Re: Why AS

Andrew Sullivan (
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:40:21 -0400 (EDT)

I second this.  It was utterly irresponsible of RH to ship a development
version as a "working" window manager.

It still is.  A friend of mine here in Hamilton and I had a lengthy e-mail
exchange because one of the 1.7 releases was included as a (default-ish
choice) GNOME wm in RH 6.0.  Nice, if one is already experienced with AS,
or GNOME, or both, but rather a dirty trick to play on a new user who just
wanted to get up & running. 

The development releases of AS are unbelievably stable, and it's a tribute
to the developers that these things work so well.  But development 
releases are still, after all, development.  Things break in unusual ways.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.


Andrew Sullivan | (home)| (work)
                                   *  *  *
AfterStep FAQ: or 

On 10 Aug 1999, Doug Alcorn wrote:

> Darren Eckhoff <> writes:
> > 
> >   The reason I am hesitant to upgrade is because IT WORKS SO WELL!
> > Now maybe I'm the exception, but I'd hate to upgrade, patch, re-patch,
> > re-re-patch, and still find out that something that worked fine before
> > now pukes when you activate the smallest of bugs.
> > 
> >   Are the features in 1.6.x or 1.7.x such that it warrents upgrading
> > from a problemless 1.5.x to a 95% working release?
> > 
> I did a _lot_ of support back in the 1.5.x and early 1.6.x days.  Red
> Hat took one of our pre 1.5 beta releases and renamed it to 1.5.0.
> There were a lot of features that we got working before we actually
> shipped 1.6.0.  Most of the _really_ cool aestetic stuff is after the
> RH 1.5.0 rpm.  The beta versions of 1.5 were released as the stable
> 1.6.x tree.
> If the rpm shipped with RH 5.2 works OK for you.  Don't upgrade.
> However, if you see cool screen shots and say, "How do I do that?" We
> will immediatly reply, "Upgrade."  Sorry.  I wish RH had included one
> of our 1.6.x rpm as an update, but they didn't.
> -- 
>  (__)  Doug Alcorn
>  oo / 
>  |_/   
> --
>    WWW:
>    FTP:
>    MAIL: