> On Sunday 05 October 2003 15:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > If software is buggy, you can do three things IMHO: >> Sorry, but where is the bug report for this buggy software? >> This is not a bug (to my understanding), but a feature >> enhancement (if we're talking about gaim). > > If by "feature enhancement" you mean "support protocols that > worked previously but were broken in the shipped version", I > guess you're right ;) But in the rest of the world, that's > called a bug fix.
So, when we couldn't connect to a samba (2.0.6) server from a Windows 2000 machine, did we isssue an update to 2.0.7 for all the current releases? When you can't connect from any currently supported Mandrake release to a Windows 2003 Server, did we ship an update to samba-3.0.0 for all the current releases? (There was an issue with Windows XP also, but I forget now if it affected scenarios besides when using WindowsXP in a samba domain). No. Because they are feature enhancements. So, clearly there needs to be a better policy on issuing updates. If we're going to ship gaim to work with a propreitary communication protocol to allow interoperability with the latest changes, should we not ship updates to the most used corporate file/print-serving protocol to allow interoperability with the latest version? > Basically, if a current gaim isn't available *from Mandrake* for > the current Mandrake distribution, whether as an update or > whatever, then Mandrake can't claim to support any widely used > instant messaging protocols except Oscar (AIM). I hope you meant "working" and not "current". If Vince was wasting his time updating to the latest release of each messaging client for every distro, he wouldn't have time for security updates. > I know there are a lot > of people who would say "good riddance", but with > Mandrake's focus on the desktop, it looks bad. Make all the > excuses you want, but some reviews are bound to reflect this > decision. What decision. We are all speculating. AFAIK, no-one has filed a bug. The maintainer may not care or even know there is a problem. > The question is whether Mandrake's current position is solid > enough to allow reviewers the opportunity to say "this distro > claims to be a desktop operating system, but I couldn't even > sign onto my instant messenger service." Chronic IRC users are > prone to not seeing instant messaging as a core desktop > application like office and browser, but normal users do and so > do many reviewers. My point of view is that if it's not mainly used for business purposes, then it isn't a core desktop application. Maybe the reviewer will complain that they could not print to their new shiny Windows2003 server, when the new Redhat/Fedora release can? But that's my point of view. If you want an official point of view, make it an official problem (by filing a bug report). Has anyone filed a bug? Has any one been testing it? Has someone looked through the changes from the previous version to see if there could be any potential problems with the update? Finally,didn't we know about this problem in advance? Did anyone do forward planning for this? Regards, Buchan ***************************************************************** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. *****************************************************************
