On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 07:08, Anne Wilson wrote: > I thought we were comparing it with 9.0. If I have misunderstood > there, I apologise. 8.2 seems so long ago that I don't remember with > any accuracy. I think startup time is longer with 9.1, but that > isn't an issue on the scale that it would be in windows. Apart from > that, I have no problems on this box. I have many problems on an old > box that has it installed, but frankly, it would hardly be fair to > blame Mandrake for that. The box is barely up to the task.
This system here though, is perfectly capable. What's more, whenever I do a reinstall I always have a floppy save of the last installation that I use on the new install. This ensures that all the packages that went in at the last install also go in with the new. So same applications here, same known good hardware, triple boot system with LM82, 98sr2, and LM91. Admittedly the code of both the apps and the distro is different; that's obviously what it is, but locating where the real problem is in that complexity makes for, shall we say, interesting times. > > Well, you should understand that the frontend and the backend are > > not the same thing. There can be architectural changes underneath > > (and have been) while keeping the user interface the same. This > > dichotomy of architecture exists (or should exist) to save time and > > effort, in other words to avoid exactly the scenario that you > > describe. This discussion also has already taken place on the > > Mandrakeclub voting forums which many here have not been privy to; > > and may never see since they were put down. The synopsis of the > > discussions was that there was nothing untoward about keeping the > > UI while allowing the backend to evolve. So I tend to disagree > > that this is not fair, especially in light of what I have already > > pointed out about the voting process (and discussions) being > > ignored in this regard. > > > I am aware that you and several others pushed this one hard, but I > think that it is only reasonable that practicality is considered as > well. Which on the face of it I of course wholeheartedly agree, and there's no way I could disagree with your statement as you put it there. The point I was making however (and have been since day one) is that there have been precedents set with applications in the past that allow a dichotomy between the app engine and the frontend. This is just commonsense, for the very reasons that you have put forth. (practicality) I am saying that the backend and the frontend are two different things, and we are basically talking about changing cosmetics only here; or the frontend. In that case, the difficulty of change pretty much becomes a moot issue, the qualification being that you don't mess with what they are doing on the backend, which was never really suggested. Only in that latter situation would what you are saying apply, and that's not the way it is. With all that being the case, the polls should never have been gagged. The voter's money should count for something; and as I have said it sets a bad precedent. > > As far as fairness goes, I find it ironic that such a statement > > would be leveled in my direction when a majority of Mandrake club > > voters have already clearly stated their position > > Lyvim, I do not intend this as a personal attack. However, it seems > to me that while Mandrake invite voting, they have a right, and even > a duty, to say no to something that would cause problems in a future > release, particularly when they tell you why it is so. > > Anne Again, superficially I agree with your point as a matter of general principle; but as I stated above this does not apply to what was being voted on. --LX -- 같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같 Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk Linux Mandrake 9.1 Enlightenment-0.16.5-12mdk Evolution 1.2.4-1.1mdk Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ 같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같같
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
