reviving Fedora Legacy

[Les Mikesell]

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*

But that's generally an upstream issue. The bugs get fixed upstream but 
in general the new releases aren't included in RHEL/Centos updates even 
after the updated program becomes less buggy that the shipped version. 
(Firefox and OO being recent, rare exceptions).

> *YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO*

And sometimes you don't get either.  Like a beta Dovecot shipped in RHEL 
  4 and not replaced by the stable upstream when the release version was 
available.

> Sorry for shouting, but all of these people demanding a "Fedora LTS"
> don't seem to get this fundamental point.

Your point applies only on a package-by-package basis, but RHEL applies 
it across the board (with the above-mentioned rare exceptions).

> I mean really, if RHEL5 switched from KDE3.5 to KDE4.0 I'd be
> screaming bloody murder.

Nobody ever claimed KDE 4.0 was stable, did they?

 > Or even from BIND 9.3 to BIND 9.5.  Or
> whatever.

Not sure about that, but if upstream says it is better, it probably is.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com