long term support release

[Les Mikesell]

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 at gmail.com