Will Woods, the new test lead for the Fedora Project, has only been in his position a few weeks, but already he has a clear goal in mind. Whenever Fedora is mentioned on Slashdot, he notes, "There's always someone who will comment that Fedora is just Red Hat's beta test for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's not true, and I want no one to have cause to say that ever again."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-01
Well looks like rhavyn got tired of trying to explain this to you and wrote you off. But I've now read this entire comment thread and just can't not reply to this last outburst of stupidity that you just had to post.
"I would just like to confirm that 23 months of resistance to adding basic sanity checking to prevent database corruption to the package manager is a perfectly acceptable QA policy in your book."
This is not about basic sanity testing, it's a freakin PEBKAC error. This numbnut mounted his /usr partition read-only and then tried to run a system update. What the hell do you expect to happen? the developer, in this case, gave this guy much more of his time than I damn well would have. Not only that, but at this point it has gone from a bug report status to a forum post "help request" but this guy doesn't have enough sense to ask politely for help. No, he has to go ranting on about how the system should do every little bit of thinking for him and proceeds to verbally attack the developer.
"And so is failing to respond for 5 months as long as another distro has the same problem."
I don't know enough about the entire situation on this one to comment extensively, but it could very likely have been a duplicated report that got glossed over instead of thrown in the bit bucket for all we know.
"And failing to ever respond at all is OK as long as not *all* radeon users are locked at 640x480."
You are absolutely right. Not *all* radeon cards had this problem. Only the ones in the posession of retards who can't figure out how to configure X. You seem to have a problem seeing the difference between a bug report and a support request. the first, if legitimate, should be prioritized and fixed accordingly. As for the second, the Fedora developers/community have no obligation to offer free technical support. Many do offer assistance, but there is a time and a place for it. the bug list ain't it.
"I'd just like you to sign off on that."
You really are an arrogant little troll. there's a place for guys like you. http://slashdot.org. Before you go on let me go ahead and spell this out for you. I'm not a "fedora defender". Hell I'm not even a Linux user. I'm an OpenBSD user, and I'd absolutely love to see you bring one of these rants to misc@openbsd.org. Let's just say they would be ever so slightly less receptive to your comments than the fine folks here at OSNews.
Edited 2006-07-21 06:18
Member since:2005-07-06
I would just like to confirm that 23 months of resistance to adding basic sanity checking to prevent database corruption to the package manager is a perfectly acceptable QA policy in your book.
As explained by multiple people in the bug report, the RPM database was not corrupt. If the user had asked I'm sure they would have explained how add the entries for the packages that had been "removed." But the user didn't, they called people names and generally annoyed the developer.
And, FYI, if the software works according to the spec, it does pass QA in my book since that is the definition of passing QA.
And so is failing to respond for 5 months as long as another distro has the same problem.
So it's your opinion that Red Hat should personally maintain all of the packages they distribute? Do you expect the same from every distro? Because the developer was quite clear in the bug, he didn't have time to deal with it and it was an upstream bug. Of course, your simply dodging the point which is that that bug report does not in any way indicate that Red Hat treats Fedora like it's a "perpetual beta." Or, it supports the assertion that all distos treat their distro like it's a "perpetual beta." And, FYI, I can assure you that even with an RHEL support contract you would have ended up with the same response on that bug, it's an upstream issue and it'll get dealt with later.
And failing to ever respond at all is OK as long as not *all* radeon users are locked at 640x480.
Ah, now I'm sure you just have a reading comprehension problem. I say 1%, you say all. I mean, even the non math majors among us could see how 1% == all. Obviously. And I'm sure that the X developers have nothing better to do than to help a dozen people figure out how to correctly configure X. I mean, it's not like there aren't hundreds or even thousands of people using FC5 with a radeon card quite successfully. I must be imagining that I am not only using a radeon card at a higher res than 640x480, I'm using Xinerama at 3200x1200.
I'd just like you to sign off on that.
You are a really bad, dumb troll.
Member since:
2005-07-24
I would just like to confirm that 23 months of resistance to adding basic sanity checking to prevent database corruption to the package manager is a perfectly acceptable QA policy in your book.
And so is failing to respond for 5 months as long as another distro has the same problem.
And failing to ever respond at all is OK as long as not *all* radeon users are locked at 640x480.
I'd just like you to sign off on that.