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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support



On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:40:37 +0100, Mat Booth <fedora matbooth co uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen<kanarip kanarip com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of
>> approximately
>> three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what
it
>> turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux
>> distributions, as desktops tend to need to run the latest and greatest
>> for
>> as far the latest and greatest lets them.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
> 
> No, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. You say a market for this
> is the corporate desktop, but a government department I work with runs
> their scientific desktops on RHEL 4. They have a lot of in-house apps
> that are known to work on that platform. There is absolutely no sense
> in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that
> version's EOL is in sight.
> 

You just made (part of) my point, I hope you realize:

> There is absolutely no sense
> in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that
> version's EOL is in sight.

Thanks!

Also, note that one example of a corporate environment that runs Enterprise
Linux grade distributions on their desktop systems does not make the rest
less true. And before anyone else is going to say it; I bet there's dozens
if not hundreds if not thousands if not millions of similar environments
happy to run with the Enterprise Linux distributions out there.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip


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