Delay? Looks bad for Fedora

[Todd Grimason]

* Matthew Walburn <matt at math.mit.edu> [2003-11-04 19:39]:
> My situation with RHEL/Fedora is that my company (a large department in 
> an .edu) doesn't need the commercial support of RHEL, we need the 
> release cycle. The fact of the matter is that while we want to go with 
> RHEL department wide, we can't afford it. So, we're being forced into 
> giving Fedora a shot on our workstations, and RHEL ES on our critical 
> servers.

This is my position as well (though a small dept in an .edu, and just
me), and from the tone of many comments/emails all over, I think many
people's concern.
                                                                                                          
In short, I think many people are looking for a similar situation to
Debian Stable, or FreeBSD RELEASEs(?) where you can just track the
security patches, and only need to upgrade at long(er) intervals.

Is it the intention of the Legacy group to essentially enable a
similar maintenance/sec/patch schedule to Debian/Stable and FreeBSD?

Of course "well go use those" is an obvious answer, but I think lots
of people would like to stick with Redhat... err, Fedora, if possible.

TG 

-- 

___________________________
toddgrimason*todd at slack.net