Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 15:27, Ken Elliott wrote:
>
>>This all started because Red Hat posted what appears to be inaccurate
>>information about the minimum amount of RAM required. Now, it is better
>>policy to err on the high side, but the information did come from the
>>vendor. Statements were made that you could actually use less.
>
>
> About 40% of desktops sold today are UMA/chipset-integrated video. Red
> Hat also bases its estimate on the existance of 0 swap. So the
> resulting numbers are not errors, purposely over-exagerated requirements
> because of this.
>
> Red Hat has always over-estimated requirements. This is large because,
> prior to Fedora Core 2, they were based on _run-time_ requirements for
> KDE/GNOME (GUI), or common terminal usage with 0 swap. Again, Red Hat
> really over-estimates big-time.
Is GNOME an acronym? I've always referred to it as Gnome, but I'm
beginning to notice that GNOME seems to be more "officially" correct.
Why is that?
>
> It goes to their entire logic, which becomes fairly noticable if you
> work with their products. They'd rather be right 99.9% of the time than
> be wrong more than 0.01% of the time. Especially given the scrutiny
> they are held to in comparison to Novell/SuSE, etc...
That's to be expected from what has been the corporate Linux flagship
for years. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the limelight-gathering
example of something SHOULD be the most critically examined, so long as
it is done with precision and accuracy. Thus, I tend to find critiques
by reasonable Linux users to be more desirable and informative than the
FUD presented by pretty much every Windows-only user that has a critique
to offer.
[snip]
>>It really doesn't matter if knowledge is obtained first, second or 67th
>>hand. What matters is the accuracy. Inaccurate knowledge gained first hand
>>is still of little or no value. Accurate information is of value, no matter
>>how it is obtained. To restrict information on the basis of degree of
>>separation strikes me as poor policy.
>
>
> In general, 2nd/3rd hand knowledge tends to be more inaccurate than 1st
> hand.
. . . but every piece of information should be examined on its own
merits, and not simply discarded or otherwise devalued solely based on
the vector of its introduction to a discussion. That, I think, is the
point here. It was certainly one of my points of contention with you.
>
> And if I have to make a generalization, and please excuse this,
> "everyone has an opinion on Red Hat." About 80% of the time I see
> someone talk about a "Red Hat-only issue," I can find the same issue
> with a number of distros that are not Red Hat-based at all.
>
> Every single complaint I saw of Fedora Core 2 were kernel 2.6 issues,
> not Fedora Core 2-only issues.
I seem to recall two issues in particular that arose where the problem
only seemed to present itself when using Fedora Core 2 with kernel 2.6.
People doing similar things in other distributions didn't seem to have
this problem. Granted, that might only be because of the software being
used in the Fedora Core 2 examples being different from the software
being used in other distributions, but if that problematic software
combination was default installation behavior for Fedora Core 2, there
is a legitimate concern regarding use of Fedora Core 2 that needs to be
addressed.
I'm not saying this makes FC2 any less valuable, though. Don't
misunderstand this as an attack on FC2, especially since (based on the
relative quiet since the initial barrage of complaints) it would seem
that the problems have been rectified in some manner.
Fedora devotees tend to scoff at how "out of date" Debian can be.
Problems of the significance that arose eary in the FC2 release don't
seem to present themselves with Debian, though. Both of these
characteristics of Debian (relative to Fedora) are, I believe, a direct
result of the very thorough testing that all packages go through before
inclusion in the Debian distribution. There are drawbacks to both
approaches, to be sure: I just happen to prefer the Debian approach to
that of Fedora.
Once the initial learning curve for Debian use is overcome, Debian tends
to be hassle-free in comparison with (most) other distributions. That
being the case, I prefer a reliably working computer over bleeding-edge
bragging rights. I understand that this statement is oversimplified: I
don't intend it as an accurate representation of all the applicable
facts. I only intend it as a summation of my own opinion on the matter.
>
>
>>I suggest we continue to offer our information, opinion and speculations,
>>and recognize that those who are better informed are doing a service
>>by providing "error correction". If we remove our egos, then we have
>>a healthy information sharing system.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>There are very few rules here. Most of us have no right to make demands of
>>others. We are in this for the common good. Shouldn't we treat it as such?
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I merely offer my observations and opinion, and point out examples when
> they occur. Someone shouldn't take offense if I point out a very good
> example when it does, indeed, occur -- let alone be accused of stirring
> "tangents" when I see others do quite the same.
>
> If there is one thing, I'm not a hypocrite. I have enough that I'm
> guilty of. I just find those who are just as guilty seem to complain
> the loudest.
I'd disagree quite strenuously with your statement about not being a
hypocrite, actually. Convincing a hypocrite that he's a hypocrite,
however, is something of an uphill battle, and not something I care to
attempt here. Suffice to say that I disagree.
In any case, I welcome your opinion and knowledge when well-presented.
I don't even mind tangents, as they at least are reasonable branchings
of the discussion at hand. What bothers me is your tendency to be
contentious when simply being informative is a simple option, and your
tendency at times to go one step further than a tangent and simply
appropriate a thread for something effectively off-topic.
I'm trying to be polite, respectful, and helpful here. This is intended
as constructive criticism. Please take it as such.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:19:07 EDT