On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 17:48, Anne Wilson wrote: > Which just goes to show how systems vary. On mine 9.0 was immaculate > in install and extremely stable.
Perhaps so...but I think the discussion here is concerning 9.1 more than anything else, and I seem to remember you posting some problems concerning that release. > > > Plus, it > > was faster. > > Not on my machine. 9.1 is the fastest by quite a bit. If you say so. Personally I don't completely trust a "by the seat of your pants" estimation, which is why I use a stopwatch. This tells me that there is alot of slowness in comparison to LM82. Besides, it is difficult to see how a substantially larger kernel can run faster than the smaller one. But under certain circumstances I'm sure it happens. > > > > Second, it's been noted that there does not seem to be a formally > > presented system for production distro bugs or problems. Prior to > > the advent of 9.1 this was not a major issue, primarily because > > (IMO) the releases were so pristine that there was not a major need > > for one. The fact that there has been extensive discussion lately > > for a report route for production bug reports should be telling. > > > Agreed, that there is a need. > > > Third, (mostly) because of the rpmdrake user interface (NOT the > > urpmi improvements at the CLI level, which *are* good), I consider > > LM82 to be better than either 9.0 or 9.1. > > It is most unfair to keep harping on this one. You were told openly > that the decision to keep the separate interfaces was because the > combined one was a nightmare to support. Do you really want > something that is superficially what you want, but underneath a > hopeless mess? I think not. Well, you should understand that the frontend and the backend are not the same thing. There can be architectural changes underneath (and have been) while keeping the user interface the same. This dichotomy of architecture exists (or should exist) to save time and effort, in other words to avoid exactly the scenario that you describe. This discussion also has already taken place on the Mandrakeclub voting forums which many here have not been privy to; and may never see since they were put down. The synopsis of the discussions was that there was nothing untoward about keeping the UI while allowing the backend to evolve. So I tend to disagree that this is not fair, especially in light of what I have already pointed out about the voting process (and discussions) being ignored in this regard. > If you like command line you will not care about the issue. If you > want things gui and grouped, then mcc is not bad at all. Be fair. The truth of the matter is that I sometimes use both, especially in support situations where a user needs a gui. As far as fairness goes, I find it ironic that such a statement would be leveled in my direction when a majority of Mandrake club voters have already clearly stated their position not only with their mice but also with their keyboards in conversation on the voting forums to be commiserant with my stated position on this issue; only to be gagged. I just happen to be one of the minority that has the chutzpah to stand up and make an issue of it, and I will continue to do so until and when the voters vote otherwise or the issue is resolved. I feel like they do, the thing is I'm not one to take what I myself perceive as unfairness in what is touted as a democratic system. It's either a democratic system or it is not. If it isn't then don't tell me it is; and that's my point. > Having said that, 9.1 is a mixed bag for me. Some things are less > stable than before. Others are much better. > > Anne > --LX ________________________________________________________________________ -- ������������������������������������������������ Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk Linux Mandrake 9.1 Enlightenment-0.16.5-12mdk Evolution 1.2.4-1.1mdk Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ ������������������������������������������������
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
