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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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?''
Attachment:
pgpc8P69JfI1w.pgp
Description: PGP signature