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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support



2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip kanarip com>:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
> <snecklifter gmail com>
> wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
>> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
>> trying to do) is doomed to permanent failure.
>>
>
> I love your argumentation behind this statement;
>
> Why do you think it's doomed exactly? Is it reasoning following the past
> Fedora Legacy initiatives (and failure), or is there anything new?

That plus the fact that you have Red Hat, the major backers of Fedora,
producing a distribution that is geared towards long term support for
their clients. Hence any initiative to increase the length of time
Fedora is supported will not (I believe) receive anything more than
lip service from RH. I completely understand that and it makes
financial sense.

The more you try and give Fedora some kind of LTS, the more you stray
into territory already covered by RHEL (paid support) or CentOS
(unpaid support).

I was simply trying to identify what the requirements are for LTS on
Fedora. I think simply saying "Fedora needs LTS" is doomed as the past
has proved. "Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it." -
George Santayana

The sooner Fedora gets out of its identity crisis the better. I
believe the following:

Fedora is the distribution for those who love computers.
CentOS, Ubuntu and others are for those who dont.

Regards

-- 
Christopher Brown


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