[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: long term support release

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 23.01.2008 16:56, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Honestly, in my eyes, RHEL/CentOS + EPEL >= Ubuntu LTS, and a separate Fedora
LTS is completely unwarranted.

Agreed. But the different names (Fedora != CentOS) make a very very big
difference for a lot of people and the press. IOW: we might see
RHEL/CentOS + EPEL as Fedora LTS, but for the world CentOS and Fedora
are totally different things.

What I'd personally love to see is a split based on the odds of a problem crashing a previously working machine, picking the things that could crash the whole machine from the stable CentOS cut (kernel, device drivers, libc, etc.), then run the more current fedora versions of apps on top of that. If a single app crashes it is generally not a huge issue compared to kernel/driver breakage. I suppose the trendy way to accomplish this is with xen, but it seems like a waste to have to run two kernels just to keep one working. Perhaps a variation would be possible where you'd have a full, stock Centos installed, but by changing your PATH (which could be controlled per login) you'd actually run in an environment as fedora-like as possible on top of the CentOS kernel and libc. Disk space is cheap and I'd much prefer this kind of failsafe approach to a dual-boot system or running the experimental stuff under vmware or xen.

  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell gmail com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]