<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Thompson Freeman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tfreeman@intel.digichem.net">tfreeman@intel.digichem.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
</div></div>Following the Fedora list, Fedora 9 hasn't been the best<br>
behaved release even before the intrusion/compromise. With<br>
the compromise of the release servers, the noise on that<br>
list is horrid.<br>
<br>
I hesitate offer advise. If it were _my_ gear, I think I'd<br>
drop back to Fedora 8 at least long enough to verify the<br>
hardware functioning, and possibly give Fedora 9 a complete<br>
pass.</blockquote><div> </div><div>I don't follow the chatter/blatherings on the Fedora list (I get enough here :-). But I have several systems running the Fedora series. I have found them to be quite stable and functional even considering the bleeding-edge nature of Fedora. Currently, all but 1 are F9 (last F7 get updated this weekend to F9) and 2 were upgrades from F8 or F7 (the F7 upgrade is a 64-bit system). I even have a G3 ibook running F9 (schweet!). I attribute part of my success with Fedora to the fact I don't run really low end hardware. Some of my gear is pretty weak for it's day. But none of it is in that dubious "grey zone" of flaky chipsets, second-quality power supplies and ram that seem to be plagued by instability issues. <br>
<br>Bad silicon is bad silicon. Too bad the chipset isn't socketed and replaceable. That would be fantastic! Buy a new chipset and bios and upgrade the system!<br><br>That would be a nightmare from the EE perspective, though.<br>
</div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III <br><br>
</div>