On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:39 AM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 12:03 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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? > > As a standalone observation, perhaps -- some desktop users often don't > want old, stagnant code; they'd prefer the latest bells and whistles. > > But it makes no sense when considered in conjunction with your apparent > desire for an old, stagnant version of Fedora. > > What makes you think it would be any different? > > It's not exactly difficult or problematic to update from one version of > Fedora to the next. I do it on each of my servers at least once a year > (I usually skip a release, but not always). And those are mostly > headless, remote boxes. > > If you want new stuff, run Fedora and do a fairly painless update > annually. If you want old stuff, run Centos and update less frequently. > > I don't see any need for a middle ground. > > -- > David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre > [email protected] Intel Corporation > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > Out of curiosity, don't we have an Extended Life Cycle Fedora version called Red Hat Enterprise Linux and/or CentOS and/or dozens of other similar distros? Why duplicate efforts? Just so it goes under the name "Fedora"? -- Ing. Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno Desarrollador de Sistemas Abiertos Sitio: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
