reviving Fedora Legacy

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 09:03 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> >
> > True, at the time RHEL5 was new, it had been more or less a rebuilt
> > FC5/6 and switching between them had not been a major problem.
> >
> > Nowadays, it isn't anymore and even will be less when FC10 comes out.
> >
> > I.e. to today's FC7 or FC8 users, RHEL5 or CentOS5 are not viable
> > alternatives. They are kind of a flashback to yesterday's state-of-art.
> 
> Well, DUH!
> 
> Long term stability is achieved by *NOT ADDING NEW FEATURES*.  *ADDING
> NEW FEATURES INTRODUCES NEW BUGS*
> *YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO*
> 
> Sorry for shouting, but all of these people demanding a "Fedora LTS"
> don't seem to get this fundamental point.
WHAT? Guess why people are demanding for a *FEDORA LTS* and are not
demanding for RHEL5 or CENTOS.

Answer: RHEL5 is not a replacement for a lifetime extended current
Fedora.

Rationale, e.g. this:
> I mean really, if RHEL5 switched from KDE3.5 to KDE4.0 I'd be
> screaming bloody murder. Or even from BIND 9.3 to BIND 9.5.  Or
> whatever.

If Fedora and RHEL were synch'ed, things would be different.

Ralf