09.10.2010, 04:52, "Emily Dirsh" <emily(a)fightingcrane.com>:
> Also a question for everyone:
> Do we really need to state the minimum requirements? 400MHz Pentium II
> processors are over 11 years old. Surely any owners of such a computer
> would, by now, know what it's likely to be able to run. Also, minimum
> requirements confuse people. I've lost count of the number of times I've
> been asked "Does this mean my computer's good enough?" Since the
> necessary hardware is so basic, the answer for Fedora is almost
> certainly "Yes", so why confuse anyone unnecessarily?
I agree - I don't think the minimum requirements are very helpful. It's
I think this is *very* important to state the minimum requirements on the package.
1. One can compare the minimum requirements of two products and see how is Fedora lighter
2. Seeing how much one's own configuration is above the required minimum one can judge
about the performance he is likely to get.
3. Less people wondering why doesn't it work (if it doesn't) and make wrongful
judgements about the software quality.
also not very clear what minimum requirements means - is it the
needed to boot or is it the minimum needed to be reasonably usable? It
It has always and everywhere been the minimum to be reasonably usable.
also doesn't address disk space requirements or minimum graphics
Personally I think we should just leave it off, as this is very
old/basic hardware, and there are many people who won't even know what
kind of hardware they're running or how to find out.
Unfortunately, I can't agree with you here either. People trying Fedora in my country
are mostly geeks, and they will evaluate its competitiveness against others before even
making a decision to try it. And many others still run old hardware.
However, I do think these requirements need to be updated and added to. What we have now
may not reflect the actual status.
Misha Shnurapet, Fedora Project Contributor
shnurapet AT fedoraproject.org
, GPG: 00217306