| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out?When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out?Posted Aug 31, 2005 5:21 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? by yodermk Parent article: The second OpenOffice.org 2.0 beta
> Frankly, I'm surprised they shipped it in its current state.
Don't be. That's what FC is for - finding bugs.
(Log in to post comments)
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 8:00 UTC (Wed) by kms (subscriber, #6679) [Link] > > Frankly, I'm surprised they shipped it in its current state. > Don't be. That's what FC is for - finding bugs. I think many, including those in the Fedora Project, would agree with your statement: Fedora Myths.
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 11:23 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I think many, including those in the Fedora Project, would agree with your statement: Fedora Myths.
I'm not sure if you meant "would" or "wouldn't" here, but it looks like the latter, after reviewing that link. I hope that you aren't suggesting that this sentence:
"It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products."
Means something other than using FC to find bugs. I'm not sure how a technology becomes "proven" without being tested and without bugs being found and squashed...
This doesn't necessarily mean one cannot use FC on production machines. I do so daily (with various degrees of success, depending on the task).
When will OpenOffice.org 2.0 officially come out? Posted Aug 31, 2005 11:59 UTC (Wed) by kms (subscriber, #6679) [Link] [ Yep, I meant wouldn't ]
The point I was trying to make was that the purpose of Fedora is not solely to find bugs for Red Hat, but that is how I interpreted your original statement.
|
|
||||||||||||