On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Sloan wrote: > BandiPat wrote: > > If you go in steps, 10.1 or are planning that, just stop at 10.1! > > As many bad things as 10.1 introduced, I think 10.2 was worse. > > Huh? Clearly 10.1 was a buggy release, with the mono-based package > management system and beagle CPU punisher. Clever types soon worked > around the damage by nuking beagle, and using apt-get or smart for > package management. > > By all accounts, 10.2 was better and smoother in every way. Although > I still nuke beagle from 10.2 installs, the package mangement is > working nicely with yast/zypper instead of the mono-based stuff. > > Every one I've ever talked to that's run both says 10.2 was a huge > relief after the buggy 10.1release. > > Joe
============ Sure, 10.1 was buggy, but only with a couple of things that everyone was yelling about. Once those few things were ironed out, 10.1 was solid and smooth. Just watching this list after 10.2 was released proves how many more problems were introduced with it! Check & compare the emails/complaints, please. I've seen more problems arising, more bugs reported and many of the same problems 10.1 had, some different variations, but still there in 10.2. Eventually, you can fix them all, but why suggest he put himself through that when he has a good setup with 10.0? If you actually go by all accounts, as you suggest, you'll quickly see 10.2 was not the better release. Everyone was just so pissed at SuSE for the new updater, etc. they thought 10.2 couldn't/shouldn't be worse. At least that's what everyone hoped for. Lee -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
