Consider Linux as a work in progress..things are going to be a-changing, so tomorrow you may not even see that problem. It might have already been fixed..things are constantly improving.
That got me wondering a bit. How does a linux distribution "decide" when it's time to cut a new release, anyway? I really have no idea what the process is like. I do have an idea how the MySQL folks decide when to release a new stable version (it has a lot to do with squashing all known bugs first).
I'm particularly unfamiliar with RedHat's processes, since I stopped using their software many years back when RPM bit me a few too many times. (I know a bit more about Debian's release process.) From what I can glean on this page, Fedora Core 1 (which she said she used) seem to be a non-test version of the software. I wasn't really able to find any explanation of their release process on the site (and Google wasn't much help), so it's hard to say.
With the recent push for "Linux on the Desktop" gaining media attention again, this seems troublesome. Whenever discussion of the "average user" comes up (as it does in other comments on that post), the notion of a it being a "work in progress" isn't going to endear many new users.
Remember, for most users, the Operating System is supposed to be a transparent and stable base upon which to run their daily applications. What would you think if, at the car dealer, the salesman said something like this:
Yeah, this baby's great... The engine? Well, it's a work in progress but should serve you well. Don't worry!
Yes, Linux is always getting better. But it's odd that the basic stuff, like the installer and keeping-itself-update stuff is still problematic. Or that a bug this obvious was released.
Anyway, I'm sure it's fixed in the latest version. That's always the response in the software world, right?
Posted by jzawodn at May 05, 2004 08:29 PM