On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:31:51AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > It's true that if you've got hardware and software that don't work > > together, you're not buying one or the other from the right vendor. It's > > probably a lot easier for us to have supported the hardware, than for the > > hardware vendor to have used a different chipset (which likely would've > > increased the price, or decreased the possible features). > My point was that a good hardware vendor will give you a choice of graphics > cards, For example, I tend to buy cheap hardware wherever possible, especially for running desktop Linux since they're generally much faster than I need anyway; but this means I tend to get built-in graphics, networking and so forth. Most of which tend to be supported on Linux, but only by the latest versions of X and the kernel. I've had to update both for the last couple of machines I've bought, which gets unpleasant. > > Our releasing with old versions of software is a bug we need to > > continually work to *fix*, not excuse. > I am entirely in favor of a shorter release cycle. Which isn't a particularly useful comment when, eg, we don't have working X 4.3 packages in the archive, almost five months after it was released. (On the other hand, if you really want a shorter release cycle, there's always testing, which releases every day. All it really needs for us to be able to recommend people use it is security updates...) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature