[Beowulf] OS for 64 bit AMD
ed at eh3.com
Tue Apr 5 17:33:24 PDT 2005
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 22:05 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:08:04AM -0400, Ed Hill wrote:
> > So, you're using a FREE distro (one with a quick release schedule and a
> > well-documented "rolling beta nature") where they fixed-in-next-release
> > ALL THREE of your reported bugs and, based on that outcome, you've
> > "learned to avoid wasting [...] time filing" them?
> Yes. It's easy for Red Hat to release updates, they certainly pretend
> to release updates, and they updated quite a few other things in FC1.
> This is an extremely different standard of support than for RHEL,
> which is fine (I wasn't paying), but I found the whole bug process so
> disagreeable so as to not bother reporting any more bugs. I don't
> think this is radical; if RH wants the community to help debug their
> product, they need to be nice about it.
> PathScale, on the other hand, almost always does "fix in next
> release", but that's because the QA process for a compiler is
> radically different from a distro, and we release every 3
> months. Different style of product, different level of support, so you
> can't really compare FC and PathScale's compiler in any way. Apples
> and oranges. I assure you that you'll find our bug process a lot
> more warm and fuzzy.
So, in summary, its perfectly OK for *you* to routinely declare bugs
fixed-in-the-next-release but others (even free community-based
projects) must do better.
Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3 at mit.edu ed at eh3.com
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
More information about the Beowulf