[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: reviving Fedora Legacy

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 14:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 13.10.2008 14:18, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > Perhaps I've been inattentive; if so then I apologise. But could someone
> > please state for the record precisely what they want when they ask for
> > 'Fedora LTS', that CentOS doesn't provide?
> Sounds stupid, but afaics it's just two:
> (1) having Fedora in the name.
* CentOS/RHEL often are outdated in details, even in comparison with older Fedoras.
* RHEL being non-free.

> (2) having all the package available that are Fedora and Add-On repos ship
* Right, there is a huge gap between the packages being shipped by RHEL
+EPEL and those of Fedora.

> "1" sounds stupid, but afaics it's really a big problem for a lot of 
> people. They simply view CentOS as something completely different, which 
>   it IMHO not really is.
I disagree, CentOS and Fedora are completely different, e.g. on the
"project control/management" side, target-audience wise and

>  Maybe Fedora and CentOS should merge?
Yes, this would be an improvement.

>  Or maybe 
> RH should simply start to distribute the RHEL bits freely.
And this would be an even better alternative, but it's not that I would
expect this to ever happen.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]