the fate of firewire

[D. Stolte]

disclaimer: i am not a rh employee.

you have some options:
if you have many friends and collegues sitting in the same boat (newest
linux software and 3-or-more-years support) then you all could pay
someone to offer you the service of fixing buggy packages. and you could
do the community  a favor and offer your then fixed software back to the
community.

or you could wait until the lifecycle is over and setup testing servers
with the next fedora release as you said it worked until now. i dont see
a reason why it shouldnt work anymore.

whatever you decision will be, you dont get running servers without
investing anything. but thats also true for every other OS.

/ds


> 
>>>Wether Fedora Legacy is a viable alternative for prolonged critical
>>>upgrade service will have to be seen. I'll watch closely how timely
>>>security updates will be released.
>>
>>It is not intended to be. fedora-legacy is a volunteer effort.
> 
> 
> Eh? It's there to provide exactly this: prolonged support cycle
> for Fedora. Wether it is a volunteer or paid effort doesn't matter.
> 
> 
>>If people volunteer to do the work it will get done, if not...
> 
> 
> Yup. But still it's becoming worthless for me, if security updates
> don't arrive in time. When vulns are published, there is no time for
> "waiting weeks for an upgrade". When FL doesn't publish a security
> errata quickly, I have to resort to compile-and-install-myself, and
> then I obviously don't need FL anymore.
> 
> 
>>>Really, this is not picking on anyone, as after all it's all free
>>>as in beer. I just need a modern Linux distro with a (basic) support
>>>cycle of about 3 years. I don't want to reinstall all my servers
>>>every couple of months. And no, distro-upgrades are no option. Too
>>>dangerous to end up with a messed-up system. So I usually install
>>>a replacement server with a new distro version, and subsequently move
>>>services over, then retire the old box. Worked nicely for 6.2 => 7.1
>>>=> 9 => FC1 up to now.
>>
>>Based on your above comments, I would submit that you are using the wrong
>>distro.
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is my current dilemma, as I don't see a good alternative
> for me in the Linux market anymore. And the BSD area doesn't look too
> appaeling to... have now installed FBSD 5.3 on one of my Netras to
> look around there. Now that they have a non-stoneage init system.
> 
> 
>>If you need stability and timely updates then you need something
>>like RHEL.
> 
> 
> No, RHEL has a too long innovation cycle. What I need is something
> like the Fedora release (innovation) cycle, together with a RHEL-like
> support cycle. But this is a case of TANSTAAFL, at least in the the
> Red Hat land.
> 
> 
>>There are plenty of alternatives without whining about the support
>>of cycle of fedora.
> 
> 
> It's a typical problem of OS fanatics to discredit any
> discussion/criticism as "whining". I'm certainly not "whining".
> 
> 
>>In addition I would suggest you read the fedora web page so that
>>you will understand what fedora is and is not.
> 
> 
> It's totally clear what it is about. It is about Red Hat getting rid
> of the support burden for their non-enterprise customers as far as possible
> without upsetting people too much and as a consequence being able to
> be a bit more experimental, and using the Fedora user base as
> betatesters for their RHEL product line. This is nothing wrong per se,
> though I'm a little bit disgruntled about reading "community" everwhere,
> but seeing that this is just totally lip service up until now.
> 
> Anyway... in summary Fedora is OK for me as long as Fedora Legacy
> "works" in regard of providing timely(!) security updates for about
> three years after release of a specific Fedora version. And from talking
> to many other admins (collegues, friends) they are all in the same
> dilemma.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
> 
>