the fate of firewire
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Sep 13 13:53:50 UTC 2004
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:31:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >No, RHEL has a too long innovation cycle. What I need is something
> >like the Fedora release (innovation) cycle, together with a RHEL-like
> >support cycle.
>
> And redhat decided that these 2 items, short innovation cycle + long
> support cycle, are mutually exclusive. redhat would end up "supporting"
> 5-6 releases (going back ~3 years @ ~ 6 month innovation cycle), which
> would be unmanageable. Is that really what you want?
Yes, it is what I want. But obviously nothing Red Hat does provide
(anymore). I'm not complaining about that fact, it just explains why
I have a problem now and a working Fedora Legacy is the only hope I
have allowing me to stay with RH/Fedora.
> Besides, IMO, RHEL is pretty good when it comes to innovation too. Are
> there features missing from RHEL that you need?
It's not necessarily features. When I (re-)install a computer today,
I don't want a general software release level which is a year old
(or even more, RHEL4 isn't on the horizont yet as far as I can see).
And exactly this is one of the motivations of Red Hat for Fedora,
as stated by Red Hat themselves.
Regards,
Daniel
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list