[cut-team] Rethinking CUT

[Michael Gilbert]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:55:18 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:42:12PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >
> >For question (2), I think the only two benefits are support for newer
> >hardware, and support for newer features.  However, my approach
> >requires virtually no manpower; whereas stabilizing the testing
> >installer for a release requires much many people (and a lot of effort
> >from what I've read).  Advanced users will find a way to get access to
> >those missing installer features anyway if they really want that.
> >Hence, it isn't really a necessity for the installer; its just
> >something nice to have.  As for hardware support, I think presenting a
> >list of what is/isn't supported is the best solution for that.
> 
> Having a list to tell me that my hardware isn't supported isn't going
> to provide much comfort if I'm trying to get a new system installed.

True.  That list could include instructions on how to get and use the
in-development installer, but that also doesn't really solve the
problem.

I wonder how much truth there is to the new hardware incompatibility
complaint.  Personally, I haven't had any issue with new hardware in
stable releases (dating back to sarge). On the other hand, I've had tons
of issues with hardware that lacks free drivers/firmware (mostly
wireless cards).  Maybe that's a small price to pay for stability?

Best wishes,
Mike