On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 17:20, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 5:08 PM Orion Poplawski <or...@nwra.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/18/18 2:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I'm not for or against a longer Fedora lifecycle, but I think we need > > > a stronger statement of what the problem is we're trying to address. > > > > > > From your email: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > >> But there are some good cases for a longer lifecycle. For one thing, > > >> this has been a really big blocker for getting Fedora shipped on > > >> hardware. Second, there are people who really could be happily running > > >> Fedora but since we don't check the tickbox, they don't even look at us > > >> seriously. I'd love to change these things. To do that, we need > > >> something that lasts for 36-48 months. > > > > > > this sounds like a very valid problem. > > > > > > But if this was fixed, what number of manufacturers would adopt Fedora > > > and how many installations do they ship (eg per year)? Could it be > > > fixed in another way, like a special OEM Fedora release? > > > > And why haven't these manufacturers already adopted CentOS which is > > definitely around longer than 36-48 months? > > > > I think it's quite obvious why. No one can really influence what's in > CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is developed mostly behind
Those manufacturers can't really influence Windows any either. They instead know that they will sell enough laptops with Windows on them that they won't take a bath. There is also complicated financial methods where Microsoft seems to supplement laptop sales so that it is cheaper for them to ship with windows than to ship a system with no OS. Centos also ships a lot of non-Red Hat kernels and modules which meet various itches that people feel (xen, upstream lts, various gluster/ceph/arm32/etc) These are usually the bigger reasons why most larger OEM's haven't been interested in putting CentOS or even Ubuntu on a large set of systems. They know that the number of systems they will sell are at most 1% of all sales.. and there isn't a large enough incentive to do the various work they need to do that. So you end up needing a vendor who is going to go all in (the System76's) or you get someone who is going to offer a specific model set they know they can do cost-effectively but aren't going to put too much into it. [AKA if the engineers working on it love MCC Linux.. then its going to be MCC Linux.] In the end, for Fedora to be on a laptop by default someone is going to have to say 'we are betting the farm to do this and will do the work to make that happen'. I also think that we are focusing on one part of the original proposal... It wasn't the entire reason for doing some sort of LTS somewhere. It is just the one we can probably pick holes in the easiest :). -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
