On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 18:54 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
Brian K. White wrote:
Thus X.0 almost always has a very significant meaning and impact.
"impact" is where the misunderstanding seems to have been lately.
"impact" in a major Linux distribution release should mean an increase in function that may, but does not always require, changes by the end user in configuration or setup to take advantage of new function or reliability.
"impact" in a release should never mean "broken" or "dysfunctional" or a "decrease in reliability"
I agree with you David, but as we all know, pretty much every build of any software & OS are going to have bugs. There were definite problems with 11.0, namely with some of the software included (*cough* Banshee not downloading podcasts *cough*), but overall it felt like a good experience. Anytime you do major updates to the either underlying or userland code, you're going to experience problems, we all know that. And no company/project, whether it's openSUSE & Novell, Red Hat, or Microsoft for that matter, can test their OS with every piece of hardware out on the market. So obviously problems do ensue occasionally.
(2) The second most important factor is release dates driven by realistic estimates of time for incorporation of new functionality and quality assurance from the _actual_ _software_ _developers_ and not adherence to arbitrary schedules dictated by those without the competence or experience to contribute to the code.
...and that's what we have. Who do you think is making the openSUSE
Roadmap? It's the core developers who know openSUSE inside and out
making the best decisions possible to release a good product.
--
Kevin "Yo" Dupuy - openSUSE Member
Public Mail: