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

Re: FC2 -> FC3 upgrade question



On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 11:49, Wong Kwok-hon wrote:
> > 
> > > In my opinion, the ideal would be an OS upgrade every 3-4 years, and/or
> > >
> > >some better (more complete?) tools for automating the upgrade process.
> > >I'm sure this is a pretty difficult thing to do, but I'm into wishful
> > >thinking today :)
> > >
> > >
> > I have to agree with you there. I''m not really sure what consist of a
> > major upgrade for FC.
> > Why not simply call it FC (no numeral) and keep upgrading the packages
> > an that's it.
> > 
> > It almost seems like a race simply to get out another major version...
> > when there seems to be so many little bug fixes improvements that can be
> > made and still call it FC3 or whatever.
> > 
> > This seems like a "Commercial Software" cycle thing. Where we need to
> > get out a version before the 1st quarter of 05 to bring in some revenues
> > from upgrades.  ;-)
> 
> Yes, I feel we are the tester of a software sometimes.
> But RedHat is become a commerical software like others.
> So no choice to continue to use it....
> 
Well, that's a good point... RedHat is not alone in this respect. All of
the OS's I've used depend on revenue from CD sales (aka
"contributions"), or outright licensing fees to keep the project going.
Let's face it: at the end of the day, _nobody_ works for free. Somebody
is paying for much of the time and effort that goes into these OS's. 

I just wish that a method of generating the necessary revenue could be
developed that would support a 3-4 year life-cycle for an OS with
automated patches in between, OR 4-6 months between releases with
automated upgrades.

Jay


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