On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:42:35AM +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote > The official release is an indication of the life of a distribution > or package. Look at one of Keith Packard's reasons for leaving > Xfree86 (slow release cycle), or Gnome's recent push to speed their > release cycle.
One, of several, reason I left Windows in 2001 was... 1995 Windows95 1996 Windows95 OSr2 1998 Windows98 1999 Windows98SE 2000 Windows ME and Windows2000 2001 WindowsXP ..and I believed MS when they said Vista was "real soon now"<g>. I don't use linux to install linux, I use linux as a tool to do email, spreadsheets, web surfing, etc. And I've got nothing on businesses. They don't want their high-paid admins constantly spending their time installing "the latest and greatest". Businesses want to "set it and forget it". A few data points... in the leadup to Y2K, there were a lot of mainframe/mini programs replaced that had been running unmodified for 10 or 20 years http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/ tells about a university where a wall was built that happened to imprison a server. It kept happily chugging away, and it wasn't until 4 years later, during an audit, that it was finally tracked down, by following the network cabling one of Redhat's selling points with Redhat Enterprise Linux is the promise of a slower release cycle. Timely security patches, yes. But OS version du jour, NO. -- Walter Dnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm not repeating myself I'm an X Window user... I'm an ex-Windows-user -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
