long term support release

Denis Leroy denis at poolshark.org
Fri Jan 25 14:14:26 UTC 2008


Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 14:55 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 19:35 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> Further: IMO, fedora legacy did not fail. It was discontinued by
>>>> management, because it collided the certain business interests.
> 
>>> Ralf,
>>>  I know there's no way to convince you of this,
> 
>> No there isn't.
> 
> Sad.
> 
>> This thread added further to this. It once again made it clear that many
>> parties being involved into Fedora aren't willing in implementing a
>> Fedora LTS or simply extending the lifetime of Fedora for various
>> reasons - We will see if Ubuntu LTS will be a success. I would assume it
>> to further contribute to Fedora loosing ground.
> 
> The people who were supposed do do the work, didn't. That's how OSS
> projects die,
> 
>>>  however, this isn't at
>>> all what happened. Legacy just died.
> 
>> As I see it, it died, because people wanted to let it to die for various
>> different individual motivations.
> 
> ... and not enough people stepped up to keep it alive. This was /not/ the
> result of some "Red Hat conspiracy", Fedora Legacy could very well have
> gone its own way, /if there had been enough interest/. Much more irritating
> as competition than a "Fedora LTS" are projects like CentOS, and those are
> doing well.

My opinion also. There simply wasn't enough traction, and it's 
understandable as back-porting security fixes is not exactly a fun job.

Certainly if enough people are interested, nothing is preventing a group 
of motivated contributors from starting again. Pick a Fedora version and 
build from there. Personally I would wait for critical projects such as 
NetworkManager and dbus to stabilize a bit before embarking on a project 
like that.

-denis




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list