[OT]: RH Whoredom [ was Re: OT: I feel vindicated ...]

[Alma J Wetzker]

Chong Yu Meng wrote:
> A. Khattri wrote:
> | On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Net Llama! wrote:
> |
> |
> |>I know i'm the resident RH whore and all,
> |
> |
> | Uh-huh.
> |
> 
> Well, count me in as another RH whore ! I never used to like the
> company, but, more and more, I'm beginning to understand and appreciate
> where they're coming from.
> 
> | Its a big deal to those of us that said "Nooo!" and got burned when RH
> | pretty much abandoned us folks (frankly I was already pissed over the
> | insane release schedule). Now we're all running other distros (in
> | some cases realizing they are better) and never going back. But its good
> | to see a company admit the mis-step.
> 
> You can't seriously be referring to RH here, Ajai ! Come on! At least RH
> gave us Fedora and that should count for something. In any case, nobody
> owes you a living.
> 
> As for their insane release schedule, I'm not sure if it is such a bad
> thing. Let me explain:
> 
> Each release of FC has some new feature or quirk in it. FC1 had SELinux,
> FC2 had the 2.6 kernel, FC3 had HAL, just to name a few. Sure, there
> were problems : SELinux didn't work in FC1 initially and the 2.6 kernel
> in FC2 had problems with certain hardware configurations and broke IBM's
> Java (at one time) and FC3's HAL together with the kernel caused lots of
> problems for those of us with Symbios SCSI controllers (is it fixed
> yet?). I'm not calling them features or excusing them, but each new
> technology or feature needs to start somewhere.
> 
> By putting these "bleeding edge" features inside each release, lots of
> people have a preview of the technology. SELinux, the 2.6 kernel and HAL
> are some of the BIG changes IMHO that Linux is seeing, so I think we
> should expect problems. But with time and testing by users, these
> features inevitably become stable and usable, and that is a good thing,
> though it comes through pain and frustration.
> 
> I run a FC1 server, and Aurora Sparc Linux (similar to FC1) on a Netra
> T1, and I don't even think of upgrading to FC3, because I don't need the
> features in FC3. My notebook is a different story: I'm running FC3 and
> very happy that they put HAL inside, because now I can interface with my
> HP PSC1350 without tweaking CUPS or anything. I'll probably stick with
> FC3 for a while. What I'm saying is : you don't have to upgrade if you
> don't want to.
> 
> Anyway, just my 2 cents.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> --
> ~ --------------------------------------
> ~ Pascal Chong

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Pascal.  You are asking for new 
features, and FC? meets that need and expectation.  Same for Lonnie saying it 
does everything he needs it to do.

My primary use of linux is as a desktop.  I need something that runs on my 
hardware, the first time, and has all the neat desktop applications where I 
don't need to go hunting for them.  I am willing to pay for stability and the 
extras.  My needs may not match your needs.  Hence, different distro's are 
desired.

The main point is, not everyone wants their desktop to do the same thing.  It 
is killing the Windoze world.  With linux we have different distro's, each 
with a different focus.  One is bound to meet your needs better than another.

I applaud the RH statement.  I know desktops are expensive to produce and 
can't generate revenue, but they are critical in the current linux market. 
Caldera made the same mistake.  RH has admitted their mistake.  Not quite sure 
what they are going to do about it, but they know they goofed.  My perception 
is that they were always catering to the l/bl/eeding edge adopters, which 
tends to limit your ability to work to the business desktop market.  Give them 
their due and move on.  I see the statement as saying the desktop is 
important.  Are there really any arguments about that?

     -- Alma