reviving Fedora Legacy

[Les Mikesell]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:19:09PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 07:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:42:28AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:36:05AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>>>> If we present the _appearance_ of a distro with security updates, while
>>>>> in fact there are serious security issues being unfixed, then that is
>>>>> _much_ worse than the current "That distro is EOL. Upgrade before you
>>>>> get hacked" messaging.
>>>> The aim here is not to present the _appearance_ of a distro with
>>>> security updates but give the choice to the user either to upgrade or to
>>>> stick with a distro where some packages will not be maintained.
>>>> Something along "That distro is EOL. Upgrade before you get hacked.
>>>> Alternatively, and at your own risk, you can enable a repository where 
>>>> some packages are updated on a volunteer basis, but some packages aren't
>>>> maintained anymore."
>>>>
>>>> With a page listing which packages are still supported.
>>> The issue you will have is that people will not be comfortable opening the
>>> ACLs for things like the kernel or glibc or gcc.
>> And their rationale being what?
> 
> See my other reply.
> 
>> Them preferring leaving users exposed to vulnerabilities?
> 
> Obviously not, since the newer distros are maintained.

With disruptive changes that make it impossible to know if your hardware 
or applications will still work after an upgrade - and what is the 
alternative if they don't?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com