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

Re: long term support release

On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 03:47 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:38:41 +0100
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de> wrote:
> > I see it, too. Initially people chose Fedora as replacement for RHL.
> > Fedora didn't fill this gap and still hasn't managed to fill this gap.
> RHL was a failure on Red Hat's part.  They flat out could not afford to
> continue it as it was.
Well, IMO RHL had been the "step into the door" which had caused people
to getting into RH and had let RH gain the fame they are still profiting
from today.

Without RHL, I would expect Fedora probably not exist, or be an
ignorable niche, like many other Linux distros.

>   Any sort of Fedora effort that looks like LTS
> or looks like RHL is not going to get much RH resources after the 13
> months we get now (and that even took some convincing).
Exactly this is the point. I claim the costs for RH to be almost minimal
for a "Fedora LTS" project under the "Fedora hood".

It would collide with Fedora as technology preview, collides with EPEL,
and would not unlikely impose some security and stability drawbacks. But
that's essentially all.

> Ubuntu LTS seems to exist because they have no RHEL/CentOS equiv.
May-be, not unlikely.

>   I
> feel that our efforts are far better spent making the RHEL/CentOS/EPEL
> experience better, so that there isn't a thought that we need a long
> term Fedora, because we'd already have it with the RHEL/CentOS/EPEL set.
Unless RH makes RHEL publicly available, instead of forcing people to
recompile their packages, I refuse to support EPEL. Also, I consider
EPEL as counterproductive to Fedora because it drains away users,
developers and resources (RH money) from Fedora. 


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