| |||||||||||
actually very impressiveactually very impressivePosted Apr 18, 2008 6:40 UTC (Fri) by DG (subscriber, #16978)In reply to: actually very impressive by sbergman27 Parent article: Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Well, it could always be like Gutsy where a bug in gdm means XDMCP doesn't work. At least it sounds like you get 16 sessions!
(Log in to post comments)
actually very impressive Posted Apr 18, 2008 17:55 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] I'm not familiar with that incident. But I'll bet they did not leave it that way for 5 months (and counting). Fedora 8 was released with the gdm problem and still has it to this day.
actually very impressive Posted Apr 20, 2008 7:16 UTC (Sun) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Unfortunately I believe the XDMCP problem is still in Feisty and Gutsy (i.e. the one where GDM listens only on udp6 socket, not on IPv4, so XDMCP doesn't work at all). I really like Ubuntu and use it as my main OS on a couple of systems, but there's a tendency for some quite serious bugs to not get fixed - probably because they are focusing on bugs that really stop mainstream desktop users from adopting Ubunutu, but can be annoying. However, unfixed bugs are generally the exception, and every release does improve on earlier ones.
actually very impressive Posted Apr 20, 2008 19:26 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ Unfortunately I believe the XDMCP problem is still in Feisty and Gutsy (i.e. the one where GDM listens only on udp6 socket, not on IPv4, so XDMCP doesn't work at all). """ No. It works fine in both current Gutsy and Hardy. I have no Feisty with which to test. Fedora's is still broken in F8. Haven't tested F9. What is particularly irritating about that is that it is not the sort of bug which only occurs on specific hardware and is hard for the devs to reproduce. Someone rewrote a major part of gdm and forgot to have it read in values from the config files. Any dev who cared enough could quite easily fire up some XDMCP vnc sessions and reproduce the problem. Though I'm sure that if I complained too much, someone would tell me that the devs can't fix it unless I help them more. In fact, the bug I filed is still sitting as "unconfirmed" and "need more info". With that kind of developer attitude to such a serious problem I prefer not to waste my time spoon feeding them "more info" regarding a trivially reproduceable snafu that I have already hard coded and recompiled around for my customers bitten by it. And the upstream bug report has not done any better than the Fedora one. So all this "actually very impressive" stuff regarding the 2 week slip does not really impress me at all.
|
|||||||||||