reviving Fedora Legacy

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Similar proposals have come up several times before (I once proposed
> something like this), but so far, they all had been shoot down so far.
> 
> Openly said, my impression that certain parties in Fedora fear a Fedora
> LTS rsp. life-time-extended Fedora to compete with RH products.

I understand that there is a market for a Fedora-based distribution
which doesn't receive megabytes of updates each week, and which is
supported for longer than a year.

Those are reasonable and understandable desires, although they aren't
something that I want personally.

What I _don't_ understand is why these requirements are not met by
CentOS. Isn't that _precisely_ the 'market' that RHEL and CentOS exist
to serve?

Perhaps I've been inattentive; if so then I apologise. But could someone
please state for the record precisely what they want when they ask for
'Fedora LTS', that CentOS doesn't provide?

As I see it, there is a continuum of sorts -- from the daily churn of
rawhide, through the less anarchic but still considerable churn of the
latest Fedora release (currently F9), to the more conservative set of
updates for the previous release (F8), and then a bit of a jump to the
long-term stagnation¹ of RHEL/CentOS. You can pick whichever one you
like, according to your needs.

There is _perhaps_ some reason to desire some kind of middle ground
between CentOS and the outgoing Fedora release. But is there _such_ a
wide gap between the two that it's worth creating a completely new
distribution to fill it?

It seems like you're trying to make a completely new bikeshed, because
you think you want it a _slightly_ different hue to the existing one.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com                              Intel Corporation

¹ in this case, 'stagnation' is a feature rather than being derogatory.