RFE: Retire Fedora Core 4 only _after_ FC6 has been released.

Gilboa Davara gilboad at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 18:36:40 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:24 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Andy Green <andy at warmcat.com> wrote:
> > The more that is done to make Legacy a purely internal action not
> > readily discernable (I am sorry about suggesting this reduction in
> > profile) the less Fedora will look like an upgrade treadmill and the
> > more it will look like a project issuing basically immortal releases,
> > this 6 month drumbeat will be only of interest to people looking to
> > upgrade by choice.
> What really disturbs me.. is that people are installing Fedora without
> realizing the EOL timescale and are only complaining about the EOL
> policy as their installed release nears the EOL date. This is nothing
> but a panic response from individuals who did not take the time to
> read up on the established EOL policy.  It's essentially public
> blackmail.  Do what i want right now, becaue its what i want or you'll
> be sorry.  It's really a shame that vocal opposition to the current
> EOL policy shows up at EOL time and not at release time of FC3. Policy
> discussions like this should be proactive not reactive.  I'd be much
> more sympathetic if this discussion were the result of people reading
> over the EOL policy before installing Fedora and making the argument
> from a perspective user point of view.  The simple fact is, Fedora
> isn't attempting to be the best solution for everyone with a need to
> run a linux system. I relish its aggressive focus. For people who
> desire to skip releases and who do not want to march to the beat of
> the 6 month-ish upgrade/install drum.. it is quite possible that
> Fedora Core will not be the correct choice.  Make no mistake, Fedora's
> development model will not solve everyone's usage needs.  If the EOL
> policy and the Legacy suppliment do not fit your needs.. you should be
> making that determination before you choose to install Fedora over
> other solutions.  The lesson I've taken away from this is, people
> aren't making rational informed decisions at the time the choose to
> install fedora.  I'm left assuming that people are installing fedora
> based on brand recognition or zealotry, instead of based on informed
> opinion as to whether fedora isa reasonable choice for that
> installation.
> Should the people who have FC3 installed right now, have known exactly
> what the EOL policy was before they made the decision to use FC3? The
> answer to that is abso-freaking-lutely. Why exactly are the people who
> want ot have the policy dicussion now choose to install FC3 and wait
> till the EOL date to complain about the EOL policy? Why didn't they
> bring this up as part of their personal decision making process for
> FC3 installation?  Did the people who are asking for an extention of
> FC3 fail to understand the EOL policy when they installed Fc3? Does
> this project need to better job of communicating the EOL policy to
> people looking to install Core? How exactly do you force people to
> read the important documentation  concerning the EOL policy?
> -jef

You are right.
Hence, I was talking about FC4 EOL and not FC3 EOL.
I'm looking to close the Window (so to speak) between FC-current release
and FC-2 EOL, not extend the EOL to a RHEL-like term.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list