X-Chat 2.4.0 to 2.6

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net <d.terweij at nettuning.net>:

>> Isn't that what FC4 is supposed to be?
>
> Where it ends? FC is not a good choice for production.

Then don't use it.  There are lots of other choices.

> Linux is stable,
> linux dont have to reboot much. Linux can run for years without a reboot.

And it is that way exactly because we don't keep upgrading it to the lastest
and greatest version of everything all the time.  If you want the latest
and greatest, you lose the stability.

> I
> do not want to upgrade my production machines every 6 months because FC has
> a new version.

Yet you do want to upgrade your applications every 6 months?  What's the
difference?

> Those new versions holds new versions of software. Why  cant they build one
> FC and update/upgrade just the installed versions?

Because that isn't the mission of FC.  That is the mission of RHEL et al.
If that is what you want, then you are using the wrong OS.

>> > I suggest to rename the current legacy-updates to legacy-security or
>> > something like that.

The project is Fedora Legacy.  That names implies that we deal in legacy
OS and legacy packages.  Our updates then become legacy updates.  Not
much way around that.

While your proposal isn't bad, it is a bit late in the ball game to
make the change now I think.

>> > legacy-updates sounds like just updates of new versions to me like the
>> > normal repo's also is doing rather then security shit..

Yes, but if you look at more than the yum/apt channel name, like the project's
web site or docs, you shouldn't be too confused.  It's just a matter of
the yum/apt channel names being terse that is the problem here.

>> This has been gone over many times, here. I suggest you actually go
>> and read the mission statement.
>
> You think every "user" reading that?

You mention "production" machines and OS and uses above.  I sure hope
that any serious production admin would do so.

No, I don't expect all home users or the like to do so.  But surely if
you run a "production system" in the traditional sense than you would
read enough to know what you were using.

> But actualy it are not updates, but fixes/patches.

Fixes/patches are updates.  You're confusing symantics here.
We _are_ updating your machine.  We _are_ updating your software.
We _are_ providing updates.  What we are not doing is providing
new versions of software when there are no known problems with the
older versions.

Note that we actually do, in some rare cases, provide newer versions of
software packages.  But we only do so if there is a need to, to fix a
serious bug, or make support easier, or fix a security issue that can
only be addressed that way.

> -After some time, he finds out that newer versions are not delivered.

Yes, he finds that he is running "legacy" software.  That is why he needs
"legacy" support.  That is why we provide "legacy" updates.

> -Finds alternate repos like atrpms dag dries livna etc...

If he wants newer software, then yes, he should indeed find such sites.

> -doing yum update, "oh look again new versions :)"

And now, realize that your stable system is potentially much less stable.

> This is a real example how most of the linux users are doing without read
> any statement text. Because its not intresting to read :)

And this is fine for a home user, or my personal desktop machine at work.
But it is not how I would run my company or institution mail server or
web server or payroll system and so on.

In other words, what you say is all fine and dandy, if applied to the
correct situation. :)

> Danny

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!