On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson
<mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
>>> were supposed to work for us.
>>>
>> Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
>> rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
>> "tinker", would we have Linux?
>
> Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be
> improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are
> going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question
> is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better
> stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get
> something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with
> major differences through their useful productive lives with
> considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test
> copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you
> don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't
> matter.
>
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under
the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is
was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase
one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover
would indicate the opposite.
Just to add --nowhere I read in the Fedora docs or release notes
that a particular release is to serve as a testbed for anything. It
appears that
simply Fedora users have come to terms that that is the case.
~af