniuses with a fetish to >tinker on arcane scripts and config files, are gonna use. Redhat has >been doing a great job at nailing down the desktop market for the >not-so-computer-wise, and the article points out quite clearly that this >may have been progress now totally lost. > >I have not yet tried Fedora, so I don't rightfully know whether she has >any significant points, but it is clear to me, that for an average user, >things may be a bit problematic. > >I'm somewhat ashamed to see that the comments posted on this adopt the >same approach that MS users do when trying to denounce articles, and the >authors of articles, promoting or comparing something open source vs. >windows. Instead of shouting "You don't know what you're talking >about!", it would be nice to see points countered with intellectual >arguments instead of child like-sulking. > > > -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
